@9424
"you need to address all of them"
++ I do not need to address anything.
You need to propose a possible improvement for white or stay silent.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/appeal-to-ignorance.html
According to the description I encountered, his concept of transfinite numbers was not anchored in any logically regular manner. I did have a think about it for several seconds but my thoughts didn't meet up with each other.
The likelihood is that he WAS clever, he knew he was clever and he thought he could get away with it. I don't think he DID get away with it at the time since many others encountered the same problems that I did. Essentially, he attempted to pretend that the infinite bestows magical properties on normal ideas. I encountered the same kind of problem when talking on this site to a famous mathematician who, it seems, couldn't really grasp the concept of infinity. He thought that infinity divided by infinity is unity and my attempts to explain how ambigous it is fell on deaf ears. Another possible answer is zero but I think we could extend that.
Zero divided by zero is eqially interesting. The number theory followed by this person has it that 0/0 is unity, doubtless because when we examine the sequence 3/3, 2/2, 1/1, 0.1/0.1, 0.001/0.001 etc and so on beyond zero into negative numbers, all the results are one. Modern maths assumes that zero is similarly a number and, so as not to break the neat little sequence, they ignore the disjoint and have 0/0 as 1. This in turn ignores the fact that 0 is not a number but an absence of number and therefore the answer here is also ambiguous. If 0/0 = 1, it is also 0 and, similarly to the case with infinity, we could possibly extend the sequence.
It's a case of being inventive but in the case of transfinite numbers, if they can't be used for anything then they bear no relationship with reality, so all the invention in the World is merely fantasy. Therefore it's safe to dismiss them as nonsense and that is not a sign of intellectual weakness so much as a sign of an ability to hold a different opinion from those who think they're always right. Not to feel threatened in any way can be a sign of justified intellectual self-confidence as well as a sign of stupidity.
More ambiguity.
Don't you think so?
@9429
"I suggest each of them one at a time." ++ I reject your stupid suggestion.
"why arent you addressing them?" ++ For obvious reasons.
by definition, if you have proved that g4 is losing, then you have a way of addressing each of the 10^18 possible ways white can defend.
by admitting that you are not addressing all of them, you are admitting you have no proof. thanks for admitting you are wrong, as per usual.
@9438
"mathematicians have already said" ++ What mathematicians? Wrong mathematicians?
I would rather not argue that tygxc is wrong but more like work with him to explore the possible ways white might have to avoid defeat after 1. g4.
@9441
"proved that g4 is losing"
++ I know 1 g4? loses by force and I have provided evidence: 4 sequences where white loses.
If you disagree, then provide one (1) sequence where white holds a draw.
That is how chess analysis works.
@9441
"proved that g4 is losing"
++ I know 1 g4? loses by force and I have provided evidence: 4 sequences where white loses.
If you disagree, then provide one (1) sequence where white holds a draw.
That is how chess analysis works.
actually, no thats not how it works. appeal to ignorance, basic logical fallacy.
@9429
"I suggest each of them one at a time." ++ I reject your stupid suggestion.
"why arent you addressing them?" ++ For obvious reasons.
by definition, if you have proved that g4 is losing, then you have a way of addressing each of the 10^18 possible ways white can defend.
by admitting that you are not addressing all of them, you are admitting you have no proof. thanks for admitting you are wrong, as per usual.
That isn't a helpful comment, is it. A random move isn't going to help white unless white has an extraordinary stroke of good fortune. Almost all of the 10 ^ 96 moves you suggest are random and therefore probably useless. That is not the way to analyse chess.
@9438
"mathematicians have already said" ++ What mathematicians? Wrong mathematicians?
my guy ive been talking to math majors for over 2 years and i havent found a single one that agrees with literally any of your disagreements with me.
how about you go talk to a mathematician and get back to me.
@9429
"I suggest each of them one at a time." ++ I reject your stupid suggestion.
"why arent you addressing them?" ++ For obvious reasons.
by definition, if you have proved that g4 is losing, then you have a way of addressing each of the 10^18 possible ways white can defend.
by admitting that you are not addressing all of them, you are admitting you have no proof. thanks for admitting you are wrong, as per usual.
That isn't a helpful comment, is it. A random move isn't going to help white unless white has an extraordinary stroke of good fortune. Almost all of the 10 ^ 96 moves you suggest are random and therefore probably useless. That is not the way to analyse chess.
here's the thing. tygxc's base claim isnt a "chess analysis" claim. its a claim of ultra weakly solving the position. hes only providing basic chess evidence when his claim demands a full mathematical proof. if he were to argue that "current analysis INDICATES that g4 loses", his evidence would be actually relavent. but thats not what tygxc is arguing.
I'm arguing this way because it's human nature to try to answer questions which are less threatening rather than those which are more threatening Therefore, TYGXC is allowing him self to be drawn into what he feels are non-threatening criticisms.
@9429
"I suggest each of them one at a time." ++ I reject your stupid suggestion.
"why arent you addressing them?" ++ For obvious reasons.
by definition, if you have proved that g4 is losing, then you have a way of addressing each of the 10^18 possible ways white can defend.
by admitting that you are not addressing all of them, you are admitting you have no proof. thanks for admitting you are wrong, as per usual.
That isn't a helpful comment, is it. A random move isn't going to help white unless white has an extraordinary stroke of good fortune. Almost all of the 10 ^ 96 moves you suggest are random and therefore probably useless. That is not the way to analyse chess.
here's the thing. tygxc's base claim isnt a "chess analysis" claim. its a claim of ultra weakly solving the position. hes only providing basic chess evidence when his claim demands a full mathematical proof. if he were to argue that "current analysis INDICATES that g4 loses", his evidence would be actually relavent. but thats not what tygxc is arguing.
I completely agree but don't tell tygxc.
His fault, if he has one, is to use arguments from authority only when they agree with his opinion.
I'm arguing this way because it's human nature to try to answer questions which are less threatening rather than those which are more threatening Therefore, TYGXC is allowing him self to be drawn into what he feels are non-threatening criticisms.
bro the fact that youve been at this the entire time while still trying to be non threatening is genuinely impressive. as you have noticed, ive completely lost patience with him.
Actually I do see him trying changing his opinion I think he's stubborn but he's been very anti blitz he tried it last week
He's just super stubborn
Like long squash
@9447
"i havent found a single one that agrees with literally any of your disagreements with me"
++ Then you talked to the wrong math majors.
"how about you go talk to a mathematician" ++ I know more math than your majors.
@9448
"current analysis INDICATES that g4 loses"
++ That are weasel words. It either loses, draws, or wins. In this case 1 g4? loses.
That is also the lingo of Fischer and Caruana for other positions: 'it loses by force'.
Losing by force may take 60 moves, but is inevitable.
I like watching tygxc down vote all my posts hehehe
@9452
"he's been very anti blitz he tried it last week"
++ I still believe blitz is worthless for progress. I also believe increment is good.
I used to be good at over the board 5|0 blitz, occasionally beating masters and even a grandmaster at it, but I am too slow now. I play 10|0, with officially is blitz. I tried 15|10, 10|5, 5|5, 5|3, but got no pairings, so I played some 3|2. Maybe I can still get 2000 in it.
Laughed is the wrong word