RobertJasiek: Re: ((no subject)) (2010-01-17 04:38) [#6982]

The page Default Restriction Rules is much more about ko than about me. Currently my name appears at three places: As the inventor of the Default Restriction Rules, as the person's name who did a certain relevant proof and as the page creator. Each of these occurances is legitimate.

The least important occurrance is as page creator. It is consistent with many other Sensei pages though that were created or WMEed by a single or by a few writers.

References to mathematical propositions or proofs must be done by links, location reference, proposition title or person having done the proof. Since currently the proof is not or not easily available online any longer or in writing and since a proposition title does not exist, the currently only available reference is by means of the name of the person having done the proof. Such is very common and good practice for mathematical proofs because it enables readers to know where to look and whom to ask.

The most important occurance is as inventor of the Default Restriction Rules.

As a Wiki user, you are allowed and free to edit every Wiki page but at the same time everybody expects you to improve on the contents instead of hurting it. In case of the Default Restriction Rules, this limits changes to the contents and naming of these rules themselves very tightly because they are an essentially fixed part of in particular the general ko definition. Making tiny changes of contents of the Default Restriction Rules can quickly replace the current state that the ko definition works for all known shape classes to a different state where the ko definition does not work for all known shape classes. I tried a lot of tiny changes and they all failed to model ko in general. Please resist from destroying a working theory! If you should need somewhat different rules similar to Default Restriction Rules, then give that ruleset a different name like "Variant II of Default Restriction Rules" or possibly yet better a completely different name.

I think that - for the purpose of defining ko in general - the Default Restriction Rules are in their final state. I think so because the Default Restriction Rules together with the ko intersections definitions have been tested successfully for essentially all known ko shape classes. Changes to the Default Restriction Rules would be justified if a) you should find an irreversible factual mistake (other than a mere typo) or b) you would discover a new ko shape class for that the definitions would not produce the expected identification.

Of course, I do not own the pages. (How could you even suggest such?) Quite like you do not possess a moral right to hurt factually correct and good contents.

If you find better formulations for historical remarks, please go ahead and improve the writing style! I have not worded each sentence of the page creation as carefully as most of my research paper.

You should know though that everything relies on facts, even if it may have been expressed a bit too emotionally:

"An early attempt": Ing's attempts were early attempts to define ko in general; I am not aware of earlier attempts. Everything before was just about setting some ko / game end rules for practical playing but was not about trying to define ko as a strategic object in general. If you do know anything preceding Ing's attempts, point out it!

"had been made by Ing Chang-ki in the Ing Ko Rules": It is written in several Ing rules booklets that he had been the driving force, if not author for the Ing Ko Rules. Written descriptions of this go even so far to say that he spent decades of his life on the topic. I have heard first hand oral reports on that, too. If you should have different and better evidence, tell us!

"phrases like": Read the Ing 1991 Rules booklet and you find a lot of such phrases!

"Such a naive approach": It was a naive approach because it used a phrase consistently without explaining why it might or might not be reliable while expecting it to work in general although it could not fulfil its wished purpose at all. As such, it is even a model example for a naive approach. - Naive is an emotionally attached word and presumably you can find something more factual. Something like "expected to work what did not work at all".

"was a failure": It was. It was meant to distinguish ko stones from stones that are not ko stones. However, as it has turned out, the approach let each stone in each position be a ko stone. (Except that Ing did not trust peace himself and added a further criterion: First he demanded ko stones to consist of at most two stones. Later, when a triple ko stones examples was provided, he changed the artificial limit to three stones.)

"as RobertJasiek proved mathematically": The proof is essential for the topic whether it makes sense to describe ko stones by mere possibility of a cycle. You might dislike that it was me to have done the proof but you should not ignore the fact possibly on emotional grounds. Proofs reveal truths regardless of the person having done a proof.

Educate yourself better and you will see why the above should be the factual consensus! Do not confuse my strong opinion with the existence of the facts! Do not criticise facts suggested by other authors on the grounds of your possibly limited belief or knowledge but, if you do have factual doubts, provide the better evidence!

You want others than the researchers to present research as Wiki knowledge. I would be happy with that, too, because it would take away a lot of extra work from me. However, by far too little is done. Often it is the researchers themselves that provide a lot of explanation on research. Recall, e.g., how much Bill Spight has explained at Sensei. If the researchers remained inactive here, very much would simply not be written at all or only with many years of delay. Non-researchers should show a much greater interest in presenting research instead of doing endless meta-discussions.