Awesome! Tysvm for replying and posting the link. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> On 10.09.2015 10:29, Jim O'Flaherty wrote: > >> Perhaps you could give some more concrete examples of what you have done >> already; i.e. where you have moved from the messy human >> linguistic/cognitive "principles" to something much more formal? >> > > In my principles (or other theory), the degree of ambuigity varies from > formal to ordinary language. > > Example of a formal formula: dF =? 0 > where F is 'fighting liberties' and the formula applies to what I call > 'class 1 semeais'. > > Example of (seemingly) ordinary language in a principle about defending > life in a fight: "Maintain connection of a group's important strings." > This is not ordinary language though but I use 'connection' and 'important > string' as consistent terms in all my books, where the former is defined > but the latter is (still) undefined. > > Consistent use of the same terms and defined concepts everywhere and well > chosen definitions for the basic terms remove much of the mess and enable > hierarchic design and use of principles etc. > > For several hundred further examples of definitions and principles, see my > books and papers. For my first six of 11 books and earlier papers / > messages, see the short overview > http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/RobertJasiekGoTheoryResearch.html > > > -- > robert jasiek > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
