Yes I've run many checks. It beats me under competition rules.
and thats sposta be hard to do ?
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
I believe I mentioned that I do not regard you as being what I would call a clever guy. Really, your opinion and those of your supporters, regarding that, are of no value.
So goes your refrain towards anybody that knows more than you do on a given subject. It's tired and worn at this point.
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10324
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Yes I've run many checks. It beats me under competition rules.
and thats sposta be hard to do ?
Well, I can consistently outplay the Stockfishes under basic or competition rules. You want to try?
I can get Wilhelm to generate some random wins.
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10325
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
While maths uses precise language, the vagueness of @Optimissed's language is an issue. He is very likely using "countable" incorrectly as a synonym of "finite". It is likely that he never has understood or even known the correct definition. To my knowledge, he never clicks on a link like that to fix the inadequacy of his basic knowledge.
Countable is not a synonym of infinite.
Correct. At this point it would be possible to think you know what the word means.
Something that is not countable may not be infinite.
And then you prove that wrong. Uncountable implies infinite (but not vice versa). Consequently not infinite implies countable or, to put it another way, finite implies countable. But not vice versa.
Again, being aware of the definition would help you here. Do you need some help explaining how to click on a link?
However, the infinite cannot be counted, since it's literally "not finite" and therefore it is not countable since only finite numbers exist as countable.
Now read the definition...
It's often difficult to tell when you're trying to deceive people and when you are just being honestly but extremely dim. Both possibilities are very real and may even occur simultaneously.
I understand that you have great difficulty with all sorts of things. If you stopped being so ignorant (hint: click links and learn something) it would help you with some of these.
Try to find someone who can help you understand that learning what a word means is a necessary precursor to discussing what it refers to. Perhaps your son? I imagine he could help you with basic set theory too, if he ever studied any pure maths.
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10326
optimissed i generally avoid indulging in your "discussions" (which consists of people explaining in detail how you are wrong, and you responding with "nuh uh" and insulting them) because i consider them a waste of time, but at this point i just feel bad for you.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CountablyInfinite.html
https://www.mathacademytutoring.com/blog/cardinality-and-countably-infinite-sets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set
http://5010.mathed.usu.edu/Fall2021/CHendricks/CountablyInfinite.html
https://collected.jcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&cmastersessays (i dont think you'll be able to understand this one but its an interesting read)
Again, this has all been explained to you already, but as I predicted, you just said "nuh uh, you cant count infinity because infinity is uncountable" and ignored the nice explanation of set theory presented.
While set theory is (for most people) a college thing, cardinality of differing infinities can actually be approached at even the middle school level.
Finally, the basic question that you have refused to answer: Where are these "theoreticians" that agree with you?
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10327
whats hilarious is that when optimissed asks his son about infinities, his son is going to tell him EXACTLY what we have been telling him, and optimissed is going to come back to us and say how he was right all along.
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10328
Nah, he won't ask him. How would that boost his ego? [Oh, your last link above is broken].
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10329
tygxc wrote:
@13525
"there is great uncertainty where this is"
++ No, when the thinking time reaches depth 2x, a checkmate in x is found with certainty.
See you in the afterlife. (Unfortunately we may be destined for the same place,)
a/o who thinks they can comprehend physical infinity is dum. ppl confuze #'s infinity w/ PI. big diff.
ohh !... & btw ?...why cant s/t be infinitely small ? summa u dunces feel s/t can be infinitely big right ?
Well, I can consistently outplay the Stockfishes under basic or competition rules.
u cant play good chess. sorry not sorry. u barely know whats going on over a given board. o/w u wouldnt be here bragging abt it. ud be proving it w/ the best players in the world today. feeling unimpressed w/ s/o's narcissism.
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10332
"You claim you need everything to be verified by 13 year olds, who, you say, are even more advanced than you."
where? i only talked about established mathematicians with phds and peer reviewed research.
why arent you addressing that fact? why do you feel the need to make stuff up that is obviously false?
also, its very clear that you didnt read the link, because one of the sets in that link is an infinite set, and the link also mentions how there are multiple levels of differing infinities.
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10333
Optimissed talks sooo much smack but still cant read an article nor answer a basic question.
