Life In 19x19

Quotation reference:

viewtopic.php?p=150146#p150146

asura wrote:For some terms it is a feature that the meaning is only rough

I prefer to avoid such "terms". It is, however, possible to let a term depend on parameters.

or that it can have different meanings.

In this case, the term must be split into several terms. E.g., I have defined capturable-1, -2 and -3, because three different kinds of capturable are needed.

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003.html

If you make the definition more specific some statements using this term change from true to false.

Only if it is unclear which more specific variety of a term is being used.

when you prove other statements wrong you do it under the assumtion that your definitions apply.

Either this, or I prove them right, or I prove them wrong under somebody else's definitions, or I prove them right under somebody else's definitions.

Creating new terms is the only way to be sure that people apply your definitions.

I guess you mean something else: out of context, it becomes immediately(!) apparent only if they apply (only) my invented terms.

Bill Spight wrote:I am not sure of the reasons why you offer your own definitions for go terms.

There are several reasons, in particular:

1) Earlier definitions or descriptions of a term were (too) ambiguous. Unambiguous definitions are needed to always distinguish a thing being something from not being something.

2) Unclear terms (especially such for concepts, e.g., mobility, stability, influence, thickness) belong to the greatest hurdle for becoming stronger. I clarify the term to increase my own chance to become stronger and to help everybody to become stronger. Not knowing well the meaning of e.g. the aforementioned terms greatly slowed down my improvement from 5k to 5d.

3) For go theory (such as principles) relying on terms, clear and unambiguous terms are essential for developing the theory at all, for getting a meaningful theory, for verifying a theory and for good application of the theory in the general case of an arbitrary position.

4) For research in go theory, (3) is even more important.

5) Disambiguation.

One difference, I think, between John Fairbairn and me is that he leans towards prescriptive definitions of go terms, while I lean towards descriptive definitions.

Ideally, I combine both, unless I invent a term and there is no evidence for related examples (such as 'default unknown ko'). When I find traditional exceptions that make too little sense, then I do not slavishly include them in my definition, but I might discard them for the sake of simplifying the definition; OTOH, at dan level, tradition is pretty consistent, and excluding bad exceptions is scarcely necessary.

I still rely upon usage in go literature, and not just some amateur's bright idea.

In the meantime, I find citing my own definitions 90% of the time, because the literature tends to offer mostly weak, insufficient or flawed definitions or descriptions that simply do not meet the scope and level of accuracy needed by me. E.g., The Go Player's Alamanac's descriptions of gote, sente, ko, influence [missing], thickness [missing], atsumi, atsui, semeai etc. are almost useless to useless.

RobertJasiek wrote:1) Earlier definitions or descriptions of a term were (too) ambiguous. Unambiguous definitions are needed to always distinguish a thing being something from not being something.

Wrong.

2) Unclear terms (especially such for concepts, e.g., mobility, stability, influence, thickness) belong to the greatest hurdle for becoming stronger. I clarify the term to increase my own chance to become stronger and to help everybody to become stronger. Not knowing well the meaning of e.g. the aforementioned terms greatly slowed down my improvement from 5k to 5d.

Wrong.

oren wrote:Wrong. [...]
Wrong.

Not wrong, because e.g. I needed several years to figure out the difference between thickness and influence. This made it especially hard to learn using thickness and influence well. Finally understanding this played a great role for my improvement from 3d to 5d. If I had understood the concepts earlier, I would have improved yet faster earlier.

From 14.5k to 5k, my confusion had been even greater, but IMO this had almost no impact on my improvement in that rank range, where other errors dominated any delay of improvement.

RobertJasiek wrote:

oren wrote:Wrong. [...]
Wrong.

Not wrong, because e.g. I needed several years to figure out the difference between thickness and influence. This made it especially hard to learn using thickness and influence well. Finally understanding this played a great role for my improvement from 3d to 5d. If I had understood the concepts earlier, I would have improved yet faster earlier.

From 14.5k to 5k, my confusion had been even greater, but IMO this had almost no impact on my improvement in that rank range, where other errors dominated any delay of improvement.

You realise that what's true for you isn't true for everyone else, yes? And that it doesn't make something a universal truth?

RobertJasiek wrote:

asura wrote:For some terms it is a feature that the meaning is only rough

I prefer to avoid such "terms". It is, however, possible to let a term depend on parameters.[quote]
What's about the term "woman" e.g. ?
Until a few years everybody knew what it means but now there are some (ridiculous) problems in sport.


>>or that it can have different meanings.

>
In this case, the term must be split into several terms. E.g., I have
defined capturable-1, -2 and -3, because three different kinds of
capturable are needed.
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003.html
<

Which is an easy example, because you could create a partition of the original term. (or a subset relationship would be possible if you wish)
Harder would be to define something like "fruit" and "tomato".
Depending on the context a tomato is a fruit or not (quiz show vs fruit salad)


>>
when you prove other statements wrong you do it under the assumtion that your definitions apply.
<<

>
Either this, or I prove them right, or I prove them wrong under somebody else's definitions, or I prove them right under somebody else's definitions.
<

What I meant is that any statement always depends on a set of definitions.
Once you change a definition you have changed the whole statement.
Because many definitions are only implicite it's often hard to say if they have changed.
In doubt you must evaluate the statement for ALL possible definitions (and all combinations), which can be quite a lot.

