Chess will never be solved, here's why

No you are wrong. Infinite is not a number, its a size.

Your example would then be: the list of all numbers is infinite, but every number on that line is finite.

Well you are correct, but you are talking about 2 different things.

My position is that you are calling irrational numbers infinite numbers. An irrational number cannot be expressed as a simple ratio.

All I have been doing is having looked at the mapping plan regarding transfinite numbers, I understood that the plan was in effect an explanation rather than being the proof which it is held to be by some. I then looked up irrational numbers from several sources and all sources agree that many mathematicians disagree with Cantor. I then found that Cantor had literally gone mad, which can happen when a person invests himself in an untenable position and then finds it to be incorrect. All in all I am perfectly justified in assuming that Cantor was wrong to assume that irrational numbers can be held to exist, *as transfinite numbers* if they cannot be expressed as any series of digits.

That brings us to Elroch. As usual he is arguing by misrepresentation. I don't know if the misrepresentation is deliberate but it makes no difference because either way it does not indicate a person of ability which may be respected. This nonsense regarding infinite and finite is due to his semantic incompetence but it is also due to a logical failing in him. A few months ago he started an argument with me over the value of 0/0. The result of that division is ambiguous and he couldn't even understand why. The answer is both 0 and 1. I am not going to get involved in discussing anything with someone who cannot understand a clear explanation. To make matters worse, his infantile employment of Dunning Kruger needs to be applied to him. It's just populist psychology. They didn't even get it right, so it can be applied to them.

Yes, a list of finite numbers can be infinite, but its stil a infinite list of finite numbers. There is no overlap, or numbers that are both finite and infinite.

True i think I meant overlap as in intertwine or something I'm not very good at words lol (right idea bad explanation )

Regarding two infinite lists, one being larger, that is impossible for the reason that infinity is not finite. If it is not finite, then it cannot be quantified and therefore one list cannot be shown to be larger. Again, it might be ambiguous. It can conceivably be both larger and not larger, depending on perspective, just as 0/0 is both 0 and 1, depending on perspective, although 0 is literally correct and 1 consists of a kind of accomodation of rational thought into an irrational process, to keep mathematicians happy that there isn't a disjunct in the series of fractions tending towards zero in the progression, - infinity to + infinity. (Or -1 to 1)

If you can understand that, I'll talk to you some more. If you can't understand it, it would be hard work.

I did not use the word "transfinite numbers". Did 3 things

1) i mapped the rational numbers (including the negative numbers

2) i mapped the real numbers

3) i showed that the list of real numbers is bigger then the list of rational numbers and that they both are infinitly long.

Its not clear excactly what your counter argument is, other then that "transfinite numbers dont excist". Lets say I totaly agree, trans finite numbers dont exist. How does that reffute my argument that some infinities are bigger then others ?

With all due respect (as they say) that's just gibberish. If any one could undersand it, it would be @Opimissed.

Elroch has expressed the belief that mathematicians have a hotline to God. That is, their perspective is always right. I have contested that view, since mathematicians are process-driven, where their calculations can be checked due to real measurements being available. But when they get into this kind of rarified discussion, I've often noted that there are points where a mathematician seems to give the simplistic answer and a philosopher who was good would give perhaps a range of answers. There are other points where mathematicians may give non-intuitive answers where a philosopher might show that there is a strong case for the simplistic one.

I think that what we can get out of this is that, where we see a mathematician being apparently arrogant and expecting their version to be accepted, we are entitled to apply reasonable doubt to that. Where we get mathematicians trying to make false arguments based perhaps on their lack of semantic understanding, where they also behave badly or anti-socially, we are also entitled to assume that something's wrong.

Given that certain people here habitually argue in this false manner, we are entitled to discount what they may be saying until they improve their behaviour, since we are very aware that these are people who don't argue to reach truth but who argue against people themselves and also argue in an interdisciplinary fashion. As in "chemistry is truer than physics" or the reverse.

Thanks for the links. I'd never noticed the table entry.

Makes no sense under the competition rules either because it calls only for a weak solution and a full set of Syzygy tablebases would provide that with less than 4.8x10^44 entries.

