Re: Transactions: good or bad?

>>>The number
>>>of turns is the halt condition, if not we could fall in infinite
>>>loops.
>>>
>>
>>No, that's elementary: you don't have to fall into an infinite loop
>>unless you don't get it.
>>
>>Since the number of positions you have to evaluate is finite it doesn't
>>matter that the number of moves is infinite. The only thing you care for
>>in a chess program is to assign a value to a position and choose the
>>next best move.
>>
>>Now, do you finally get it ?

> 
> 
> A turing machine only has to determine its next move, but that doesn't make
> the halting problem disappear. Do you have a proof that all chess games
> halt? Much of your previous philosophizing hangs upon the proof.
> 
> 

A turing machine can determine the next *best* move for a game of chess, while it cannot determine the next best move in proof (In case you spawn another troll: yes, proof theory can be interpreted within game theory, with very good results; for details read Girard).

Now where's your intellectual honesty Bob ? Is it dishonesty or plain incompetence ?

For the rest of you questions, I direct you to complete your education in foundations of Mathematics.

> How would someone who lacks the balls or the intellectual honesty to admit
> when he was wrong know anything about real men?
> 

When someone displays as basic lack of competence as to fail to understand the fundamental difference between a chess playing program and automatic proof, he forfaits any pretention to judge others. Received on Wed Jun 18 2003 - 22:56:38 CEST