Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 18:24:01 05/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2001 at 20:23:27, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 09, 2001 at 20:14:41, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On May 09, 2001 at 19:36:18, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On May 09, 2001 at 19:34:35, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>>And it is clear that people who consider intractible problems to be O(1) are >>>>>using a set of definitions that are without value. >>>> >>>>I did not formulate the definition, but I do find it to be of value all the >>>>same. >>> >>>Valuable for WHAT? >>> >>>It certainly can't be used for computation if it delivers up answers like >>>"Chess is O(1)" >> >> >>It delivers the access of chess EGTBs as O(1) and I find that useful. It >>delivers n*n chess as O(exp(n)) and find that useful too. What am I missing? > >You are missing that O(1) is the easiest class of computation, and O(exp(n)) is >of the class of intractible problems. Chess solution is intractible and your >method classifies it as trivial. A problem can be O(1), but in practice obtaining the solution is impossible. Conversely, a problem can be O(exp(n)), but in practice, obtaining the solution does not present any difficulty. I see no problem here.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.