TOPs vs. OOPs -> GODd tradition

Posted 30 May 2007 at 00:42 UTC (updated 4 Jun 2007 at 02:17 UTC) by badvogato Share This

Tops (TableOrientedProgramming) vs. Oops (Object Oriented Programming languages)

I can't seem to get to the bottom of shifting grounds when masterminds make arguements about:

  • TableOrientedProgramming or Functional/Procedural vs. Object Oriented Programming
  • set theory (behind TOP) vs. sub-type theory (behind OO)
    [ wow, i can edit my article now! neat!...]
  • As TopMind is working on a relational language to overcome SqlFlaws. - > TQL Roadmap. I propose to adhere towards a 'Goboard Oriented Design and deployment' tradition and overcome shortcomings of Chinese abacus' rudimentary calculations on square root, cubic root, hexadecimal and decimal operatives within its primitive framework.

    A new task is how can we device a machine language so that it can 'see' relationships between 'black' and 'white' groups as human mind perceives the hidden gain & loss of definitions in pre-conceived stepping times.

    Intuitionistic Type Theory's implementations includes LEGO programming.

    And here's a highlight of argument that need to be translated into GO language:

    A fundamental distinction is extensional vs intensional Type Theory. In extensional Type Theory definitional (i.e. computational) equality is not distinguished from propositional equality, which requires proof. As a consequence type checking becomes undecidable. In contrast in intensional Type Theory type checking is decidable, but the representation of many mathematical concepts is non-standard due to a lack of extensional reasoning. It is a subject of current discussion whether this tradeoff is unavoidable and whether the lack of extensional principles in intensional Type Theory is a feature or a bug.
  • Reinforcement Learning and Computer Go (RLGO)
    All useful features of a state in Go can be interpreted as answers to questions about the current and future value of observations.
    RL&GO's The Question Hypothesis

  • type == set (of potential instances), posted 30 May 2007 at 08:24 UTC by abraham » (Master)

    "sub-type theory" is also set theory, just a different use of it than the database people.

    Holy War, posted 30 May 2007 at 16:32 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

    I am following these two threads:

  • Syntax Follows Semantics
  • Holy War

    And am wondering, if modern men would have come up with GO games, if it wasn't there in the beginning? And why is it so hard to come up with a formal language for it besides playing the game with human intuitive minds?

  • truly amazing ..., posted 30 May 2007 at 17:21 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

    It is truly amazing to me that human mind can grasp transitory relationships between 'black' & 'white' groups on 19x19 dimensional states faster than any array machines. And if relationships among local groups become prevalently 'dead' or 'alive', the game is over.

    Topic, posted 30 May 2007 at 21:33 UTC by ncm » (Master)

    Sorry, what's this article about? I don't see anything about Go there.

    Relational fanatics get very defensive about object systems. Object fanatics seem to have little interest in relational systems. I knew someone whose solution to every problem involved a lexicographic tree. People who aren't fanatics, though, wonder why there has to be only one way to solve problems.

    It's clear that relational approaches work OK for some problems, and that objects work for a different set of problems. Other problems are better addressed by other methods too various to name here. Being human, we necessarily split big problems into various littler problems, with some going to each method. A language that cannot support some method seems fatally limiting if you want to tackle big problems.

    I have to admit that whenever I consider a problem in transportation, I check for any plausible use for a catapult, but that doesn't lead me to object to the use of elevators in those places where they are appropriate.

    Is it a GO problem?, posted 31 May 2007 at 08:14 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

    If you don't want to see it, you don't see it.

    I personally lean towards a 'Goboard Oriented Design and deployment' - Godd tradition. Like Christian tradition had a hard time to be seen as anything significantly advancing to the Oriental mind, so is the GO problem and GO games to be seen as less of an invention about spreading a universal language to solve common human inadequacy than current days computing languages.

    Huh, posted 31 May 2007 at 21:06 UTC by fzort » (Journeyer)

    Susan, how do the Go diagrams illustrate your point? Speaking of which, what is your point, exactly?

    'the point', posted 31 May 2007 at 23:08 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

    fzort: replay moves black 45- white 100. Compare endgame's blackstones in the lower-right corner with your 'white to live' exercise...

    that is one point I am presenting...

    btw, 'The Point' is a funny movie i enjoyed... Uh...why do you name my name for a girl's name?

    a GO conjecture in the working..., posted 1 Jun 2007 at 17:30 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

    I need to construct a 3D goboard where there is no 'corner' reduced liberty but unified 4 liberties for every positions on the new GO surface. The conjecture is 'there exists one and only move that white and black make even according to the Chinese rule.

    This nodebox for 3D points seems like a good starting point...

    All I can say is..., posted 1 Jun 2007 at 18:56 UTC by bi » (Master)


    go with it, posted 2 Jun 2007 at 03:39 UTC by lkcl » (Master)

    *lol* - bi, fzort: go with it. badvo tends to think on a completely different realm, like so many of us who hang out here :)

    but seriously: the strategy of the game 'Go' is one area where computers are utterly failing to be effective. chess requires some enormous supercomputing power to even be vaguely as effective as a human; that's only 8x8, and *hardware assistance* is required to speed up detection of whether a move is 'check' or not (!)

    people study 'Go' for 20 years or longer and still not be considered a master at it.

    the point is: this should goad computer scientists the world over to 'do better'...

    now I know my ABC, next time will you play with me?, posted 3 Jun 2007 at 17:46 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

    now I know my ABC, next time will you play GODd with me?

    Artificial intelligence is solved, posted 4 Jun 2007 at 02:57 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

    Artificial Intelligence is solved
    If we have learned one set of ways of behaving which lets us control the sensations completely, perhaps produce any desired/possible sensation sequence, then we have learned all we need to know about the world. Note that there may be much more to learn. We may not know the sensations which would follow many dances, but we do not need to. We know how to absolutely control, if not predict, all the bits of interest. This is all that one could ever need in any subsequent planning problem.
    I believe addiction to GO games is like that. It is a highly abstracted intellect competition. 'We may not know all other 'worldly' sensations which would follow many dances, but we do not need to...

    Computer Programming for Everybody..., posted 4 Jun 2007 at 15:38 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

    Computer Programming for Everybody (Revised Proposal)
    A Scouting Expedition for the Programmers of Tomorrow

    This is the text of a revised funding proposal that we sent to DARPA in August 1999. In March, we heard that at least an earlier version of the proposal was accepted by DARPA; the work has begun late 1999 and will hopefully last two years, although we've only received funding for the first year (through October 2000). We're keeping our fingers crossed for the rest.

    Unfortunately, the move of the Python development team to other employers meant that we didn't get to complete the CP4E project at CNRI. This move was motivated in a large part by the disappointingly small amount of funding that DARPA committed to CP4E.

    What this Proposal need is to add a HARD and Universally contestable goal for everybody with or without a computer. And that, my friend, is to play GO as the new scouting summit.

    re-discovered Kombilo, posted 10 Jun 2007 at 18:08 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

    yeh! considering the fact that i totally forgot its name or the author's name...

    Go Seigen vs. Miyamoto Naoki, posted 11 Jun 2007 at 01:08 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

    Go Seigen(W) vs. Miyamoto Naoki(B), 1968, Japan 9x9 80 moves. Black win 4 points. Movie file 57417872 byte.

    New Advogato Features

    New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

    Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

    If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!

    Share this page