Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 21:51:11 05/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2001 at 17:30:58, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >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? > I can't give you any formal definition, but I can't say (as I have) that I deliberately won't consider a real program such as a chess program, an algorithm, espcially not when we're talking about complexity analysis, because the answer is trivial and uninteresting: they're all O(1). >>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? I'm sorry that you're irritated. They're not meant as personal insults. However, I do have feelings involved when I feel that someone chooses a silly interpretation of a key concept in a discussion, that is different from most others, and bases the discussion on that, especially when the interpretation is ignored, and the statements are purported to be the only formally correct true. That is annoying. And it's this same attitude that makes you insinuate that I don't have any arguments. I have at least as many and as good arguments as you.
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.