On 3/3/2022 7:56 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:54:02 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 3:17 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> But the twin prime conjecture proves my point, I think.
>>> The interested mathematicians don't immediately try to prove the conjecture.
>>> They focus on simpler (previously) unknown questions, related to the conjecture.
>>> Such as "Does there exist any N such that there are an infinite number of prime pairs (p, p + N)?
>>> (Yes, there are.)
>> Sure. I'm not prohibiting anyone from tackling my proposed
>> challenge by solving simpler problems first---that would be
>> absurd, and unenforceable anyway.
>>
>> But it doesn't follow that it's a mistake to pose the problem
>> in the first place.
>
> It's not a mistake to pose the problem. It's a mistake to work on the problem.
> Don't run before you can walk, and all that.
>
> But that's my opinion.
> Feel free to work on it anyway.

But working on your suggested problem *is* working on my problem,
just as Yitang Zhang *did* work on the twin prime conjecture. It
seems you are posing a false dichotomy.

---
Tim Chow

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:04:39 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 7:56 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 12:54:02 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> >> On 3/3/2022 3:17 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> But the twin prime conjecture proves my point, I think.
> >>> The interested mathematicians don't immediately try to prove the conjecture.
> >>> They focus on simpler (previously) unknown questions, related to the conjecture.
> >>> Such as "Does there exist any N such that there are an infinite number of prime pairs (p, p + N)?
> >>> (Yes, there are.)
> >> Sure. I'm not prohibiting anyone from tackling my proposed
> >> challenge by solving simpler problems first---that would be
> >> absurd, and unenforceable anyway.
> >>
> >> But it doesn't follow that it's a mistake to pose the problem
> >> in the first place.
> >
> > It's not a mistake to pose the problem. It's a mistake to work on the problem.
> > Don't run before you can walk, and all that.
> >
> > But that's my opinion.
> > Feel free to work on it anyway.
> But working on your suggested problem *is* working on my problem,
> just as Yitang Zhang *did* work on the twin prime conjecture. It
> seems you are posing a false dichotomy.

Yes, probably I am.
Don't tell XG that. I don't want the falseness of my dichotomies
to add to my error count and worsen my PR -- it's been shocking lately.

Paul

MK <murat@compuplus.net> writes:

> after 4 billion games wastage will also be the same for both
> players

No. But it is probably wastage to try to explain. Read Walter Trice's
article:

https://www.bkgm.com/articles/EffectivePipCount/

Axel

On 3/2/2022 7:38 PM, MK wrote:
> Just add "bullshit" before the final period in your paragraph
> and people may think your are Murat's sock puppet... ;)

No sock puppet of yours could make as much sense as Axel does.

---
Tim Chow

On March 3, 2022 at 5:15:19 AM UTC-7, MK wrote:

> On March 3, 2022 at 1:13:25 AM UTC-7, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
>> That's a very ambiguous response, Tim.
>> .....

> .....
> "Club" is spelled with a "c" not with a "k", Mr. J/c (i.e.
> the "jackass of clubs")...

Sorry for my language getting a tinge of color when
I get frustrated and resentful. :(

I tried to join the Zoom meeting but the sound was
too choppy, ununderstandable and I disconnected.
However, there was a notice that the meeting was
being recorded. I don't know if they will put it later
somewhere like Youtube.

MK

On March 3, 2022 at 11:00:30 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:

> MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
>> after 4 billion games wastage will also be the same
>> for both players

> No. But it is probably wastage to try to explain. Read
> Walter Trice's article:
> https://www.bkgm.com/articles/EffectivePipCount/

How ironic that I had read it just before my long post
and thought about but decided to not give a link since
it was about wastage in general, thus not so relevant
to the discussion based on Tim's example position.

Incidentally, in the past, I used 8.2 as the average pips
in a dice roll as a single decimal was good enough for
me in making general comments about it but this time
I wanted to be a "little more precise" :) When I searched
for it, landed on that Trice's article. That's where I got
49/6 = 8.166666666666667 :))

The sample positions in that article aren't even remotely
relevant to discussing Tim's position. In fact, the first
one isn't a position at all since it can only depict a board
after O has borne off all its pieces.

I can't believe how a math PHD can't understand a simple
stement that "if any given race position is played out 4
billion times, both players will incur the same wastage
and the player who starts ahead will always win"...?

Talk about FUBAR... :( BTW, for the ones who may not
know, looking it up finds a WWII military slang acronym
meaning "fouled/fucked up beyond all repair/recognition".

Among other similar acronyms, I found also FUBU which,
given the context here, I think would be better fitting for
you: "fouled/fucked up beyond all understanding". ;)

MK

PS: For Paul: no, there is no "foo" "boo" in software development.

On March 3, 2022 at 9:23:40 PM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:

> On 3/2/2022 7:38 PM, MK wrote:

>> Just add "bullshit" before the final period in your paragraph
>> and people may think your are Murat's sock puppet... ;)

> No sock puppet of yours could make as much sense
> as Axel does.

You are right by default, since I have no sock puppets.

But let's also be clear that "as much" is a relative term
and what you said doesn't necessarily mean that Axel
makes "much" sense...!

MK