pwaldron, your questions appear to overlook the problem inherent in go theory research. So far, there are mainly these mathematical go theory research fields (except for statistics):

1) computer go theory (popular among paid scientists, students and programmers)

2) combinatorial game theory and related fields (popular among paid scientists, partly involving students)

3) semeai theory (a few researchers)

4) rules theory (quite a few low level approaches to writing down rules and their terms at all, advanced studies by me, a bit above low level studies by a few other researchers)

5) definition-derived theory for intermediate or advanced terms and applied go theory (mainly by me)

IMO, currently there are these reasons why my (5) research is still scarcely cited in peer-reviewed media:
- (5) is not popular among researchers yet.
- In particular, (5) is not popular among paid scientists with easy access to peer-reviewed media.
- Paid scientists do not always have a go playing strength or knowledge enabling them to do research in (5).
- Maybe paid scientists have not always understood yet that they can circumvent their problem not only in (1) or (2), but also in (5), because bottom-up research starts from axioms.
- Maybe part of the paid scientists want, or are expected, to show a variety of advanced mathematical techniques, so that an almost only definitions approach is viewed below their level of education. (IMO, they would overlook the elegance of this approach.)
- Maybe my preference for semi-formal language instead of symbolic mathematical annotation lets part of the paid scientists create a prejudice of uninteresting contents.

I've edited the quote to mark the reasons as (a) and (b) (I have ignored the previous 4.)

Answer to (a): A "paid scientist" (a term which I guess refers to a researcher, at least in this context) does not want or is expected to show "a variety of advanced mathematical techniques." At least in the field of mathematics, which is where I come from, researchers are expected to research and publish (the old motto "publish or perish.") The thing is, the problem has to be either "en vogue," interesting in its own right or at the very least, publishable (which is quite the shady object.) But in any case, I don't understand exactly what an "almost only definitions approach" stands for. In axiomatic constructions you usually try to derive something out of the axioms. But what is a "definitions approach"? Defining objects without a goal is rather pointless, as far as research goes. It may be useful to later "explain" something, but explaining is a reinterpretation of something according to the definitions. I can define A as the set of red ripe apples, B an ovoid shaped object used in hen reproduction and so on. Unless I explain the algorithm of an apple pie, I'm shaving yaks.

Answer to (b): If the result is interesting you could use ideograms like you were playing Pictionary and people would care. I've read plenty of proofs which are nonsense, stupid or uninteresting (I can easily put my own research in the not very interesting basket) and the formality of it doesn't help or hinder who is reading. Like in online media, "content is king."

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

Since one opinion is as good as another, I'll put forward another reasons why your work isn't cited: your work hasn't made any advancement that is worth citing or building upon.

Few or no theorems, proofs, use of existing theorems, algorithms, test programs, mathematical techniques - but just axioms and definitions.



Right. Goals are also needed. Such as "the definition of ko identifies all known ko shapes and does not confuse any other shape with a ko".



AFA I am concerned, I agree:)

This is wrong, because I have cited and built upon my own work. It is very wrong, because advancements have been created and explained. It is extremely wrong, because in some cases my results are extraordinary advancements.

For example, to repeat the most obvious, Ing's idea "a ko is given due to repetition or recycling" (the [informal] research predecessor to (my) later work) was proven in 1997(?) by me to be dubious by means of the proposition that each stone in each position can be recreated in a cycle and replaced in 2010 by me by means of the definition of ko, which is applicable for all stones(!) in all positions(!) under every ruleset(!), so that NOT all stones in all positions are ko stones. This is an extraordinary advancement, e.g., because of the general applicability and the first meaningful definition distinguishing (for all kos) ko stones from non-ko stones.

Can you find any second researcher providing rules-dependent findings invariant under the choice of the [input] ruleset? Many papers by other researchers are rules-dependent, but show results for only one particular ruleset.

Wait wait wait... roll back the reel for me here a little, so my poo' ol' brain can understand.
Does that mean that before your discovery, everybody who played using Ing Rules was treating each stone as a Ko stone?!?
Or that they were unable to play Ko (as we understand it commonly) because they thought every move was a Ko?!?

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Ing tried to define ko, so that he could apply his ko rules to it, but the description he found and put into a few of his rulesets was essentially as mentioned. Of course, he overlooked the true impact of his definition. I found the impact.

Ing was not mathematically skilled. His imagination was that of a go player - not that of a mathematician. So he perceived only those cycles he wanted to perceive as cycles and overlooked the longer, trivial cycles, due to which each stone is a ko stone, if "cycle / repetition" is the only criterion.