>>
Creating new terms is the only way to be sure that people apply your definitions.
<<

>
I guess you mean something else: out of context, it becomes immediately(!) apparent only if they apply (only) my invented terms.
<

Yes. Whenever your new term is used it must be your's, exept someone else has randomly invented the same term, too (likely with another meaning).

Boidhre wrote:You realise that what's true for you isn't true for everyone else, yes? And that it doesn't make something a universal truth?

Sure, but have you or oren become a strong dan player at a time when English literature was sparse and nobody could explain thickness and influence well? If not, try to imagine the age before the internet...

asura wrote:What's about the term "woman" e.g. ? [...] Harder would be to define something like "fruit" and "tomato".

I speak of go terms. Outside go, terminology can have other problems.

Once you change a definition you have changed the whole statement.
Because many definitions are only implicite it's often hard to say if they have changed.
In doubt you must evaluate the statement for ALL possible definitions (and all combinations), which can be quite a lot.

Yes.

RobertJasiek wrote:

asura wrote:What's about the term "woman" e.g. ? [...] Harder would be to define something like "fruit" and "tomato".

I speak of go terms. Outside go, terminology can have other problems.

Until go is completely solved and understand you can't totally avoid such terminology problems if you want to say something about go in general.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Boidhre wrote:You realise that what's true for you isn't true for everyone else, yes? And that it doesn't make something a universal truth?

Sure, but have you or oren become a strong dan player at a time when English literature was sparse and nobody could explain thickness and influence well? If not, try to imagine the age before the internet...

No. Fortunately, it has nothing to do with I said.

RobertJasiek wrote:Sure, but have you or oren become a strong dan player at a time when English literature was sparse and nobody could explain thickness and influence well? If not, try to imagine the age before the internet...

And it's precisely wrong because vague terms have been used for centuries with players getting stronger over time. You may have problems with the vague terms, but you are in a minority of go players.

Therefore I will stick with your favorite response here, "Wrong".

sometimes terms are intentionally ambiguous.

there's an ironic beauty in that.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Boidhre wrote:You realise that what's true for you isn't true for everyone else, yes? And that it doesn't make something a universal truth?

Sure, but have you or oren become a strong dan player at a time when English literature was sparse and nobody could explain thickness and influence well? If not, try to imagine the age before the internet...

I don't have to imagine, I know, I've been there.
And I remember people learning and progressing, some lightning fast - before the internet and when there were very few, if any, proper definitions available. What you said took you a long time, I have seen others doing in a flash - me included, at least when you talk about the period from 14.5k to 5k. And I feel I can improve and increase my strength very fast from where I am now as well - very fast and without precise definitions - only by hard work and more involvement (which unfortunately I am unwilling to commit to at the moment, or I would have proven it to you.)

But I really do not feel the need for more precision and more definitions in Go, as you do apparently.
To me, its more of a 'nice to have' or 'interesting' - a curiosity rather than a necessity. Sure, come up with them, I look at the, but I strongly doubt this will influence my play in any way. Which is not to say there are not people out there who think differently, so its just my opinion.

For example - to this day if you asked me for a proper definition of 'thickness' or 'influence' I would have a very hard time. And yet I feel I understood the difference between these terms since I was somewhere between 15.23k and 13.97k. I had a pretty good idea of what 'ko' was at around 19.36k, and 'nakade' downed on me around 14.71k (although the last bit of understanding got refined on gradually until I was around 7.37k.)

So, while I understand some need (or better: 'your need') for proper and precise definitions, you have to understand that for 99.35% of us here vague definitions are more than sufficient. What's more, we can see a kind of poetic beauty in them (at least 99.32% of us), and realize that they also have a great value, maybe more value than strict mathematical definitions (this would be only 99.11% of us, though.)

I think the vagueness of Go terminology is very good, it strikes a balance between defining what things are and leaving room for thinking and growth and personal ideas about what is what. But that's just me, and I know that you will strongly disagree with this statement. So maybe I am writing the post for others out there instead.

asura wrote:Until go is completely solved and understand you can't totally avoid such terminology problems if you want to say something about go in general.

Yes, but nevertheless go is much more term-friendly than words of everyday life. This relaxes the situation for still ambiguous go terms.

oren wrote:And it's precisely wrong because vague terms have been used for centuries with players getting stronger over time. You may have problems with the vague terms, but you are in a minority of go players.

I belong to the minority of Western go players indeed. Needless to say, East Asians could compensate for weakly described terms by frequent access to many strong players.

Therefore I will stick with your favorite response here, "Wrong".

LOL.

xed_over wrote:sometimes terms are intentionally ambiguous.

For which go terms, IYO, is this an advantage? Ah, I see: "I am BEHIND (and lucky not to know by how much)!";)

RobertJasiek wrote:I belong to the minority of Western go players indeed. Needless to say, East Asians could compensate for weakly described terms by frequent access to many strong players.

You are in the minority of a minority.