Contradictions in games?
in [Math]
|
Prev: 36 people, meeting in groups of 6. Is it possible to meet each person exactly once in a round of 7 meetings?
Next: ---- ---- ----- validity of an equation
From: Robert Kaufman on 31 Jul 2010 18:34 Hi Assuming mathematics is just some kind of game, I was wondering, what would be a contradiction in chess? What does it mean to say that chess is complete? Respectfully, Robert Kaufman
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 31 Jul 2010 22:43 Robert Kaufman <Yearachmeel(a)verizon.net> writes: > Assuming mathematics is just some kind of game, I was wondering, what > would be a contradiction in chess? Why do you think there should be such a thing? > What does it mean to say that chess is complete? Nothing much. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: William Elliot on 31 Jul 2010 23:27 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Robert Kaufman wrote: > Assuming mathematics is just some kind of game, > I was wondering, what would be a contradiction in chess? As there is no such thing, you have disproven your assumption. > What does it mean to say that chess is complete? Get real. Quite asking dumb questions. Here's some for you from game theory. Is chess a zero sum game? Are there stragieties by which the first, or the second, player can force a win? Are there stragieties by which the first, or the second, player can force a stalemate?
From: Robert Kaufman on 31 Jul 2010 19:40 Hi So if it's not a game then what is it? Respectfully, Robert Kaufman
From: BGB / cr88192 on 1 Aug 2010 00:16
"Robert Kaufman" <Yearachmeel(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:1707434963.35502.1280630086509.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org... > Hi > > Assuming mathematics is just some kind of game, > I was wondering, what would be a contradiction in chess? well, one would have to define what would be such a "contradiction". but, given chess is defined by an initial state, and any number of possible moves, a contradictory state would then be: having the pieces in a configuraton which can't actually happen in game; somehow arriving at that configuration from within the rules of the game. given both can't actually happen within its own definition, there can't be a contradiction under such terms. the only other such contradictions are those states under which one side or the other would normally be declared the winner. completeness is also debatable WRT chess... > What does it mean to say that chess is complete? given chess makes no attempt to formalize its own rules, nor can it actually define much of anything, and no one is (likely) trying to write proofs related to chess, AFAIK completeness doesn't actually matter... decided to leave out a bit of a rant on my part, mostly related to intrinsic vs extrinsic value of knowledge and proof, ... as well as "reality" vs "a sufficient abstraction". I am more inclined to think that value (in general) is extrinsic and that one doesn't really need to care really what is the reality of something if they have a sufficient abstraction of the object in question, and so such an abstraction is far from being "useless" even despite its underlying model differing from that of the underlying "reality" (more so, I am left to wonder if this "reality" actually exists in an absolute, rather than a localized sense, and more so, if it actually matters whether or not reality actually exists in such an absolute sense). but, yeah, probably in a technical sense, I am more of the resident anti-math... although not really "resident" either, as I rarely read or post here, ... |