Re: Transactions: good or bad?

"Costin Cozianu" <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bcqjin$lnl9i$1_at_ID-152540.news.dfncis.de...
>
> >>>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).

Do you know what a turing machine is? Basically, at each turn, it decides whether to move left or to move right. That's a lot simpler than a deciding what chess move to make. The halting problem applies to the chess game as much as it applies to the turing machine.

Where is your proof that all chess games halt? After all, your assertion that chess games are finite depends on just such a proof.

> Now where's your intellectual honesty Bob ?

Mine is fully intact. I have not made any unsupportable assertions nor have I constructed any straw men. I have only applied your own stated standards to your own arguments. I find your arguments lacking. Basically, you have projected your own inadequacies onto others.

> > 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.

Yes, I agree. You have forfeited that pretension. Received on Wed Jun 18 2003 - 23:04:34 CEST