What current theories? Wikipedia?
Well, it is actually impossible to know for absolute certain the exact number of atoms in the known universe. Wikipedia is usually fairly reliable. I could find more credible sources for you but why don't you find a credible source that shows me I am wrong instead. That way I don't have to do all the work and you won't have quite as much time to complain about other peoples sources.
Wait a minute, why are we arguing this? Cry_Wolf brought up the games vs. atoms issue when he lashed out at trysts. Can we all agree that Cry_Wolf's shot was unwarranted and move on?
`
Khpa has a good point... it was an attack and not relevant to the topic at hand. which is women and chess, not theoretical astrophysics.
But, I want to say that, if you are submitting a theory, you need sources. It is not my problem if you can't provide them.
Cry_Wolf statement at this point was not unwarranted
Based on what?
And I am actually not trying to argue. I really want to know the number of playable chess games up to move 40.
Cry_Wolf claims there are more than 7.0 × 1079.
It wasn't unwarranted to claim that there are more playable 40-move games than atoms in the universe. It was unwarranted to use such a controversial point for the purpose of a personal attack. Getting back on topic, I don't believe that there is any inherent difference between the brain of a male and that of a female.
It wasn't unwarranted to claim that there are more playable 40-move games than atoms in the universe. It was unwarranted to use such a controversial point for the purpose of a personal attack. Getting back on topic, I don't believe that there is any inherent difference between the brain of a male and that of a female.
I thought it became unwarrented when a theoretical claim is positioned as a fact. And on another note, if one were to claim a calculable number of the amount of atoms in the universe, it would be a theory like, Aardvarks created the universe, is a theory.
You may be right; you may be wrong, but you're not going to get a definitive answer here.
I've just made an appreciation based in the size of sets with are made upon combinations of elements.
It wasn't unwarranted to claim that there are more playable 40-move games than atoms in the universe. It was unwarranted to use such a controversial point for the purpose of a personal attack. Getting back on topic, I don't believe that there is any inherent difference between the brain of a male and that of a female.
I thought it became unwarrented when a theoretical claim is positioned as a fact. And on another note, if one were to claim a calculable number of the amount of atoms in the universe, it would be a theory like, Aardvarks created the universe, is a theory.
quite a fool one
And this is enlightening?
You may be right; you may be wrong, but you're not going to get a definitive answer here.
I'm not going to get a definitive answer ever. This is more of a question of psychology. It is obvious that a exaggerated analogy was made, comparing the total amount of atoms in the universe to that of possible positions in a chess game. This has been accepted by the psuedos without question. It is quite hilarious to see such drivel quoted as "fact", even though the main thrust of the analogy was as a euphemism.
The comment was intended for pdela, but whatever.
Actually, I'm a girl.
Oh, well in that case, you definately can't follow the mathematics.
Second... I stated a claim, I sourced it, and I have backing from the majority of people here. As far as I'm concerned... point proven. I'm not going to stand here and feed trolls any longer.
And to whoever said my shot was uwarranted... it was indeed warranted because trysts implied that I was stupid (and later blatantly said I was retarded) because I stated a fact. That "shot" was my evidence as to why you should believe me over her.
What current theories? Wikipedia?
unworthy