"David K. Probst" <PROBST@vax2.concordia.ca>
On chess positions as autonomous and yet man-made structures about which
it is possible to gain (deep) objective knowledge:
Shouldn't the relations among the pieces be included?
Shouldn't the tree of potential moves be included?
Oh, fiddlesticks. For God's sake, yes! You don't get it, do you?
C4I is all about understanding, not about presentation of an objective
situation.
Double fiddlesticks. This may (or may not) help:
Let us look at the theory of numbers. [Although produced by men], there
is an infinite number of true equations [involving] such numbers, and of
false equations; more than we can ever pronounce as true or false.
..., unexpected new problems arise as an unintended by-product of the
sequence of natural numbers; for instance the unsolved problems of the
theory of prime numbers (Goldbach's conjecture, say). These problems
are clearly _autonomous_. ... they are _discovered_ by us; ... at
least some of these unsolved problems may be insoluble.
Just as a mathematician may do research in number theory, so a commander,
staff, and ISR/C4I system may seek to obtain Dominant Battlespace Knowledge.
In my jargon, this is as deep a knowledge as possible of the militarily
relevant structural, relational, etc., properties of this autonomous and
yet man-made battlespace. More often than not, this involves presentation.
David K. Probst