Re: Naught gnubg

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 13:15:23 -0800 (PST), muratk <murat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Mar 5, 3:24 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Ok. Yes, in that situation you may well be right, there's no
reason it's going to sit around looking for other optimal
plays once it's found an optimal one.

Again, what you say is meaningless bullshit.

You forgot to explain what was bullshit about the other
post, btw.

By the definition
of "optimal", logically there can be only one "optimal" play.

You really have no idea how funny it is when you complain
about _me_ speaking bullshit and your explanation is
something this ridiculous.

No, the definition of "optimal" does not imply that
there's only one optimal play. If there are two plays
that give equity .6 and every other play has equity
less than .6 then both those plays are optimal.

An example simple enough that you might understand
it: In a race you have exactly three men left, on the
one, two and three points. You have a 21 to play.
There are two optimal plays: Taking two men off,
or taking one man off the three point. Both leave
a position where you're certain to be off in one,
and you certainly can't do better than that.

Depending on how you determine a play to be optimal, there may
at most be other plays that tie for first place but you can't
conclude that until you look at all plays.

I didn't _say_ that you could _conclude_ that there are
other optimal plays without looking at other plays.

It is nonsensical to say that you can stop after finding one
optimal play before you determine that there is no other play
that is better.

It's nonsense to say that's nonsense. In that example above,
say I notice that if I take two men off then I'm certain to
be off in one. At that point I know that play is optimal -
there's no need for me to continue thinking, finding
that the play that takes one man off the three point
is also optimal.

MK

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tim you a FUCKING LIAR
    ... out in bars and plays with his cell phone. ... a bar and post to a newsgroup with my cell phone. ... to play with you and feed you bullshit because they know you will eat it. ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Re: PRE GAME SPIRIT PEP TALKS??????
    ... It's not bullshit, it's the experience of a person who actually plays ... a sport. ... Worth more than all 20 or so posts you've written rebutting/ ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • Re: Naught gnubg
    ... why gnubg didn't do an automatic redouble. ... checking that there aren't market losers. ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ... it's going to sit around looking for other optimal plays once ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
  • Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
    ... at all) that a term can play a role even though it plays no ... Remember the definition of a union? ... It is a redundant sign. ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Its a worry.
    ... how do you beat a team that plays like that? ... > snip: load of nonsense ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)