Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:41:41 05/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
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? Since 32 piece egtbs will _never_ be built... I think it misses a LOT. IE I want to know about the complexity of "real" application problems. Reducing them all to O(1) is not just useless, worthless, etc...
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.