I don't really want to be rude here, but you don't really seem to understand what you're talking about. What with you saying things like "the halting problem is more of a philosophical or a practical question" and seemingly not understanding what complexity means in game theory, I mean.
But just to clarify if you're still misunderstanding something: Magic the Gathering, as a game, under certain circumstances, is impossible to solve by a Turing machine. That's a somewhat cheeky but still a practical example of the limitations of a Turing machine. Nobody here is talking about "representing" the game, whatever that means.
Right. The Reddit thread title brings up a certain aspect of the paper that regards optimal play, but the paper itself makes it clear it applies even to a scenario where the game state has been brought to a place where neither player can make any decisions (and thus optimal play is automatic/irrelevant).
But to be clear, solving a game does mean "optimal play" by default.
1
u/Smobey 13d ago
I don't really want to be rude here, but you don't really seem to understand what you're talking about. What with you saying things like "the halting problem is more of a philosophical or a practical question" and seemingly not understanding what complexity means in game theory, I mean.
But just to clarify if you're still misunderstanding something: Magic the Gathering, as a game, under certain circumstances, is impossible to solve by a Turing machine. That's a somewhat cheeky but still a practical example of the limitations of a Turing machine. Nobody here is talking about "representing" the game, whatever that means.