You shouldn't believe everything you read in Wikipaedia.

Correction The Wikipaedia definition of decision tree preceding the definition of game complexity denotes a subtree of the game tree (second graph I referred to in my response to @tygxc here) despite linking to the normal meaning, so athe tree in a Syzygy table would not qualify.

It's about time you started producing some of these vague authorities you always refer to. This will probably be difficult since for 10 years your own son has not weighed in to back you up on anything you claim to be in agreement on. Wonder how that happens...

My son, so far as I know, has never commented on the forums. If he did join in, I'd stop right away. That would be the best way to get rid of me but he is a professional mathematician and engineer and it would be wrong of him to become involved, talking to the likes of you and having to disagree with Elroch, who has never disagreed with anyone with good grace in his life, so far as I can see. And nor have you, which makes you similar. I am quite certain he would find instances where I have been right and Elroch wrong and a fewer number where the reverse has happened.

I have never ever discussed transfinite numbers with him. He's very much an applied mathematician. Apparently, a brilliant equation solver whom the other PhD candidates used to come to for help. All I can see is a creepy person clutching at straws.

Martin you've just posted 'no its not valid' and thank you for that.
Regarding your recent postings I was reading and responding to posts by Elroch and MEGA.
They both post well and there was a lot of good dialogue.
Yes you post well too - but I don't always have time to read and respond to all good posts.
And yes tygxc's 'reductions' are ridiculous but that 'taking the square root' one is the one that I think that is by far the most ridiculous.
Why?
Because of the degree of artificial arbitrary unfounded reduction.
--------------------------
Regarding when people post links to good material or material they think is good - 
idea: if they really both understand and accurately agree with the material - then have they gained real insights?
can they apply those real insights logically and efficiently to the discussion?
Some will take the position: 'If you don't click the article I posted and read it or don't view the video I posted ...'
That position usually isn't valid.
And often conversations will devolve into 'hey its my link against your link! Its my peer reviewed material against your peer reviewed material! Its my 20 posts with heavily nested quotes against your 20 such posts!'
Its my observation that such exchanges usually go nowhere.
And also - logical evidence is so often ignored or downplayed and the logic/illogic of talking positions isn't even addressed at all.
--------------------------------------
You're the best when it comes to providing diagrams Martin.
Its a fact.
And I thank you again for providing those diagrams showing that even just three-man positions can be illegal even when there's no pawn on a back rank and the two kings are not adjacent.
Note that I conceded quickly and gracefully. No feathers. No fragility.
Because a king cannot be in check with the other side to move - and a king cannot be in check from a pawn on its original square.
Lol!!
Is there any other way for a three man position to be illegal or legally unreachable? Maybe there could be ...

The majority of the other people here understand that you were talking pure manure when you claimed that Cantor, an excellent mathematician, would suggest any entity would have a property and its negation simultaneously (in italics in an unedited quote from you above). It takes someone incompetent to come up with such a thing.

This is proven by the impossibility of you providing any source to support the ridiculous claim about Cantor.

You must be looking in a mirror, then...

The notion that if your son deigned to comment here that this would call for you to exit the thread is just bizarre, by the way. Sounds more like a poor attempt to explain away something uncomfortable.

Now I atleast understand your position, but it seams to come from a failure to understand set theory and formal logic, but you dont have to quatefy something to show that its larger / smaler, you can use pure logic.

Imagne two lists. One containing all Mothers, the other containing all children. Without a single number we can say the first list is biger then the second. So your notion that something has to be quantified ro be able to say if its bigger or smaler is false

"My son, so far as I know, has never commented on the forums. If he did join in, I'd stop right away"
Assuming the 'son' exists - then O wouldn't want the son to see his posts - for obvious reasons.
And the idea that O would be 'right' more often than Elroch in their exchanges is ridiculous. It that a lie or a delusion by O?
Its very possible that O has not been right even once - not even once at all in exchanges with Elroch and Dio and Martin and mpaetz over a two to ten year period.
Except when O hasn't disagreed.

Very well put by mrh. Efficient logic.