Author: José Carlos
Date: 09:00:54 05/10/01
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? I'm curious ti know: by that definition, is there any problem in the universe that is not finite? Since the universe is finite itself, any problem contained inside is finite by definition. If every finite problem can be solved with kind of EGTB's, every problem is O(1), right? José C.
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.