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.
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.
If a signs of intelligence were:
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.
If a signs of intelligence were:
you'd be intelligent.
They aren't.
Correct.
O is obviously trolling. He is not 'intelligent'.
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.
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.
Regarding 'tablebasing' - would it always be necessary to use 'tablebase referral' for the computer to declare a position a win for one side?
Example: White has all eight of his pawns but they're all on their home squares.
There's nothing else on the board but the two Kings.
That's ten pieces. Tablebases only go up to 7 pieces.
Yes its a ridiculous position but its possible because of knight action.
White to move.
Can't the computer just rule it a win with no further ado?
I would say Yes.
And although there are zillions of such 'rulable' positions -
here's the bad news:
They don't take big enough Chunks out of the big number.
10^44. The number of possible chess positions.
-------------------------------
tygxc would like to 'shortcut' by doing ridiculous things like 'taking the square root'.
There's no 'panacea' solution.
But algorithms probably have been written to knock out many obviously won positions that have both 8 pieces and more than 8 pieces and to also knock out many positions that are illegal or not legally reachable.
Again with 8 pieces or more than 8.
-----------------------------------------
Its probably much harder for the computers to find and declare positions and say 'draw can be forced here' ...
unless you're going to allow 'mistakes'.
Including - for the winning side to force the draw.
Which in real games we sometimes see when the winning side is in bad time trouble.
If a signs of intelligence were:
you'd be intelligent.
They aren't.
Correct.
O is obviously trolling. He is not 'intelligent'.
He is entirely honest about thinking he is a genius.
Regarding 'tablebasing' - would it always be necessary to use 'tablebase referral' for the computer to declare a position a win for one side?
Example: White has all eight of his pawns but they're all on their home squares.
There's nothing else on the board but the two Kings.
That's ten pieces. Tablebases only go up to 7 pieces.
Yes its a ridiculous position but its possible because of knight action.
White to move.
Can't the computer just rule it a win with no further ado?
I would say Yes.
It can't. How would it? It's worth pointing out that there are ways a human can think that are not accessible to any chess computer of which I am aware. To explain what I mean, we humans can think "Just leave the a,b,c and d pawns where they are and we can win with the others as if they didn't exist (just requires keeping the black king away from the bottom left of the board). Thus the 6 piece tablebase is enough.
Or alternatively, push 4 of the pawns mindlessly and avoid stalemating black so as to force either checkmate or get black to capture the pawns or queens. That gets us to a winning 6 piece tablebase position. LOL.
And although there are zillions of such 'rulable' positions -
here's the bad news:
They don't take big enough Chunks out of the big number.
10^44. The number of possible chess positions.
Interesting notion - in this sort of combinatorics, "typical" classes tend to account for the large majority. i.e. those with a typical number of pieces on the board and a roughly even distribution of piece types. For example, the majority of all legal chess positions have 27 or 28 pieces on the board - this is where the peak of number of positions for a fixed number of pieces is, and most of the positions are very close to this peak (despite the fact that the positions can have 2, 3, ... 32 pieces on the board).
-------------------------------
tygxc would like to 'shortcut' by doing ridiculous things like 'taking the square root'.
There's no 'panacea' solution.
But algorithms probably have been written to knock out many obviously won positions that have both 8 pieces and more than 8 pieces and to also knock out many positions that are illegal or not legally reachable.
Again with 8 pieces or more than 8.
-----------------------------------------
Its probably much harder for the computers to find and declare positions and say 'draw can be forced here' ...
unless you're going to allow 'mistakes'.
Including - for the winning side to force the draw.
Which in real games we sometimes see when the winning side is in bad time trouble.
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.
You're both a few eggs short of an omelet, and have been for the entire length of your stays here...it's like Tony Orlando and Dawn. Nobody pays much attention to you, but sometimes you're good for a chuckle, usually at your own expense.
