[marai2]

Scott Aaronson's blog post on large numbers is also a very interesting read:

http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html

[jobigoud]

Ha, trip down memory lane:

> And in Go even an amateur human can still rout the world’s top-ranked computer programs

[pron]

I think that the context matters. While his actual statement is now false, he was really talking about a "solution" to Go, i.e. an algorithm that can compete with any opponent (and back then, Go programs couldn't "even" beat humans). Google's algorithm is (probably) nowhere near a "solution" to Go, but an algorithm that can beat currently-living human opponents. I.e. it is quite likely that a rather simple algorithm would still beat Google's program, only that people's minds don't (or can't) employ that algorithm when they play.

[d_theorist]

Very enjoyable.

However, I think I found a mistake:

"For example, ‘5 tetrated to the 3’ means 5 raised to its own power 3 times, or 5^5^5"

(I am paraphrasing slightly here because the essay uses an image to show 5^5^5 in normal notation (http://www.scottaaronson.com/cgi-bin/mimetex.cgi?5^{5^5}))

However, shouldn't this be 5^5^5^5, if we're raising 5 to its own power three times?

[yathern]

Not quite - think of it this way:

5 x 3 = 5 + 5 + 5

5 ^ 3 = 5 x 5 x 5

5 t 3 = 5 ^ 5 ^ 5

Where t is tetration. Each one counts 3 fives.

[d_theorist]

Makes sense. Thanks.

[aardvark179]

Nope, see the description of titration on on wikipedia.