You can't participate in an experiment about writing code to see similarities/differences when you've already seen the first piece of code, Bob.
Can you spell bias?
Can you parse "experimenter affecting his own results"?
It's now a thought experiment. Can you spell Einstein?
Can you spell science?
So you are now saying that the setting of the experiment you have accepted to participate in was flawed.
What would be your requirements for an objective comparison of similarities between programs written independantly, including a requirement for a simulation of your psycho-anchor stuff?
I can think about a few requirements if you are interested in objectivity and you are welcome to contribute:
- source code sent independantly by email to a referee who will wait until a deadline
- obligation to follow some algorithm
- obligation to use some functions
- weird implementations will be rejected
What else to make it fair?
It would also be possible to use pre-existing code, for example in existing chess programs but a number of problems arise from this choice.
// Christophe
thanks for giving me the "straight line" and leaving me the "punch line". The only acceptable test is the test that will produce the exact results they would like to see. A program/algorithm defined so precisely that there is only one possible way to write the code... I can say this. If this sort of "test" is going to be done, there is no point in "certain people" submitting code, because theirs will not match _anybody's_ based on samples presented here.
Zach, please don't waste your energy.
The onus is on Vas to respond to the questions that were posed to him long ago. Chrisw and Graham are constantly turning this around...
proclaiming that what we already presented is not good enough, (i.e. he doesn't need to respond?) and we must produce more 'evidence'.
but unfortunatey this forum != trial, and moderator and tester != judge
No, I'm not in a position to judge on your findings as you're aware, only the manner in which you've gone about this whole matter.
Back when I was first year in college, all students in my class were given a simple assignment : to write a program that show a ball bouncing in the screen until user hit esc button. It was a very very SIMPLE task comparing to writing ANY PART of a chess engine.
And yet, each one who were not cheating (it's about 40-50 students) came with different approachs and different code, none look similiar or nearly similiar to others. Different person came with code that similiar can only has one meaning: someone must copy from other.
chrisw wrote:
I don't understand what you are doing. You told us you are producing and have more material and will be publishing it. I've said on many occasions now I don't want to keep having discussions until your new material is out. Vas says he is waiting for it. Yet, your side is continually harping back to this really quite weak, or maybe from your point of view, not exactly universally accepted UCI example. It clear that you know/knew that you needed more or something else to make progress with your case.
You realise it won't just be me who intuits that your hunt for more evidence has ground to a halt? Don't you? Why else are you here banging on about the old stuff? Why here now again on the old stuff? If not because the other hunt has failed?
these seem like reasonable questions to me at this point
Zach should at least "update" us as to the progress of his other evidence....just a word or two that he is still working on it with a guestimate as to its completion date..
in light of the fact that Vas is waiting for a complete list of questions and also because the General forum has basically now been overrun with programming type posts regarding the clone issue
perhaps Zach can mention if he is still working on the other evidence or if his position now is to stand pat and wait for Vas to answer the first and only question presented
if to stand pat...
then we have basically a stalemate here..
if this is the case i move that all technical posts regarding the clone issue be moved to the programming forum ..because in reality this has become a course in programming which really does not belong in General
Peter Aloysius wrote:Back when I was first year in college, all students in my class were given a simple assignment : to write a program that show a ball bouncing in the screen until user hit esc button. It was a very very SIMPLE task comparing to writing ANY PART of a chess engine.
And yet, each one who were not cheating (it's about 40-50 students) came with different approachs and different code, none look similiar or nearly similiar to others. Different person came with code that similiar can only has one meaning: someone must copy from other.
I disagree with you about the question what is simple.
What is simple is dependent on what you know.
I know nothing about graphics and I never studied computer science at university(I studied mathematics)
I studied programming in C mainly based on looking at chess programs
and asking questions so writing a move generator seems to me to be a simpler task than writing a program that shows a ball bouncing in the screen.
I could also say that the task is impossible because a ball has 3 dimensions and the screen has only 2 dimensions but I understand that you do not mean to a real ball but only to something that seems like a ball.
Peter Aloysius wrote:Back when I was first year in college, all students in my class were given a simple assignment : to write a program that show a ball bouncing in the screen until user hit esc button. It was a very very SIMPLE task comparing to writing ANY PART of a chess engine.
And yet, each one who were not cheating (it's about 40-50 students) came with different approachs and different code, none look similiar or nearly similiar to others. Different person came with code that similiar can only has one meaning: someone must copy from other.
I disagree with you about the question what is simple.
