Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
> Jason Marshall wrote:
> To Jason Marshall
> You offer a accurate definition of "brute force".
> We have had some problems which have been amenable
> to no other method. On the other hand we have
> found ways logically to keep us from going down
> "wasted" paths. The fact that something produces
> the same result as brute force does not mean its
> application. What I am describing is what occurs
> in every AI-based logic engine, an exhaustive
> true/false testing process. No more, no less.
I still suspect we're talking past each other. Perhaps
we don't have the same definition of 'exhaustive'.
When I or most of my peers say/think exhaustive, we
mean 'look under EVERY rock', not just 'look under all
the probable rocks'. When you start introducing
algorithms that trim your search space, you're doing
a directed search. Unless it is provably impossible
for a particular direction to contain a successful 'hit',
then you're using a heuristic, and no longer doing an
Any commentary regarding the rest of your comments
hinges on the formal definitions, so I'll hold off
on any commentary.
> I don't want to make light of academic pursuits nor
> those in pursuit. I have been a member of the ACM
> since 1962 and a participant in computer-related
> matters in the IEEE since before it had formed the
> Computer Society. For most of that time what was
> published under those societies meant absolutely
> zip to me. That did not keep from understanding
> the importance of continuing a publishing outlet
> that from time to time did create a practical
> communication link with the "outside" world.
I can assure you I am not by any means an academic.