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... regards, -John _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
