Chess will never be solved, here's why

Lola - that number is less than the number of protons in the universe ...
because the universe is infinite.
A thought rather than a claim.
--------------
Lola before you tested it did you remember to wear a protective suit?
A number like that is ray-shielded. So you have to use proton torpedoes.

Chess is solved constantly.
Every time you put away the board and pieces or shut down your computer or phone.
Solved. Instantly.

i dont have a phone

You'll live.

Somebody was muted again. 12 pages of posts missing. That's about 240 posts.
A similar thing just happened in another forum. Maybe its the same person.

Bit disappointing. Got alert, so was thinking chess might have been solved.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/one-word-story-fame?page=1#last_comment

Observe that the axiom of foundation prevents the existence of a set that contains just itself as a member. If S = {S} (i.e. S is a one set with one element and that element is S) then the only element of S is NOT disjoint from S, so S does NOT satisfy the axiom of foundation. This reductio ad absurdum disproves the initial assumption. So there is no set such that S = {S}

Suppose more generally, there is a set S such that S is a member of S. Then we can form the set T={S} with just one element that is S. T has only one element S and S is a member of this element (by original assumption) so T has no element that is disjoint from {S}. This contradicts the axiom of foundation. Tha reductio ad absurdum thus disproving the initial assumption.

Thus we can conclude the negation of the original assumption: there is NO set S such that S is a member of S. QED

Except in PM Russell asserts that, "there is NO set S such that S is a member of S", is a strictly meaningless statement. But he's a bit flaky in the version I read about exactly what constitutes a statement in the first place (fixed, I think, in the second edition). Of course in ZF, as you say, it's just a true statement. Barwise and Moss on the other hand adopt an anti foundation axiom and it becomes a false statement.

I think you may be misrepresenting him in a subtle but enlightening way.

Before Russell discovered Naive Set Theory was inconsistent and inspired others to find a consistent formalisation of set theory, there was an axiom of Naive Set Theory that a property of a set (eg "S is not a member of S") always defined a set - the set of sets that satisfy that property. (I can't recall the name of the axiom, but it can be looked up, and that is its definition). So he could have observed that it could not be meaningful to define a set by the property mentioned in both our posts. But that does not mean the property itself is meaningless. For example, let's look at a typical set:

5 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4}

Is 5 a member of 5? No. You can just check the elements one by one and observe they are not 5.

Indeed the property is meaningful for any set. "There exists an element E of S such that E = S" is a well-formed statement about a set S.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that in Zermelo-Fraenkel the above description is entirely valid. I am just indicating it is intuitively sound (not a 100% reliable thing, to be fair!)

"S is a member of S" is a valid property of sets, and it is true for no sets at all in Zermelo-Fraenkel (because it can be proved to be false as I indicated in my previous post).

It's worth remembering that the three volumes of Principia Mathematica were published between 1910 and 1913, and Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory was only arrived at in 1922.

Translation: you don't care and you can't comprehend the possibility of someone thinking differently to you.

Regarding setss - all of the discussions about 'sets containing themselves' or not would not appear to work that well - without concrete examples.
I guess I could get on chatgpt and Copilot and ask them to give concrete examples of sets that contain themselves versus those that don't - but Elroch and Martin seem quite well informed though.
Russell and other greats don't seem to give examples in their more famous pronouncements. Why not?
Well - back in those days who was their principle audience?
In other words the principle audience of the great mathematicians of the past?
The answer would appear to be: each other.
The more you go back - the more you see that the pioneers of maths and philosophy and science mainly talked to each other.
Various causes of that. For one - very few could read or write.
For two - the pioneers were mostly nobles or bigshots or landowners. Whatever.
For three education was primitive or non-existent.
The fourth one - no internet - is more double-edged.
The internet is an instrument of information and education but unfortunately its also an instrument of disinformation and misguidance and 'reverse education' and negative indoctrination.
--------------------
'Sets that contain themselves'
That ice cube shouldn't be that hard to break.
Lets see first though - if an AI sledgehammer is needed to break it.
Shouldn't be.
If Daneel Olivaw was here maybe he might say 'Come on - use internet search to get the examples. Don't use AI.'

Chess will never be solved because we cannot store all the moves in some type of ram that can account for all possible positions it has nothing to do with compute. If we did solve it we need a scalable.quantum computer with a computation algorithm that is stable. This is never going to happen

If there's a forced mate in 60 there's every chance chess will be solved. You won't need to store a gazilliwillionth of all possible positions. Can you think of any evidence there isn't a mate in 60?

including the nonic root ?...its about 3.3x10^346,275. and the decic root is 1x10^3,628,800.

as a reminder ?...these (2) #'s, taking the root from square, cubic...to...nonic, decic ?...yields a whole number. i luv my antminer - I luv it sooo !

now...back to fully solving chess to the 14th ply !

If we did solve it we need a scalable.quantum computer with a computation algorithm that is stable

that may not be true. manipulating a custom one-off page table from virtual→to→physmem may be s/t worth s/t. esp w/bare metal coding. something ive been working on...

You need a neutrino computer complex that is ray-shielded and faraday-caged and is 300 feet underground.

riiiiiiiiight...plutoafar

e.g. - the below # is where my (12) leading zero sha-256 hash is stored in my virtual memory. sadly i cant convert that to physmem cuzza obvious restrictions. so im trying to make my own page table...unbeknownst to all but itty-bitty me lol !

11110111001110100100110000111001111110000 (virtual)

its here i start-stored my (12) leading zeros hash. they say that (8) were needed for a 50-bitcoin reward (tho the genesis block ended up w/ [10] for reasons not sure (01.03.2009). tale of my life. i can get there - only just as e/o's leaving :::/ (im wearing contacts AND readers right now)

try it !...take 4811533856641 (decimal) and use a sha256 converter to see. dum but kinda fun .