Just one "theoretician" optimissed, just ONE, that says that all infinities are the same and cant be differentiated, is what is being asked.
in addition optimissed, its clear you couldnt even understand elrochs explanation of the multiple infinities, because the arguments are literally independent of whether an infinity is "countable" or not. countable infinity is just one type/level of infinity.
opti ?..u stay the course luv. mosta these dunces are below u. so know that k ?
now. u give me a board position (any one that ur little <3 contents) ?....and ill return a finite # of 1-ply moves. there now. chess is finite and tho it may be solvable TO A DRAW ? it IS completely describably delicious (wait...got hungup in a tv ad...sorry). its just gonna take a big computer...a VERY VERY BIG compewter.
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10335
More spamming from O - with O as usual pretending that others should regard what he says as valid because he says so. And then O and tygxc talking to each other with O pretending that those who disagree with tygxc are 'trolls'. No I didn't read all of it.
-----------------------------
In fictional movie entertainment of the most common kinds - its necessary to have a bad guy.
When the bad guy dies the movie ends.
For an internet discussion to occur is it necessary to have a 'bad guy'?
The answer is no.
------------------------
But to have good discussion is 'disagreement needed'?
Disagreement can be distinguished from trolling.
To have proper discussion is it necessary to have people of opposite extremes?
For example to have discussions about the shape of the earth and its geography - is it necessary to have flat-earthers in the discussion?
No.
--------------------------------------------
Elroch and Dio and MEGA and MarAttigan and mpaetz and llama will always know more about math and science than O and tygxc.
Those two will always be 'out of their depth' with most informed people.
But O will need to 'project' that and pretend its the other way around.
tygxc - for now - only seems to 'disinfo' when it comes to math about computer chess projects.
Also - tygxc unlike O doesn't 'need' allies.
-------------------------------------------------------
Regarding internet discussion if everyone always agreed on everything then such discussion could only work as 'lectures' by those informed to those uninformed.
But now here's the good news.
People disagreeing or having differences don't have to be on opposite sides of an issue.
This means that with most pairs of people - differences and differences of opinions or views or controversies can always be found ... and exercised or brought out if so chosen by the parties concerned.
-----------------------------------------
Then - you might get argument or debate or discussion or whatever.
That can be distinguished from the kind of trolling that O does.
Does tygxc troll?
He has disdain for mathematical objectivity.
And pushes that disdain.
Why? Not clear.
Is tygxc pushing disinformation?
Yes. But that's not quite the same as trolling.
Is it separate from trolling?
No. There's an overlap.
Why? How?
Because tygxc also has disdain for what informed people are telling him about math and proof and mathematical objectivity.
-------------------------------------------------
So he keeps rejecting what they say.
Is that 'trolling'?
Not exactly.
To clarify further - are things like flat-earthism and denial of the realities of manmade global warming actually 'trolling'?
They're variations on it.
But then there's the semantics of the word 'trolling'.
----------------------------------------------
Should one go by the dictionary definitions of the word or by some kind of practical definition?
Example of practical definition:
'trolling' usually refers to internet behaviour whereby whoever deliberately makes a lot of false posts and tries to draw others into a wasteful verbal table tennis exchange of namecalling - profanity - long 'nested quotes' exchanges - and other wasteful battles with various typical results that include blocking and reports to staff and others avoiding forums or discussions with a lot of same and also - others simply posting around and mostly ignoring those 'trolling'.
------------------------------------------------
tygxc's 'disinformation' is not ignored nor is it reportable nor does he need to be blocked because 'trolling' isn't his aim. Even though his disinformation overlaps with trolling.
Whereas with O its clearly different - and trolling is clearly O's aim. Constantly.
And projection of his trolling his life's work here.
---------------------------------------------
Results:
Elroch and MEGA and other informed people will continue to make informed posts.
Dio and others will continue to easily expose and deflate O.
tygxc's invalid claims will continue to be debunked and refuted.
That last one is the actual central conversation here.
But others will arrive from time to time and join in ...
Yes - chess will not be solved soon because humanity just doesn't have fast enough computer hardware to do that.
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10336
If a signs of intelligence were:
- boasting about how like a really smart guy you are
- discussing subjects without ever learning about them or even looking up the definitions of terms used
- spending all your time trying to find ways to boost your ego and deal with perceived threats to your ego
you'd be intelligent.
