| [ QuizWit ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): kimsr (Pabochet) 날 짜 (Date): 2000년 11월 7일 화요일 오전 06시 45분 19초 제 목(Title): Re: 5x5 바둑 First of all, read what I have written before you say some other shit. > i will clearly explain why in sorting algorithm you have n log n performance > smaller than the number of configuration. when sorting is applied, it > essentially reduces the complexity of the problem to one half. You have a very good point here. Why did you think that for Go and genome, these kind of things are not possible. (Because you only mentioned the number of possible configurations as the source of the hardness of problems.) Do you have a proof that for Go and genome there is no effective way of reducing the problem size significantly???? > in genome you said the matching is not sequencial one bit by one. which > every children knows. I didn't say this. I said you don't have to test every possible configurations to sequence a gene. Testing every possible configurations is not called sequential, it is usually called brute-force or exponential time method. > however, as somebody said before, it requires a sequential > pattern matching. now compare with go game which is obviously a seqencial > game. You are totally confused. You might say it , in some way, requires pattern matching. But it doesn't require sequencial pattern matching. Go is a sequential game? What kind of importance does it have here? You don't have to follow through the steps of Go to solve Go! > as somebody said, the number of configuration in go game can > be bigger than genome if you assume non-stoping rule of some sort. Even if Go doesn't stop, the number of possible configurations is 3^(n^2). This invalidates your next question. But I'll answer it anyway. > then the number of possible configurations of go is > far greater than the genome. so how do you relate it to your claim? What do I have to relate? I just stated a tautology. It always holds! What I asked you by stating the tautology is that how do you know the number of possible configurations indicate the hardness of problems in case of Go and genome, because you said it does indicate in this specific case! For the game Go, people have so far found ways to reduce the problem size to polynomial space, but not further. And for genome, people have found ways to reduce the problem size to nondeterministic polynomial time. Nobody knows how further we can go. What you said at the start of this meaningless conversation is that there is no way of reducing the problem size below what you perceived to be at that time. That is a totally ignorant statement. You really seem to think that there is no way of solving any problem other thn you, a mere mortal mkjung, know there are. Your claims are all true if this is true. Obviously we know it is not. You are taking 'being stupid' to a whole new dimension. Good job! |