What is simple is dependent on what you know.
I know nothing about graphics and I never studied computer science at university(I studied mathematics)
I studied programming in C mainly based on looking at chess programs
and asking questions so writing a move generator seems to me to be a simpler task than writing a program that shows a ball bouncing in the screen.
I could also say that the task is impossible because a ball has 3 dimensions and the screen has only 2 dimensions but I understand that you do not mean to a real ball but only to something that seems like a ball.
Uri
sorry for incorrect word. What I mean ball is a single character, like *. It's not a graphic either, just text mode in MS DOS screen.
Peter Aloysius wrote:Back when I was first year in college, all students in my class were given a simple assignment : to write a program that show a ball bouncing in the screen until user hit esc button. It was a very very SIMPLE task comparing to writing ANY PART of a chess engine.
And yet, each one who were not cheating (it's about 40-50 students) came with different approachs and different code, none look similiar or nearly similiar to others. Different person came with code that similiar can only has one meaning: someone must copy from other.
I disagree with you about the question what is simple.
What is simple is dependent on what you know.
I know nothing about graphics and I never studied computer science at university(I studied mathematics)
I studied programming in C mainly based on looking at chess programs
and asking questions so writing a move generator seems to me to be a simpler task than writing a program that shows a ball bouncing in the screen.
I could also say that the task is impossible because a ball has 3 dimensions and the screen has only 2 dimensions but I understand that you do not mean to a real ball but only to something that seems like a ball.
Uri
Uri, a program that draws a ball bouncing on the screen is really a simple program compared to a move generator.
If you have a function to clear the screen, a function that returns the width of the screen in pixels, another one returning the height of the screen in pixels and a function to draw a filled circle with a given color, and finally a function that halts your program for a given number of milliseconds then you are 5 minutes away from a program that will bounce a ball.
If "hello world" is step 1 in programming, "bouncing ball" must be somewhere step 4 or 5 while a move generator would be near step 150 or so.
Peter Aloysius wrote:Back when I was first year in college, all students in my class were given a simple assignment : to write a program that show a ball bouncing in the screen until user hit esc button. It was a very very SIMPLE task comparing to writing ANY PART of a chess engine.
And yet, each one who were not cheating (it's about 40-50 students) came with different approachs and different code, none look similiar or nearly similiar to others. Different person came with code that similiar can only has one meaning: someone must copy from other.
and maybe I should add : some student try to cheating by copying from other and changing variable name, reversing variable declaration, and such. And those cheater always got caught. Always.
Peter Aloysius wrote:Back when I was first year in college, all students in my class were given a simple assignment : to write a program that show a ball bouncing in the screen until user hit esc button. It was a very very SIMPLE task comparing to writing ANY PART of a chess engine.
And yet, each one who were not cheating (it's about 40-50 students) came with different approachs and different code, none look similiar or nearly similiar to others. Different person came with code that similiar can only has one meaning: someone must copy from other.
Peter, this is common knowledge in computer science departments. But you are not going to convince many here that it is actually true. I've been giving assignments for 38 years now, and duplicate programs just do not happen by accident. Never have, never will. There are _way_ too many ways to write a program that implements some algorithm. Actually there are always an infinite number of ways to write such programs, but most would be considered silly.
Peter Aloysius wrote:Back when I was first year in college, all students in my class were given a simple assignment : to write a program that show a ball bouncing in the screen until user hit esc button. It was a very very SIMPLE task comparing to writing ANY PART of a chess engine.
And yet, each one who were not cheating (it's about 40-50 students) came with different approachs and different code, none look similiar or nearly similiar to others. Different person came with code that similiar can only has one meaning: someone must copy from other.
I disagree with you about the question what is simple.
What is simple is dependent on what you know.
I know nothing about graphics and I never studied computer science at university(I studied mathematics)
I studied programming in C mainly based on looking at chess programs
and asking questions so writing a move generator seems to me to be a simpler task than writing a program that shows a ball bouncing in the screen.
I could also say that the task is impossible because a ball has 3 dimensions and the screen has only 2 dimensions but I understand that you do not mean to a real ball but only to something that seems like a ball.
Uri
It can be a few lines of code in some languages. But there are several ways to write it. Does the ball bounce with accurate angles? (entry angle = 30 degrees, exit angle = 150 degrees). Is there acceleration after bouncing, is there friction/drag? Do you introduce a bit of randomness in the angle or bounce rate to keep it interesting?
that's the point. Spock's "infinite diversities in infinite combinations" applies
