Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 02:22:44 07/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2001 at 16:28:10, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 04, 2001 at 06:43:04, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >>On July 03, 2001 at 19:12:01, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On July 03, 2001 at 12:59:15, Dan Andersson wrote: >>> >>>>It has been successfully argued that common sense does not exist, until someone >>>>needs to make a shaky argument. The computers performance level seems beyond >>>>doubt i.e. 'hard data'. The only thing remaining is formulating hypotheses and >>>>trying them against available information. There are many factors that are >>>>possible but, more than a few are in the programs favour: mental fatigue, >>>>stubborn defence, tactical combacks and very good opening preparation. >>> >>>I don't think there is any question that many computers have had GM level >>>performances or that they are the tactical equal (often superior) of a GM. >>> >>>The question is of certainty and proof. >>> >>>I would say the following: >>>It has been 'demonstrated' that computers are of GM caliber. >>>It has not been mathematically 'proven' yet in a rigorous manner. >>> >> >>That can not be proven mathematically. Math does not have any extramathematical >>consequence. > >It can be demonstrated to any degree of confidence that is desired. This can be >performed under carefully controlled conditions to insure fairness and accuracy. > It can be repeated to demonstrate repeatability. > >In the mathematical sense, it can clearly not be proven, but if we want to be >pedantic, Kurt Gödel showed that nothing can be proven without using axioms that >are unproven to start with. Hi Dann! Even the old Greeks knew that. All of Gödel's results are a lot deeper, I am not sure which all of them you mean. Sorry for not going into details, I do not like to post a lot off-topic. José. > And Heisenberg showed we can't rigorously know >everything about the physical world either. > >But we can do better than we have. The only thing holding back an accurate >determination is money. If the experiment were interesting enough, that would >happen also. I do think we have enough evidence to say that the current ability >may be GM level to within the confidence of a coin toss or so.
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.