Most of these dunces may be the same person! In any case, they're the result of E's efforts to control people and exert his "superiority". My main emotion is a mixture of amusement and a rather fake sadness that someone can be so self-obsessed that they have to feel that they're making the moves to get people who don't count (and probably can't count) to believe in them. It's a shame. I mean, if these people were all real, you'd worry more about the state of things than if you understood the reality that they probably aren't. The lengths they seem to want to go to, to make themselves feel good and at the end of it all, no-one even likes them.
There's no fake sadness. Just faking of knowledge and understanding, and a life-long driving need to convince yourself that you are "wicked smart" when all available evidence is to the contrary. Your family does you (and all of us here) no favors by tiptoeing around your behavior.
I forgot that one of the main reasons why i stopped interacting with optimissed is that he doesnt have the intellectual capacity to answer basic questions presented to him.
reminder optimissed, why did you have to make up a scenario about me that is objectively false?
why cant you cope with the fact that my core arguments about the solutions of chess are certified by multiple mathematicians? you make up the scenario that its 13yos, but as Ive explained multiple times, these are people who have phd's and peer reviewed research in mathematics (btw how childish do you have to be to literally lie to yourself and attempt to gaslight about the personal experiences of others)
and finally, where's the theoreticians that you claim exist that say that there arent multiple infinities?
btw optimissed while i have a few years of psychological training, it doesnt take that to clearly see how you are covering up your lack of true self worth (even though you have clearly trained yourself to think otherwise) by trying to brag about socially amenable activities. It's impressing nobody, and the fact that you think its impressive, let alone relevant, is quite telling. Theres no psychological motivation for you to post that other than a feeling of inferiority, or wanting to validate your own perceived superiority.
but notice how far youve taken the topic? lets go back to game theory, and math, two subjects you are very unfamiliar with.
which line of zermelo's proof is wrong optimissed?
where are the theoreticians that claim there is only one infinity?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes/
(this is almost a dozen articles sent to you by now that explicitly contradict your claims).
you still havent given the error in elrochs set theory. reminder, you have to use set theory notation.
Tony Orlando and Dawn
ur just jealous a him. they say he has lotsa money and some wonderful songs and hes definitely handsome & charming. e/t u wish u were...so dream on lol !
Tony Orlando and Dawn
ur just jealous a him. they say he has lotsa money and some wonderful songs and hes definitely handsome & charming. e/t u wish u were...so dream on lol !
You two are really making weak attempts today. Maybe you need the other member of Dawn...
Because you have tried to create a fake or artificial scenario based solely on your own claims about what you have presented.
It's an old internet trick and I have been around the internet longer than almost anyone else here. I know the tricks you can use. You have never made a worthwhile argument here and neither has Dio. Elroch has made one or two but he can't be trusted. I can see through his false arguments. You spend your time hoping they aren't there and if they are there that they won't be spotted. That's because your entire presentation here is based on pretence, of which this is no more than the latest example. You lost this argument ages ago and Elroch lost too.
Regarding infinities, I would suggest to you that there are no experts in this rather abstruse branch of metaphysics. There are inventive people and there are hopeful people. And there are a few of us who are good with our minds and who can recognise the childish bullying of Elroch, Dio and yourself for what it is.
Nore of the three of you could possibly hold your own with me in a debate which actually had a referee to stop you being dishonest/.
Lol. You would never get past the first 5 minutes with a refereed debate. Presenting facts that you cannot get around is not anyone bullying you...saying "I am winning this debate because my intellect is superior to everyone here" is, in fact, bullying.
all that talk about winning optimissed but you still cant answer the basic questions.
reminder optimissed, why did you have to make up a scenario about me that is objectively false? pretending it isnt false doesnt change the basic facts of it.
why cant you cope with the fact that my core arguments about the solutions of chess are certified by multiple mathematicians? you make up the scenario that its 13yos, but as Ive explained multiple times, these are people who have phd's and peer reviewed research in mathematics (btw how childish do you have to be to literally lie to yourself and attempt to gaslight about the personal experiences of others).
and finally, where's the theoreticians that you claim exist that say that there arent multiple infinities?
you claimed they exist, dont try to backtrack. so where are they.
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.