literally writes the probability
ALL A PROBABILITY is just one big giant conjecture right ?...dont expect absolute truth outta chess unless u can trust the accuracy a piece/pawn evaluation AT EVERY PLY...and good luck w/ that. witchell probly be a way bigger test than chess's large # conundree.
ur bromance guy could use some bottom braces (& a pierced tung)
That guy is long dead.
Ever hear of him? Humphrey Bogart.
In that movie he plays the crazy.
The star of Casablanca.
Lola is likely some Gen Z kid who doesn't know how to write or have respect (like most of these Zoomers).
Not really. She tries to act young, though. Comes off more crazy than young and carefree.
@12612
"the 1000,000th decimal digit of pi, with no uncertainty"
++ Uncertainty or probability is fundamental. All quantum mechanics and thermodynamics depend on probability. The world as we perceive it is as it is because that is the most probable.
"the value of chess is some value from the set {0, 1/2, 1} with no uncertainty"
++ 1/2 no uncertainty
"probability p, where p is some value that is strictly less than 1"
++ 1 - 117^116 = 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999... (240 times 9)
"When certainty is required" ++ Never: everything is probability.
Even Schaeffer mentioned the 'vanishingly small probability' of some error propagating in his weak solution of Checkers.
"People are often willing to ignore a low probability of being wrong"
++ Rightly so. The Cretaceous Paleogene extinction event happened 66 * 10^6 years ago,
that is 24*10^9 days. The probability of the Sun not rising tomorrow thus is 4*10^-11.
"Mathematical proofs are not one of those purposes: they require certainty"
++ No, not always. It is a puristic view of mathematics. There is mathematics of uncertainty.
Our elo rating system or Glicko rating system are simplified Kalman filters to deal with uncertainty.
Will you win a game against Carlsen? Certainly not. more precisely: 0.0000541%
@12613
"you might mention what they are"
++ Then the forum posters will not believe, ask for picture of diploma, as they already did, then ask for ID etc. I hinted at it and one guessed it right.
"more than anyone here claims just seem like comical boasting"
++ I did not bring it up. Some forum posters posted nonsense about it, showing their own lack of mathematical education. It is only my reply to their nonsense.
It does not even matter. Something is true because it is true, not because I say so, not because I know more about mathematics than any here.
that's funny - we're not getting any 'self-respect' from Lola.
You got that 'self-respect' all locked up in the medicine cabinet Dear?
Reminds me of 'the Caine Mutiny' and the strawberries ...
yes I'll post the vid if I can find it.
s
Lola is likely some Gen Z kid who doesn't know how to write or have respect (like most of these Zoomers).
Lola's been around a while.
She 'adds color' and is relatively harmless to the forums she is in.
And is often a kind of Plus.
Whether a forum sinks or not - depends on who else is in that forum and more importantly - Not in it.
--------------------------------
We can expect Lola will 'defend' the T-Guy.
No big deal.
Because tygxc is what's called a 'foil'. As opposed to 'trolling'.
Causes the real information to come out from other posters.
But T made a 'slip' by Directly claiming he knows more than everybody here.
A few days ago.
Reminiscent of the absent O-person.
But unlike 'O' T does not spam that conceit all day all year.
Not 'directly' that is. Indirectly?
T is a different kind of 'special case'.
-----------------------
Lola your hair looks nice today.
tygxc wrote:
@12613
"you might mention what they are"
++ Then the forum posters will not believe, ask for picture of diploma, as they already did, then ask for ID etc. I hinted at it and one guessed it right.
"more than anyone here claims just seem like comical boasting"
++ I did not bring it up. Some forum posters posted nonsense about it, showing their own lack of mathematical education. It is only my reply to their nonsense.
It does not even matter. Something is true because it is true, not because I say so, not because I know more about mathematics than any here.
Once again, why are you assuming they’ll will ask you for the id? Quit avoiding the question and show us proof you have a diploma. Them asking about your id is invasion of privacy, and they know it. @TumoKonnin said already they promised they won’t, so what’s stopping you? Is it that you have no diploma in reality?
Will you win a game against Carlsen? Certainly not. more precisely: 0.0000541%
People with advanced mathematical qualifications understand that 0.000000541 does not equal zero.
They understand the same applies to a good guess that chess is a draw.
They understand that you need random events to be independent in order to multiply probabilities.
For some reason, you aren't even capable of learning that when told.
