[computer-go] Can Go be solved???... PLEASE help!

[Nick Apperson]

yeah, there are upper limits placed on computation rate by thermodynamics.
19x19 is way beyond those as Dave pointed out.  But, even if you believe
that technology will improve and the most revolutionary change yet will come
to understanding of physics and that change will give us signifigantly more
computational power and time etc...  You can always make a bigger board.  If
life comes to a point where go could be solved for any size board, you will
no longer be in this world and solving things such as "is go solvable?" will
have no meaning.

On 1/12/07, dave.devos at planet.nl <dave.devos at planet.nl> wrote:
>
> And Mark Boon also neglected the future use of wormholes, replicators
> and who knows what? :)
>
> Sorry, but how do you what future quantum computers can churn so much
> data?
>
> 10^400 is a rediculously large number. Even if you multiply the volume
> of the visible universe expressed in in cubic Planck lengths (1.4 e26
> 1.6x10^-36 m) by the age of the universe expressed in Planck times
> (5.4x10^-44 s) and the higher estimate for the number of particles in
> the universe (10^87) you get only 10^326, wich is much, much smaller
> than 10^400.
>
> It is impossible to handle this much data in the lifetime of the
> universe, whatever the technology. Even if a device would use every
> particle and every spacetime wrinkle in the universe in a big parallel
> quantum computer at a clock cycle of 10^44 hz.
>
> I do believe someone (something?) will eventually be able to build a
> program that beats any human. But solve go? Never.
>
> Dave
>
> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> Van: Chris Fant <chrisfant at gmail.com>
> Datum: vrijdag, januari 12, 2007 7:03 pm
> Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Can Go be solved???... PLEASE help!
> > You neglected to consider the power of future quantum computers.
> >
> > On 1/12/07, Mark Boon <tesujisoftware at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12-jan-07, at 14:16, Chris Fant wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Plus, some would argue that any Go
> > >
> > > already is solved (write simple algorithm and wait 1 billion years
> > >
> > > while it runs).
> > > To 'solve' a game in the strict sense you need to know the best
> > answer to
> > > every move. And you need to be able to prove that it's the best
> > move. To do
> > > so you need to look at the following number of positions
> > AMP^(AGL/2) where
> > > AMP is average number of moves in a position and AGL is the
> > average game
> > > length. If I take a conservative AGL of 260 moves, we can
> > compute the AMP
> > > from that, being (365+(365-AGL))/2=235 So we get 235^130, which
> > is about
> > > 10^300 as a lower bound. The upper bound is something like
> > 195^170 (play
> > > until all groups have 2 eyes) which my calculator is unable to
> > compute, but
> > > I think it's roughly 10^400. I'm guessing it's questionable
> > whether we'd be
> > > able to compute that even with a computer the size of this
> > planet before the
> > > sun goes out. Distributing the work over other planets or star-
> > sysems will
> > > only help marginally due to the time it takes to send
> > information to Earth
> > > by the speed of light. So I'd say it's impossible.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > computer-go mailing list
> > > computer-go at computer-go.org
> > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > computer-go mailing list
> > computer-go at computer-go.org
> > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20070112/f31a74dd/attachment.htm