"Looked at it. It's an hypothesis. It may be considered by Zermelo to be an axiom and there's no syllogistic proof to support it."
If it wasnt proved it wouldnt be called "zermelo's theorem"
"It was an inductive proof, you fool. Can't you even read? It wasn't deductive. Means it's an assumption."
in mathematics inductive proofs are literally logically equivalent to deductive proofs. "Induction" is just referring to the techniques used.
for example, one of the most basic inductive proofs is to prove that the sum of the first N integers is equal to N(N+1)/2.
let f(N) = N(N+1)/2. Basic arithmetic shows that f(N+1) - f(N) = N+1. therefore, if f(K) = the sum of the first K integers, then f(K+1) = sum of first K+1 integers (where K is a known constant).
then, we start by verifying that f(1)=1.
finally, mathematical induction refers to the step where N can be extended from 1 to all natural numbers. this too is mathematically rigorous, for any M that we claim is the lowest integer for which a statement is false, since M-1 must be true, M must also be true.
All in all optimissed i think your struggles come from imprinting different definitions to mathematical terminology and methods.
On reflection, I was completely right. The mathematically inductive proof that Zermelo used for his simplistic ideas can only be extended to solving chess via a process of philosophically inductive reasoning, which happens to be false since like isn't being mapped to like. It's as though a crumpet is being mapped to a falcon.
No.
Read what MEGACH3SE wrote and learn something. You seem to have already forgotten that there are two non-overlapping usages of the word "induction", something that can be a problem at advanced ages.
That means they were approaching perfect play in previous years and now have reached it.
See, like I said, ICCF players have solved chess... but I wont tell you my definition of "solved."
In any case, it more likely means humans have less and less useful input, and when the engines play each other it's unsurprisingly a draw.
Solved chess does not have to be perfect play
It just has to look like it
I have a very bad feeling there's an error somewhere with how they "solved " it