oh look at you contradict yourself more and more "his expert opinion". this isnt a matter of opinion. its been proven or it isnt.
wow, i didnt know that math journals will take an "expert opinion" as a valid method of proof.
what's your highest math proof class btw? im guessing you took 9th grade geometry and that was your highest.
@9391
""10^17 claim - no proof" ++ Sqrt (10^37*10/10,000) = 10^17"
"thats a calculation" ++ It is. The 10^37 stems from Gurion.
The 10 is to include promotions to 3 or 4 queens.
The 10,000 stems from inspection of 10,000 Gurion positions.
The square root is for weakly instead of strongly solving.
"Are you really trying to say that you drew three mnms from a jar"
++ No, no randomness is involved. It is chess analysis.
"you are so completely unknowledgable in basic math principles"
++ I know more about math than any here.
"centuries of chess play isnt a mathematical proof"
++ It is accumulated Chess knowledge, allowed in game solving per Prof. van den Herik.
@9393
"im guessing" ++ You are guessing very wrong
"I know more about math than any here."
he says, despite listing "reductio ad absurdum" as a method of math proof despite the fact that it isnt.
@9393
"im guessing" ++ You are guessing very wrong
then what is it. spill.
"++ No, no randomness is involved. It is chess analysis."
as usual you completely lack the knowledge to understand even basic logic. randomness has nothing to do with the situation.
@9392
"you dont know what an inductive proof is, nor a deductive proof" ++ I know, you do not.
"you provided neither" ++ I provided both, you understand neither.
@9398
"randomness has nothing to do with the situation"
++ Indeed, that is why an analogy to drawing MNMs from a jar is stupid.
i provided actual proofs disproving your claims that everyone else on this thread understood and agreed with. not only that, but i showed my proof to other math majors and they all took my side. you really think you are the special one?
also, you still havent addressed how i suggested the other 10^18 moves that white could do after g4.
ive even shown a couple of your "proofs" to a published mathematician and he laughed at your stupidity.
@9402
"the other 10^18 moves"
++ Suggest one (1) white move that improves on any of the 3 sequences I presented and present a line that does not lose for white. That is how chess analysis works.
@9401
"i provided actual proofs"
++ None at all. You proved what? Where?
@9402
"the other 10^18 moves"
++ Suggest one (1) white move that improves on any of the 3 sequences I presented and present a line that does not lose for white. That is how chess analysis works.
its your proof, you dont get to say "oh you need to suggest a move that draws"
im noticing how you arent addressing how you are literally the laughingstock of people who do math for a living.
you really think i havent been going around to all my math friends and professors and showing them how stupid you are?
""i provided actual proofs"
++ None at all. You proved what? Where?"
try looking instead of living in your fantasy. no use repeating.
"present a line that does not lose for white. That is how chess analysis works."
i did, its in one of the 10^18. by definition, a proof addresses this.
your logic is like Andrew wiles claiming that fermats last theorem is proven by the claim "oh you need to suggest an N that works, otherwise my proof holds"
math professors consider tygxc's logic to be worse than a middle schoolers.
tygxc's response: downvote, and continue to believe that he knows proofs better than literal mathematicians.
so, what's your highest math education buddy? we both know it isnt past calculus because you would have brought it up already.
ive literally won awards for my abilities in math proofs. how are you claiming that you know more about math proofs?
@9383
"10^17 claim - no proof" ++ Sqrt (10^37*10/10,000) = 10^17
"engine games were optimal claim"
++ As for the three 1 g4? refutations, they stand as long as nobody presents any white improvement. As for the 104 ICCF World Championship Finals draws I provided proof.
"already proven to be a draw" ++ I provided an inductive as well as a deductive proof.
"1 tempo is worth less than a pawn" ++ Has been demonstrated by centuries of chess play.
1 pawn is enough to win, 1 pawn = 3 tempi. Figures in beginner books.
I looked at these three games and I agree that in each one, the position seems nasty for white. That isn't the same as being a forced loss and it occured to me also that the question is not whether the Grob opening loses but whether 1. g4 loses. In the games you presented, white is playing 2. Bg2, except where the obviously rather bad h3 is played.
If white wants to survive after 1. g4 .... d5, why is there no game featuring 2. e3?
@9408
"its in one of the 10^18" I ask for one (1).
"Andrew wiles claiming that fermats last theorem is proven"
++ Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem and received the Abel Prize for it.
"he knows proofs better than literal mathematicians" ++ Better than any here.
"what's your highest math education" ++ More than any here.
"we both know it isnt past calculus" ++ ROFL, you have no idea.
"ive literally won awards for my abilities in math proofs" ++ Does not show here.
@9402
"the other 10^18 moves"
++ Suggest one (1) white move that improves on any of the 3 sequences I presented and present a line that does not lose for white. That is how chess analysis works.
its your proof, you dont get to say "oh you need to suggest a move that draws"
im noticing how you arent addressing how you are literally the laughingstock of people who do math for a living.
you really think i havent been going around to all my math friends and professors and showing them how stupid you are?
My son @Caproni is a mathematician with a first class MMath and a Physics PhD, who works in engineering. He wouldn't laugh at anyone. A real mathematician just wouldn't do that.
In reality, haven't you been asking people whether tygxc has any justification and they're been answering that he doesn't? I've been in some difficult discussions with mathematicians on this site and I wouldn't get into arguments if I didn't think someone was wrong. Regarding what is acceptable as a proof, it seems obvious that a logician or mathematician accepts different criteria for proof than a scientist accepts, since mathematicians and logicians deal with an ideal world populated by ideals and scientists deal with the real world and all the inductive judgements which have to be made.
About two days ago, I was looking at the mathematician Cantor's idea of transfinite numbers. I read it and knew he was talking rubbish. Yes, it was ty who presented that and yes, I followed it up and realised that nothing Cantor was saying was correct. It was immediately obvious that transfinite numbers could have no application in the real world but I don't think my question regarding that was anwered. Then I found out that Cantor was being called a charlatan, at the time, by maths professionals.
Other people these days call Cantor a genius. Cantor was actually as mad as a hatter. If you or anyone would like a discussion regarding transgender numbers, I'd be happy to oblige.
I think I made a typo somewhere but never mind. I'm sure it wouldn't alter any realities.
@9388
"fischer complaining about a loss" ++ No he was disappointed after drawing, failing to win.
"making a general statement" ++ His expert opinion, other greats said the same.
"proof of a draw" ++ I presented an inductive as well as a deductive proof.
you dont know what an inductive proof is, nor a deductive proof. you provided neither.