兵法和下棋的棋法一样，沒有一个定理包你肯定赢

送交者: 比目氏于 2007-10-26, 21:47:03:

世间有一类东西是无法用文字清晰表述的，这包括称为“经验”“直觉”之类的东西。
一个下棋高手就是比普通人强，可是你让他把他所掌握的知识像牛顿、老爱那样写成公理、定理？他不可能写出来，就算写出来了也是一些模棱两可、既主张又不能肯定的东西，到最后问急了又是一句“只可意会不可言传”。
但是由此你就说“凡不能严密表述的都是假的”，下棋高手都是徒有虚名？

所有跟贴:

再说我们现在就搞脑模型研究大脑如何工作,写脑定理脑算法 (无内容) - 短江学者 (0 bytes) 2007-10-26, 23:19:04 (178820)
谁说下棋没有包赢？只要那棋的规则能却定那是有意义的game，那就 - steven (16 bytes) 2007-10-26, 23:15:30 (178817)
- 这根本不能成立 - 4U4luC2 (55 bytes) 2007-10-26, 23:20:19 (178821)
  - In game theory, a board game like chess or go is called sequential game. - steven (687 bytes) 2007-10-27, 01:32:03 (178825)
    - 结果你还是没绕出来,抄一大通sequential game的定义对回答这个问题没帮助 - 4U4luC2 (236 bytes) 2007-10-27, 09:18:28 (178842)
      - see tic-tac-toe, A moves first, and he will either win or draw. - steven (184 bytes) 2007-10-27, 10:39:35 (178845)
        
        不考虑有平局的游戏,取石子对抗胜负定义明确且非胜即负 - 4U4luC2 (90 bytes) 2007-10-27, 10:48:05 (178846)
        
        A meaningful game implies the if the best strategies - steven (239 bytes) 2007-10-27, 10:58:48 (178848)
        
        这是一个饽论 - 4U4luC2 (80 bytes) 2007-10-27, 11:07:06 (178850)
        
        What paradox? A game like that, either the first one to move or - steven (205 bytes) 2007-10-27, 15:08:40 (178878)
        
        回头再看看你的原帖,我就不和你再绕了 - 4U4luC2 (73 bytes) 2007-10-27, 16:07:52 (178882)
        
        never mind, this is going nowhere, I give up. (无内容) - 4U4luC2 (0 bytes) 2007-10-27, 20:26:25 (178911)
        
        as it said, if the game is meaningful, one side will definitely win. - steven (36 bytes) 2007-10-27, 17:37:47 (178889)
    - The problem is that you may not be able to decide one move ... - xinlihuaxys (190 bytes) 2007-10-27, 01:43:23 (178827)
      - btw, what do you doing how deep blue won Kasparov? - steven (75 bytes) 2007-10-27, 01:57:49 (178830)
        
        The algorithm for deep blue is not brutal force. - xinlihuaxys (285 bytes) 2007-10-27, 02:46:24 (178834)
        
        those 480 special chess chips were for searching... Deep blue choosed - steven (305 bytes) 2007-10-27, 02:53:58 (178835)
      - not really, like tic-tac-toe, where complete analysis is possible. - steven (155 bytes) 2007-10-27, 01:52:32 (178829)
  - 估计是谁先走谁赢 (无内容) - whoami (0 bytes) 2007-10-26, 23:52:25 (178823)
    - 那下面这个推断就更奇怪了 - 4U4luC2 (144 bytes) 2007-10-27, 00:08:04 (178824)
      - you don't know game theory, nor AI. see the post above. (无内容) - steven (0 bytes) 2007-10-27, 01:32:53 (178826)
        
        yawn. try something new next time (无内容) - 4U4luC2 (0 bytes) 2007-10-27, 09:29:39 (178843)
所以批评兵法而不是批评孙武（或兵法作者）跟你说的不矛盾啊 - ping_max (100 bytes) 2007-10-26, 23:08:02 (178815)
- 那么高手的脑子里到底比常人多了些什么？无法捕捉的东西？ - 比目氏 (138 bytes) 2007-10-27, 02:23:11 (178833)
欧牛爱的精神就是条分缕析最后用机器打败棋手,清除只可意会　 (无内容) - 短江学者 (0 bytes) 2007-10-26, 21:55:11 (178806)
- 这精神也就是不停地问为什么，能不能说清楚，再清楚点儿，更再清楚点儿 (无内容) - 短江学者 (0 bytes) 2007-10-26, 22:38:14 (178812)
  - 不愿这样折腾的就让我们怀疑他们为什么不让。怕是有假 (无内容) - 短江学者 (0 bytes) 2007-10-26, 22:41:39 (178813)
- 我以为，理论上严格地说，围棋还是能算出来的。但当下不能否认有一些只可意会的东东。 - apple (92 bytes) 2007-10-26, 21:59:08 (178807)
  - decidable does not imply tractable. - steven (57 bytes) 2007-10-27, 02:16:55 (178832)
  - But you may take universe-scale time and space with brutal calculation. (无内容) - xinlihuaxys (0 bytes) 2007-10-27, 01:46:03 (178828)
  - 那当然。永远有疑问，永远不停手，不走科学路，只会无路走。 (无内容) - 短江学者 (0 bytes) 2007-10-26, 22:26:39 (178809)
谁说的““凡不能严密表述的都是假的””？ (无内容) - apple (0 bytes) 2007-10-26, 21:54:46 (178805)
- 换个说法，貌似“凡自称有料而又不能严密表述的”都应被打假 (无内容) - 比目氏 (0 bytes) 2007-10-26, 22:22:25 (178808)
  - 被打假没有关系，真经不怕火。老爱还被打过。不让打的就可能心绪 (无内容) - 短江学者 (0 bytes) 2007-10-26, 22:31:12 (178810)
    - 心虚 (无内容) - 短江学者 (0 bytes) 2007-10-26, 22:32:04 (178811)

加跟贴