I see your limitations then and must accept that it's beyond your control, because I know exactly what "informed" and "uninformed" mean to you. They have always stood as references as to whether an opinion is right or wrong, measured by whether it agrees with your own opinion. Nothing else.
That more properly applies to you...not an uncommon thing when you are arguing...well, anything.
I don't know why you choose to bring up the paranormal thing. It doesn't seem very relevant unless you think it will win you a couple of cheap votes.
We live in a World where many people disbelieve in the possibility of the paranormal or supernatural (they mean the same) and many people believe that it exists. I would think that the numbers believing it exists outweigh the numbers believing it doesn't and there are many undecided too. I'm an atheist for reasons that I would explain if it were allowed here but I do accept the reality of things like clairvoyance, some forms of telepathy, things that are variously called paranormal or miraculous etc. Again I could give a reasoned and detailed explanation of why but there's no need.
It's your attempt to win a point by means unrelated to this argument, since you probably suppose that only silly people believe that sort of stuff. You aren't doing very well but never mind, it's only to be expected.
Only silly people believe "that stuff", yes. And you believe in far more than clairvoyance...don't make me break out your crazy beliefs regarding your "abilities"...
I just took a quick refresher course on mathematical induction, since I learned it many decades ago. The course consisted of a really bad teacher, I think called Khan,
Do you mean Khan Academy, by chance?
explaining sums of consecutive numbers from 1 to n, as given by the formula n(n+1)/2. He managed to show how if it counts for a number k it counts for k+1, k+2, k+3 etc.
Firstly it's all just simple logic. Secondly, the average of a consecutive series of numbers to n is (n+1)/2 and so the sum is n multiplied by the average. OK so all very trivial.
The idea that you can use that kind of linearity to extend a mathematical depiction of a simple game like noughts and crosses into a proof that the same is available for chess is mistaken and Zermelo was wrong about it. Simple as that. Yes he's a famous mathematician. Yes, mathematicians always jealously protect their own. No, mathematical induction, which is a simple process of logic, does not and cannot be used to make a case that the impossible is possible. Noughts and crosses is not commensurable with chess.
I accept I'm making a claim. I already asked what my wife had to say about transfinite numbers. She's a psychologist. Mensa measured her IQ pretty high. 156 or 158. She's extremely bright. She thinks Cantor was a nutcase. Strangely enough, he was a nutcase. Then I asked my son when I was talking to him alone and he told me how important Cantor was for set theory. Nothing more or less. So he wasn't going to question him but perhaps nothing has caused him to question it so far. Maybe my question will have set him ticking. I would have liked to have been able to ask my father. Never mind. My wife's instinct was that Cantor was a nutcase. Using a bit more logic than that, I just thought he overstepped and he was describing an hypotheticality which he became caught up in and came to believe, which is what mentally ill people do. And my son supported Cantor because my son is a mathematician.
If I had a higher opinion of your ability to genuinely question, I would take you more seriously. I have never seen evidence that you are capable of it. Perhaps more tellingly, you never admit you lost an argument. That's the boy who cried Wolf! You aren't to be taken seriously in a situation where you are in danger of losing an argument.
You not only never admit you've lost an argument...you routinely claim to understand everything better than the most famous authorities on the subject. This should tell you and your crackpot fanbois something...
Einstein, Cantor, Zermelo, every authority ever in Thermodynamics...all hacks compared to you and your judgment rendered with 15 minutes of skimming over their ideas. Heck, you think the majority of philosophers (you own field of choice) are bunk and that you are inherently better.