I saw a mention of concision AND expression power. I like that, because concision may come at the expense of meaning or information access. Like compressing a FEN into a hash, for CPU consequent or digitial memory sake. FEN is less concise, but has more expression power to the human mind's eye, and intuition.. one just has to use 2D space of that encoding string to align the rows, and one gets a diagram.
So would assuming an initial FEN, and only encoding the game as the SAN sequence from move to apply to it successively if one were curious about which position we would end up... that would be more concise encoding of the game..
would it have equal expressivity? to what? to the CPU that can apply a decryptig routine faster than i can type? to a human mind? I would find a sequence of position diagram more expressive.
I think missing might be expressive to what container. But i salute the fact that there was the need for an "and"..
And i err in the not concise directio, of course.. i hope i have not done so above to make a point. This would be friendly discussion.. I find that neural nets understandig requires thinking about this point i am trying to make.. And that seems to be not a traditional computing science way of optimizing things..
I salute your concern for source code to be more readable.. that is encoding syntax has less hidden meaning, requiring previous knowledge, more content in the address that the syntax words, like implicit might actually mean, wihout having to know everything else aboout the whole. density of meaning in syntax parts lableing.. given and the others...
that is how i could find interesting your blog.. catch what interests you in what you are doing.. I know nothing of scala. but I did not need to, to understand something of your blog.
So would assuming an initial FEN, and only encoding the game as the SAN sequence from move to apply to it successively if one were curious about which position we would end up... that would be more concise encoding of the game..
would it have equal expressivity? to what? to the CPU that can apply a decryptig routine faster than i can type? to a human mind? I would find a sequence of position diagram more expressive.
I think missing might be expressive to what container. But i salute the fact that there was the need for an "and"..
And i err in the not concise directio, of course.. i hope i have not done so above to make a point. This would be friendly discussion.. I find that neural nets understandig requires thinking about this point i am trying to make.. And that seems to be not a traditional computing science way of optimizing things..
I salute your concern for source code to be more readable.. that is encoding syntax has less hidden meaning, requiring previous knowledge, more content in the address that the syntax words, like implicit might actually mean, wihout having to know everything else aboout the whole. density of meaning in syntax parts lableing.. given and the others...
that is how i could find interesting your blog.. catch what interests you in what you are doing.. I know nothing of scala. but I did not need to, to understand something of your blog.