In the Ing Rules, this description of "ko" is one of the many flaws of the rules. But flaws do not imply that necessarily everybody would apply the flaws. Especially not before somebody (me) understood at all that it was a flaw.

Anyway, for the sake of ko research, it does not matter whether the text of description was a rules text. For that purpose, I read it as a source for research.

(Ing is reported to have researched in his rules and ko rules for decades. For him, research was informal. You might also say that he was a collector of rare ko shapes and spent millions on the rules for the sake of getting a few more shapes. Others collect paintings - he collected ko shapes. Well, that is my interpretation of part of his motivation.)

Hmm... this was not really what I was asking about.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

As a consequence, the answer to your question is 'no'. Players did not interpret the rules literally for the sake of playing.

Oh... Ok. I see. Thanks.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Quotation reference:

viewtopic.php?p=150704#p150704



Several aspects need to be considered here:
- A basis is "truth is better than falsehood", "complete is better than incomplete", "logic is better than irrationality". This is not "my world", but part of the world of profound discussion, mathemathics, science and (I guess) philosophy.
- I use a set of go terms that is not identical to any set of traditional go terms, because a) I have invented (a small percentage of) terms and b) I have clarified or approached clarification of a number of terms. I describe go knowledge (concepts, principles, methods, values) that is not identical to any traditional teacher's go knowledge, because a) I have invented a lot of go theory and b) I have clarified or approached clarification of some other go theory. IOW, every teacher is different, and I am also a teacher that teaches differently.
- The aforementioned terms and go knowledge are a) easily understood by learners used to traditional terms and go knowledge or b) I provide explanations that allows such understanding. OC, I do not always repeat such explanations; if somebody wishes to profit from all, he might have to read my texts. IOW, I am not a teacher teaching always only altruistically.
- I reject fake arguments that are false or illogical. When arguments lack justification, I prefer to see justification. I do not believe unjustified arguments easily.
- I can accept arguments using other sets of terms or other go knowledge, if the above mentioned basis is given. Arguments involving different sets of terms or go knowledge are possible. (If I discuss using one set for a time, it does not mean that I could not relate different sets.)

In summary, your suggestion about my approach, thinking or discussion style is very wrong and misleading.

However, this is how many people see your approach to discussions taking. Instead of learning from the ways other people react and try to help you, you stick to "your" world.

If you step back and try to listen here, you would be better able to have discussions with people outside of your world (Which I think happens to be most of us).

My impression is that what Robert wants from a discussion is different from what many others want. He is primarily interested in correct facts, and the function of a discussion to him is often about correcting erroneous assertions. This desire is not other-worldly, but rather something we all do. The difference is that when other people do it, they try to avoid giving the impression that they are the sole guardians of truth.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

What you describe above as "a basis" is "YOUR basis", and undissolvable connected with what I mean with "YOUR world".
"Your world" is shared by only a few, the same applies for "your basis".

This forum is designed as a forum for discussions about the GAME OF GO, not about mathematics (in general), nor science (in general), nor philosophy (in general).

Despite the colours of its main playing material, the game of Go (in general) cannot be put in categories of "Black", and "White", alone. There is a large amount of various "Grey".

The key features of the game are more like "Yin" and "Yang". The more "Yin", the less "Yang", and vice versa. There is never 100 per cent "Yin", nor 100 per cent "Yang".

This means that there is no room in the game of Go (in general) for absolute "truth". You can win (or lose) a game of Go with a mainly defensive attitude, as well as with a mainly aggressive one. Neither attitude can be named the "correct" one.

This also means that "incomplete" is not necessarily connected with "drawback". On the contrary, it might take too much effort, and time, to identify the last (let's say) 10 or 5 per cent for completeness, which will not justify the gain of insight.

There are many fields in Go, where "logic" like "If A, then B." does not work. And very often, from "If A, then B." / "If B, then C." will not follow automatically "If A, then C."

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

When absolute truth is not available, nevertheless, the aim remains to win the game, i.e., we strive to approach the truth about which is the best move.

Your aim is defective, as is your approach !

To identify the "best" move, you have to consider by many points you want to win (at least, may be that there are much more parameters to include). And even if your desired winning margin is specified, there might be more than one move to accomplish this feat.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

In general, you are correct.
The problem is: who is to say what is truth and what is not? What is more complete and what is less? And so on... a lot of issues discussed here are not black-and-white, and what is more complete for you might not be for me, and vice versa. Its not math we are discussing, but Go, yet you treat every discussion as if it was math. Its one way of looking at things, but not the only way, maybe not even the best way.

Where you enter 'your world' or 'your framework' is when you show your unwillingness to understand the above.

