On 11/16/07, John Tromp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 16, 2007 10:05 AM, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Neat. Was the 15-bit version for 81 values or 361? At the risk of > > > > putting my foot in my mouth, I don't think there exist 361 15-bit > > > > numbers that satisfy minimum requirements (if the floating-point > > > > average of any four code values is a code value, then the four code > > > > values are identical). > > > > > > It was 361 values. So either you are wrong or I have a bug. I > > > probably have a bug. Here's the list. If it violates the rules, > > > please let me know. > > > > Yep, I think I had a bug. I just removed an optimization that I > > thought was valid and now I'm getting smaller lists. So I guess it > > was not valid. Let me see how small I can get the numbers without > > that optimization... > > No, it was far from valid; e.g. 14+14+14+3022 = 4 * 766 > I don't think you can get 81 15-bit values either...
I think we are applying different standards. For the minimum requirements I mentioned, 14 bits will do, for a strictly limited defintion of "do". 81 equals 1010001 base 2, and 1010001 base 5 is a hair under 2^14. But you'll need to do your arithmetic in base 16, and you'll need some external way (e.g. a separate pseudoliberty count) to distinguish 1+5+6+6 from 6+6+6. So one could argue that these "minimum requirements" aren't good enough, and really I would agree with that. _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
