Infinite possibilities in a game of chess?

yr briish

As a geometry artist, I have to correct you.

That is wrong, because, the first 2 lines of Euclid's Elements.

1. A point is that which has no part.

2. A line is that which has no breadth.

With no breadth, there are an infinite radii.

There is a 99.9/100 chance of me losing in every chess game.

Geometry is independent of size.

If a circle is half as small, I can magnify it, now it is twice as big.

A 1 x 2 rectangle is the same as a 2 x 4 rectangle and so on.

That's like saying 1/2 = 2/4.

That's how movies can work.

With magnified miniatures, you can't tell the difference.

Of course chess is not infinite, in the sense of geometry.

As for practical size, I don't think chess is vast enough. There are too many drawn games, on every level.

I think chess should be a tri-athlon.

1 game of Western Chess

1 game of Chinese Chess

1 game of backgammon as a tie-breaker.

I call it Gamester of Triskelion.

That's exactly how films work.

A film strip is very small, the size of a quarter. You pass light through it, now you see it on a giant movie screen, with life-like resolution.

With Kodak going out of business, and cameras are now digital, we don't have "films" anymore.

We are losing our understanding to the real world.

That is another way of saying Geometry has infinite resolution, in our modern language.

The ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is always the same, regardless of the size of the circle.

You can draw a pentagram inside a pentagram forever.

I learned that in Geometry class in High School, watching Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land.

26:08

bro u some professor ?

by wathching donald duck u got 500iq?

Same