They aren't.
piece value will be top mass critical in figuring out a solution. me ?...i would go at it by valuing each piece (pawn)/square using phonons. w/ strength to THz. salt could be a good medium. think quantum calcs combined w/ such...and were stuck waiting for THAT technology to arrive at the train station. a retired bank a ASICS in quest of the last btc could be a substitute. but for that ?...wed need alotta luck. but then im used to needing that.
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10338
Elroch wrote:
If a signs of intelligence were:
- boasting about how like a really smart guy you are
- discussing subjects without ever learning about them or even looking up the definitions of terms used
- spending all your time trying to find ways to boost your ego and deal with perceived threats to your ego
you'd be intelligent.
They aren't.
Correct.
O is obviously trolling. He is not 'intelligent'.
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10339
Optimissed wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
While maths uses precise language, the vagueness of @Optimissed's language is an issue. He is very likely using "countable" incorrectly as a synonym of "finite". It is likely that he never has understood or even known the correct definition. To my knowledge, he never clicks on a link like that to fix the inadequacy of his basic knowledge.
Countable is not a synonym of infinite. Something that is not countable may not be infinite. However, the infinite cannot be counted, since it's literally "not finite" and therefore it is not countable since only finite numbers exist as countable.
It's often difficult to tell when you're trying to deceive people and when you are just being honestly but extremely dim. Both possibilities are very real and may even occur simultaneously.
By now, it is generally understood that such comments as that from you are not intended to correct the incorrect perceptions of others but are intended to cause them.
I did click on your link just now and it's clear that you're trying to cause confusion via misrepresentation, since you linked to a countable set. However, you should drop that cause of possible confusion, since we're discussing countable quantities.
Well done for clicking the link, but no, there is not the slightest misrepresentation involved. The "quantities" involved are cardinalities (think "sizes"), and the things that have such sizes are sets. "Countably infinite" is one precise cardinality, and "countable" covers this and all finite cardinalities and nothing more.
If you want an article called "countable", <- that links to one at encyclopedia.com. It might be more to your taste. But the second word in the article is "set", so don't expect inconsistent content.
Your method is probably to claim that any quantity is a set (which of course it is)
Actually, a set is (intuitively) any collection of discrete objects. For example, all even whole numbers, or all irrational real numbers. Note that a set is an object, while a quantity is a property. It's a bit like the difference between a noun and an adjective in English. "Countable" is an adjective which is a property of the countable set, the natural numbers, a mathematical object.
The quantities we are discussing are cardinalities, which are the generalisation of the notion of size of a set. (The foundations of mathematics constructs all sets from the empty set and a set of operations that build sets from sets, rather than assuming there is some other source of objects that can be in sets).
There are other entirely separate types of quantity in mathematics, such as the length of a line or the volume of a sphere, which are expressed as real numbers. Measure theory is the subject that develops how to deal with such quantities (it is also what is needed for general probability theory and integral calculus).
[It think it's fair to say that the only two types of quantity in all mainstream mathematics are cardinalities and those expressed as real numbers. Anyone who has knowledge of some counterexample I am unaware of is welcome to correct me!]
which nomenclature has the magical property of making any quantity (including an infinite quantity, since a set potentially contains infinite members) countable (which it can't).
What makes a set countable is the existence of a surjective function from the natural numbers to that set. Which you would know if you had actually properly read any article on the subject.
There is no way you are to be trusted by anyone who knows less than you or (heaven forbid!) is less clever than you.
Thinking everyone is less clever than you and having a firm rule never to learn anything from anyone who is less clever than you is logically guaranteed to maintain complete ignorance.
Both are mistakes.
Jul 10, 2024
0
#10340
And of course O will occasionally click a link and then falsely claim he 'won'.
Like with 'Zemelo'.
Leading to him taking some days off after being thoroughly embarassed here.
O's behaviour can often be predicted in advance.
Why/how is he back here now?
Probably because Lola is active here. O needs allies.
Syzygy can play the endgame as a whole perfectly under competition rules
how do u know that ?...has a/o ever ran a check on ziggy ?...do we have some value software on it ?
Yes I've run many checks. It outplays me under competition rules (and anything else).
i ran a 10-ply (opening game) against shannons 69+x10^12 report. I got 54+x10^12. still tryn2figure out their parametres. whos right ?...probably them. but some vfyn software still needsta be run right ?