Ah, I saw that one too. A few times actually. I enjoyed it a lot. It seems like you can always ask "why not go even further" no matter what you're talking about. Even with an infinite set, why can't there be something beyond that? And beyond that? You can even describe that phenomenon with some other number/concept, but why can't you even go beyond that? That seemed to be what he was getting at later in the video, but I dunno.
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
Sort:
011 wrote:
If you don't trust logic though... I mean... not to be rude, but it's not a matter of trust it's a matter of either you understand it or you don't.
This is too the point and defines the difference of our individual positions. I can understand your logic without agreeing it is infallible. We all posses our own logic, but how open are we to accepting alternative explanations are possible? It goes well beyond the simple "it's not a matter of trust".
Elubas quite well described some of my points, pointed out my perspective where my thoughts were not well organized. I need to formulate my "theory" of probabilities using clearer terms and presentation.
In response to the "infinite or infinity" question, in my view it is a "concept". Does it exist? Only in mathamatics.
The mind thinks "what is beyond the horizon, there must be something smaller/bigger, time can not end and so invents the concept of the infinite. This too can not be compreheded, but works well in the realm of numbers.
I just read the points on the previous page made by Elubas and 011 regarding my statements, their interpretations and objections. Many of the issues brought to light are spot on, I have no major disagreements, accept the criticism of my views.
Maybe I can present my view somewhat in a clearer light regarding probabilities. I agree with the math. The chanches of a 50/50 event occurring is one in two. The odds of the same event occurring (coin flips) keeps doubling. This is logical.
But do numbers actually tell us the "reality" of such events occurring? So yes, it becomes a philosophical debate for me. A single event in time, where coins are flipped simultaneously, the chanches of a HTHT pattern emerging are dependant on the # of coins, then applying a mathamatical formula. I propose the odds are not necessarily the same (although the same formula must be applied) when a single coin is flipped over a period of time landing in the same pattern. Can it be proved? No. My reasoning is philosophical for lack of a better term. In the later case, other factors come into play, time being one of them (do we fully understand the forces of time?) Circumstances have changed, the universe has moved forward, the reality of an event recurring is different.
The 2nd question I have is also a philosophical one. Do numbers (especially large ones) really describe the true nature of probability? Do the chanches really double when we're speaking of by example 10 vs 11?
Yes, I understand the practical use of statistics and probabilities and how they are applied. It represents a powerful tool of our understanding. That being said, I reserve my thoughts that numbers may not represent the true nature of a given event occurring in the future. To think in absolute terms is a mistake imo.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Some people would prefer to keep arguing rather than learn and move on in life.This is why we have forums?
I've actually learned a few things here Richnoh.
My Dinner is on fire. 😀 Binary has a good defense, Elubas comes out of nowhere and is the voice of reason.
If your post was directed towards me Oprah, yes I would like to watch the video. I'm always willing to broaden what limited knowledge I have. Unfortunately, I log in via my phone with limited data, but when I get to a comp and Wi-Fi will most certainly do.
I do not see the topic being discussed as an "arguement". Differing views get expressed, hopefully something new gets added to our understanding. Certainly the involvement of others has contributed to a better understanding for myself.
A debate in my view. I do not see a polarity, where two sides are at opposite ends and arguements ensue.
Phone could ring xD
actually possible, Harold Dondis beat Bobby Fischer in a simul, although he was an 1800.
The biggest upset from a simultan today. IM Johan Salomon only is ca 1000 rating above me, but he was able to defeat me. He got an advantage I couldnt defend from move ten.
vahsek32 wrote:
actually possible, Harold Dondis beat Bobby Fischer in a simul, although he was an 1800.
I once beat a I'M. I was 1600. The terms were after every piece or pawn captured, a shot of tequila was taken by the capturing side. Needless to say, I proceeded to lose anything and everything, careful not to be mated. Just before my last piece faced certain death (Obviously the King) poor ole Igor passed out and lost on time.
Does this count?
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Some people would prefer to keep arguing rather than learn and move on in life.
This is why we have forums?
Well, talking is fun, a lot of times, isn't it? It's a lot more personal than just indirectly listening to a youtube video or something, there's interaction. Surely, forums aren't aimed for the most 100% accurate learning, and that's quite ok. Sure, I think it's good to research things too, but one can do both. I've looked at academic papers and high level videos on issues like this before, but I also like to discuss things in a more casual setting. It's just human I guess.
stop sending me meseges
10,000 years into the future, mankind will witness what may be the most spectacular devastation in our entire existence. Proven to be inevitable, two massive black holes are set to have the ultimate collision of all time.
One of these black holes weighs around 140 million suns. Its competitor, the OJ 287, is determined to be the most massive black hole in the known universe—weighing around 18 billion Suns.
This is the last infinity video I saw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88
He goes over it pretty fast, I remember not following it the whole way.