Author: Jesper Antonsson
Date: 14:30:58 05/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2001 at 17:15:15, David Rasmussen wrote: >On May 17, 2001 at 16:01:05, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >>Nonsense. A chess program runs on a computer and terminates (in theory). Thus >>the chess program is an algorithm. > >Is that your definition of an algorithm? No, they are just sufficient conditions. >It is not mine. So what is? >If your "argument" stands on that definition, you can pretty much say anything >you want without taking any responibility for it, Anything? Hardly... > because as everybody in >computer science knows, there is (regrettably) no formal definition of what an >algorithm is, that is usable in all the cases where we want to talk about this >concept that we call algorithms. Some define an algorithm as something that can >be expressed by a Turing Machine. Others do not. As this is purely a matter of >taste, and a subject for philosophy, I can't really criticize what your >definition. I can just mention that I find it a silly definition of an >algorithm, and that a chess program as a whole is not an algorithm in my book, >except in a very sick and deranged way. My friend, your heavy use of terms like "silly", "sick" and "deranged" is getting somewhat irritating and I'm almost starting to take them as personal insults. Is that your intent, or do you just use them to cover a lack of arguments?
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.