You will claim that what you say is more 'true' or more 'complete' to you, within your framework of reference, within your world, and you never budge. While at the same time, you completely ignore the fact that from my perspective - things might look different. Maybe I want something else from a definition, or maybe I just think differently.

Most important - it is not math we are discussing here but our very subjective views on a game of Go. And this is where you fail by forcing people into 'your world' - you treat every discussion as if it was about math, and you expect others to treat it the same - or you declare them wrong, period. But often - they don't want to treat everything as math, and there is no need they should.

In general, I understand that you are interested in this one aspect of Go, mostly - Go as math, and this is how you approach it. But you need to understand that others might approach it differently, and this does not make their approach invalid. It does not even make it worse, or less efficient, or whatever. Its just different, but every bit as good as yours.

But when somebody wants to have a discussion with you - they have to meet you in 'your world', you never try to get out of your box and see what it is they see. For you, its either your way of looking at things, or it is simply wrong. You need to learn to get out of your box every now and then.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

You can win the game by making the most mathematically precise moves or by coming up with the most amazingly inspired idea.
There is never only one way - and this is why Go appeals to so many different people.

The mathematician and the poet and the priest - they all see the world differently. And all of them are right, or at least - their view as as valid as any other. And there are many other ways and views, also as right or as valid. It takes all kinds, and it is good so.

You only see one way, and force others to see it like you or they are wrong. Thus - 'your world', 'your framework'.
For the narrow purposes of your research - you approach is one of the correct ones (maybe *the* correct one.)
In the broad context of this forum, your approach is only one of many equivalent ones, and not the most popular by far.

Your inability to see the above causes problems.
Think about it.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Bantari, as much as you claim that I would see only maths, you might claim that somebody else sees only informal descriptions of subconscious thinking. Nope. Both know that also the other's view exists. (Insert your standard phrase here;) )

This might be true, we can claim anything we want, and most of it will be true, or at least a valid viewpoint.
Yet the feeling persists that you seem to reject any argument not derived within your viewpoint. Like right now.

The point is - it is *your* attitude which causes problems, not others. Why? Because you seem much more rigid in your approach than most/all others.

For example - I have occasionally entered your 'world' and agreed with you within this 'framework' - even when I still understood that this is only one of many possible points of view. I even went so far as to recognize that within the confines of what you do, the stuff you say is absolutely valid and correct, and occasionally brilliant. As are you, in my opinion. But most of my arguments with you is about the fact that there are other contexts, every bit as valid and important as yours, a fact that you seem to either ignore or dismiss.

I have seen others do it as well. A quit-pro-quo would be for you to try to enter the 'world' of others, especially if it happens to be the majority. This does not mean you have to acknowledge what you think is wrong, but you sometimes need to see that other viewpoints are just as valid, even if contrary to what you think. I have seldom (if ever) seen you do this, or even a good effort. It is this lack of your willingness to step outside your own personal 'correctness' that prompts comments like 'your world' or 'your framework'.

And you make it worse by bringing up a defense like 'rational is better than irrational' - which pretty much dismisses most of what others say as 'irrational' with you the sole arbiter of where the dividing line goes. It might surprise you, but in the eyes of many here - it is you who is often irrational and unreasonable.

Case in point - the 'sportsmanship' discussion a while back - a purely subjective topic, where you seemed unable to see beyond the narrow confines of rules and formal definitions, and in my view made very little effort (if any) to try to understand what the rest of the world was trying to tell you. I consider your behavior in that case irrational and unreasonable. I am not inside your head, so I can only comment of how it looks to me from the outside. Maybe you made a very big effort you were just unable to step outside your box, but the result wrt this forum is the same.

A lot of this applies to almost any discussion you participate in, even if the subject is strictly 'go theory' as you define it. People are not computers and the way we perceive the world in general (and Go or anything else in particular)is much more fuzzy than you seem to think it should be.

PS>
I feel we are rehashing same old same old here. I am not sure I can add any more here, other than reiterate the same arguments I have been giving for years. For now, let me just assure you than I value your contribution to this (or any) forum very highly, and I hope you can resolve whatever issues are bugging you.

As a last advice - for future reference - a hint: if people are telling you something en masse, the there usually is something to it, and might be worth your while to take it seriously instead of insisting that you are right and the world is wrong. Even when you *are* right. Think like a teacher - a communicator - it is up to *you* to bring your message across so that people listen, not to the world to adjust. At least - not immediately. Instead, what you do is often present your message in such way that people's instinct is to argue rather than to think and possibly agree. And this goes especially when you yourself start arguing.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!