erm. you guys seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, without a clear or precise definition of what you're even arguing about.
there is a mathematical proof that go, for any fixed sized board, can be completely solved. there is a mathematical proof that given a fixed komi and fixed number of handicap stones, every game is either a forcible win or loss or draw for a particular one of the two players. we don't know this function yet, so we don't know if there's advantage for white or black or not, but it's guaranteed to exist. is proven to exist. there is a mathematical proof that current algorithms can solve go. it makes no sense to ask if there is a mathematical proof of anything related to humans. the two are simply incommensurate. the mathematical proofs are simply about whether a computer with a lot of memory and a lot of free time can win or force draws in every game of go against any player. and it turns out that this is true. whether or not computers can beat humans at go on a 19x19 board in a reasonable amount of time is unrelated to mathematics. * computers are getting better and better at go. most people on this mailing list are mainly interested in helping (*) to happen. s. On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Denis fidaali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi there. > > I do agree with your point Robert Waite. > I have yet seen no such paper as one that would prove that there is such > thing as scalability based on any mathematical proofs. > So all your points at criticizing the "mathematical certainty" of the > scalability, is probably 100% right. There is no such things as mathematical > certainty there. > > It can be modelized easily, as you already did : what if the the "evaluation > function" is giving "on purpose" wrong data. How would one mathematically > prove that it doesn't ? You would at a minimum have to know WHAT the > "evaluation function" ACTUALLY exactly is ... In fact all the evidences that > we have gathered about the scalability may rather been surprising to some > persons : why in hell does all that works so well ? > > But, it's a "proven" fact that it does indeed works well so far. So that it > seems perfectly natural to speak such phrases as "there are evidences that > given the hardware we got in twenty years, human will be beaten by current > algorithms". I don't see how those evidences can be qualified with the term > "mathematical", but they are here (hiding among us !). Now if someone has > the feeling that maybe there is a roadblock, it has to be considered for > what it is : a personal intuition. What is this intuitions precisely based > on ? Why are you trying to share it with us in the first place. For myself, > i believe that what you are trying to do, is to begin to analyses all the > data the community has gathered so far, trying to understand why indeed it > worked so well that it even beaten out a pro with a 9 stones handicap and > with as few as 1.7 million evaluations/second (running on some 800 hundreds > cores). To the point that the pro felt he had no chances of wining at all > with that much of a handicap. Your are trying to understand this, and are > probably right on track for that goal. The term "mathematical" is very > valuable to you, and you'll find it that it has a much wider use (on this > list) than what you would like it to. But now, "mathematics" as proven to be > of little use in the context of go programming lately. It's more of a > "physician" world. You make up a (mathematical) model. You test it again > "reality" via experimentations. You then get "empirical" certitudes that the > model is indeed correct. > > There is no way of mathematically proving that light speed would still be > constant if i chose to dance naked on the champs-Elysée some day. You'll > definitely find no paper on that. Yet to speak of it as mathematically > certain, is probably not as wrong as it sound. > > > But as it is, i'm playing the devil advocates here. I'm totally agreeing > with you. I found your way to fight irrationnality very interesting indeed. > It's been very refreshing. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Waite has wrote : > > I would really like to see what paper you are referring to. Do you mean > "Bandit based Monte-Carlo Planning"? Please post the name of the paper which > you are referring to. I do not think that the empirical evidence is > overwhelming that it is scalable in a practical way for the problem of > beating a human. > > Now the topic has moved to scalable to beat a human and I disagree with the > interpretation of the data. We are both interpreting data. Your data doesn't > count as a theory.. where you reduced my theory to one that has no data. We > are both interpreting the same data. Diminishing returns was just an example > of something that could be a roadblock. I was questioning how this > necessarily scales to humans. It seems more data is needed from MC-programs > vs. humans to make a rigorous theory of scalability. So far.. the only > scalability that seems proven is a case for solving the game... not beating > humans. There is some point between that would most likely in my opinion > lead to humans being beaten.. some amount of calculation before you solved > it.. but the shape of this curve is something I am unsure of. It doesn't > seem that unreasonable to question if there is a practical scalability. > > ________________________________ > Consultez vos emails sur votre mobile ! Créez un compte Hotmail, c'est > gratuit ! > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