@12612
"the 1000,000th decimal digit of pi, with no uncertainty"
++ Uncertainty or probability is fundamental. All quantum mechanics and thermodynamics depend on probability. The world as we perceive it is as it is because that is the most probable.
way to not address it at all. this is math, not physics.
"the value of chess is some value from the set {0, 1/2, 1} with no uncertainty"
++ 1/2 no uncertainty
yeah, sure, argument by repetition works tygxc.
if no uncertainty, then where's the proof? saying "we know from gambits" just assumes that conventional knowledge is correct, without proof.
"probability p, where p is some value that is strictly less than 1"
++ 1 - 117^116 = 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999... (240 times 9)
again, assuming the opposite of the conclusion invalidates your calculations
"When certainty is required" ++ Never: everything is probability.
uh you should look at a basic math course.
https://math.berkeley.edu/~hutching/teach/proofs.pdfEven Schaeffer mentioned the 'vanishingly small probability' of some error propagating in his weak solution of Checkers.
now you're conflating a code error with the probability of being wrong because you are ignoring logical possibilities. cmon bro you're just lying now.
"People are often willing to ignore a low probability of being wrong"
++ Rightly so. The Cretaceous Paleogene extinction event happened 66 * 10^6 years ago,
that is 24*10^9 days. The probability of the Sun not rising tomorrow thus is 4*10^-11.
again, you're just making stuff up now. random "calculations" you pulled from thin air arent facts.
"Mathematical proofs are not one of those purposes: they require certainty"
++ No, not always. It is a puristic view of mathematics. There is mathematics of uncertainty.
there isnt lmfao, thats why you cant provide a SINGLE example of it.Our elo rating system or Glicko rating system are simplified Kalman filters to deal with uncertainty.
Wow tygxc, did you know that an ELO rating system isnt a math proof?
Will you win a game against Carlsen? Certainly not. more precisely: 0.0000541%
tygxc, did you know that 99% ≠ 100%?
@12627
If you studied mathematics at Cambridge, then did you know Prof. Alan Baker?
I have a book of his on my shelf.
btw tygxc ive now spoken to a 3rd mathematician about your lunacy, they thought you were trolling because they thought: surely nobody could be that stupid?
We all know that you dont have any math proof education, because that's why you're refusing to even name the degree that you claim you have.
Yeah i showed tygxc’s stuff to my college professor in maths and he was like what is this bogus?
@12627
If you studied mathematics at Cambridge, then did you know Prof. Alan Baker?
I have a book of his on my shelf.
I remember him and that he was a number theorist, and could picture him. I recall that he had won a Fields Medal.
All credit to you for having a book on number theory, but it doesn't fix your mistakes.
Will you win a game against Carlsen? Certainly not. more precisely: 0.0000541%
People with advanced mathematical qualifications understand that 0.000000541 does not equal zero.
They understand the same applies to a good guess that chess is a draw.
They understand that you need random events to be independent in order to multiply probabilities.
For some reason, you aren't even capable of learning that when told.
yeah ive started to notice that tygxc just assumes independence for all of his 'calculations', and then tries to justify independence after the fact. Drawing probability from ELO is especially inaccurate, as anyone who's worked with ELO systems knows that they are fundamentally flawed in calculating probability. heck, even a regular subscriber to hikaru can figure that out from why he tries to grind blitz ratings from against only a certain elo range.
@12627
If you studied mathematics at Cambridge, then did you know Prof. Alan Baker?
I have a book of his on my shelf.
Try getting your shelf to write the posts. It may be more capable of learning.
Will you win a game against Carlsen? Certainly not. more precisely: 0.0000541%
People with advanced mathematical qualifications understand that 0.000000541 does not equal zero.
They understand the same applies to a good guess that chess is a draw.
They understand that you need random events to be independent in order to multiply probabilities.
For some reason, you aren't even capable of learning that when told.
yeah ive started to notice that tygxc just assumes independence for all of his 'calculations', and then tries to justify independence after the fact. Drawing probability from ELO is especially inaccurate, as anyone who's worked with ELO systems knows that they are fundamentally flawed in calculating probability. heck, even a regular subscriber to hikaru can figure that out from why he tries to grind blitz ratings from against only a certain elo range.
While I would expect probabilities predicted by the Elo system to be less accurate for large rating differences (a scientifically testable hypothesis) I am not going to object to him using the Elo formula to calculate an irrelevant probability.
There is so much worse and more relevant to draw attention to!
ur bromance guy could use some bottom braces (& a pierced tung)