Home > Archive > Prolog > July 2006 > Machine intelligence- can this program be written ??
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Machine intelligence- can this program be written ??
|
|
| switzerland qunatium computer 2006-07-23, 6:59 pm |
| Machine intelligence- can this program be written ??
Machine intelligence- can this program be written ??
In this game of chess it is a set of 7 chess boards
The PAWN the pawn can move just like the regular game but up and down
no levels
The rook on the end moves all the way up and left to right back and
forth
The knight moves in a L shape forward and backwards but only one
level step on the board back and forth
The bishop moves in a x just like in regular game but can move to all
levels back and forth
The Queen moves just like in the regular game but can move on all
levels
back and forth
The king can move one square at a time and to move one level back and
forth
NOW EVERY TIME THE GAME HAS ENDED THE 7 LEVEL BOARD IS PLACED IN A CUBE
WITH BOARD ARE ADD ON EACH SIDE TO KEEP IN A CUBE AND GROWS INFINITE
UNTIL THE MACHINE INTELLIGENCE ASK FOR MULTI-DIMENSIONS
THE OBJECT IS:
PROTECTING ALL PIECES WITH ONE OR MORE PIECES.
ONLY LOSE A PIECE BY HIM TAKING ONE, AND THEN YOU TAKING ANOTHER.
TRY TO MAKE IT WHERE HE CANNOT MOVE
TAKE ALL CHESS PIECES
| |
| russell kym horsell 2006-07-23, 9:59 pm |
| switzerland qunatium computer <zetalimit@charter.net> wrote:
> Machine intelligence- can this program be written ??
>...[7x7x7 chess]
All programs can be written, but only a tiny fraction of them work. :)
Initially solve like regular chess -- alpha/beta prune with a quick
utility function. Beware Arrow's Theorem.
| |
|
| On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:03:22 +0000 (UTC), russell kym horsell
<kym@ukato.freeshell.org> wrote:
>
>Initially solve like regular chess -- alpha/beta prune with a quick
>utility function. Beware Arrow's Theorem.
Which one?... Impossibility theorem? How it applies to this
problem?...
A.L.
| |
|
| russell kym horsell wrote:
> switzerland qunatium computer <zetalimit@charter.net> wrote:
>
> All programs can be written, but only a tiny fraction of them work. :)
>
> Initially solve like regular chess -- alpha/beta prune with a quick
> utility function. Beware Arrow's Theorem.
Please don't respond, it's spam. See comp.lang.lisp for a discussion
about this guy.
| |
| russell kym horsell 2006-07-24, 9:59 pm |
| A.L. <alewando@fala2005.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:03:22 +0000 (UTC), russell kym horsell
> <kym@ukato.freeshell.org> wrote:
> Which one?... Impossibility theorem? How it applies to this
> problem?...
Since it applies to general "impossibility" of creating utility functions
that work in most but pareto cases.
If it weren't for AT we'd all be able to agree which was the best policy,
best car, or best chess position.
The work is generally under-recognised in importance, despite the Nobel.
It generally undermines what little was left (after Go:del et al)
of "business as usual" methods for problem solving.
Numerous ramifications follow. Survival of the fittest? How do can
*that* utility function work? GST measures "wellness" of an economy?
Not by Arrow, it doesn't. Management survives by meeting metrics -- does
that mean the intended performance criteria is met? Not by Arrow
(or common sense).
Also supports idea of drawing up loss/benefit tableaux and challenege
sundry political opponent to "pick best or admit your stated rule is wrong".
Verrrry satisfying...
| |
|
| On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:44:44 +0000 (UTC), russell kym horsell
<kym@ukato.freeshell.org> wrote:
>A.L. <alewando@fala2005.com> wrote:
>
>Since it applies to general "impossibility" of creating utility functions
>that work in most but pareto cases.
>
>If it weren't for AT we'd all be able to agree which was the best policy,
>best car, or best chess position.
>
>The work is generally under-recognised in importance, despite the Nobel.
>It generally undermines what little was left (after Go:del et al)
>of "business as usual" methods for problem solving.
AT is about aggregating individual preferences of multiple decision
makers. I don't see any releveance to the above problem. It is not a
topic for this group, anyway.
A.L.
|
|
|
|
|