<Ohio> is quite correct about the secondary meaning of 'prove', ie 'test'.

Ah, that German positivity shining through. ;)>

always, we Germans may not always be right but we are never wrong. And definitely we are positive thinkers - the glass is always half full.

This is true about an assumption standing on its own. However, if combined with another assumption as part of a logical argument, they are definitely part of 'logic'. Only that in logic we call them 'premises'.

A premise is an assumption that something is true. In Aristotelian logic, an argument requires at least two such premisses along with a third proposition: the conclusion. In a classic deductive argument this is the basic argumentative structure.

A premise is an assumption that something is true. ...>

No, that's a hypothesis then. Logic also considers the possibity what happens if the assumption is wrong.

<A premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words, a premise is an assumption that something is true.> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise

Which is, exactly what I wrote: "a premise is an assumption that something is true."

So at least wikipedia agrees with me..

The only recourse for knowledge is a lower level of test. But that means we are still always in a state of uncertainty about anything. So we go, as we mostly do, by common sense. A kind of reasoned "bush logic"...something like that. All logic reduces to tautology if we need certainty. Hence we are never certain of anything. Error rules. We require error.

But then the world is dying as they say, or so it seems, so we all need to practice kissing our rear-ends good-bye. This is the most important act we can do.

As to chess, I think that if a match such as this one is drawn, it would be interesting to then have possibly a 6 month break. Then a series of games. About 6 either Fischer Random and say 6 with proscribed openings decided by a computer.

There are other creative things they could do. But as it is now these players in the Classical time control are too equally matched. And chess at any time control is (at this level) starting to become played out. Capablanca and Fischer thought so.

Even some combination of these things and perhaps random reversals of colours so players have to change sides.

This all aided by the use of super computers to decide random moments in the game to change things.

Maybe a couple of rounds of bug house and a few other things as long as the players get some time to get ready for it. Perhaps pepper pot it with some bullet chess with only points added not win or loss as such. This kind of creative and fun chess might mean players and spectators would enjoy watching the games much longer. Even perhaps allow players to consult computers in some games or to insult each other etc...Something jolly though. A few games while they are drunk and so on. Keep it all jolly.

Do you have a reference showing where it has been shown where logic fails to underpin or be a part of science? That's a pretty sweeping statement. If you've published somewhere I'd like to read it.

2. Clarify what you mean by "logic"?

<"The only recourse for knowledge is a lower level of test.">

3. For example? What does "lower level" mean?

<"All logic reduces to tautology if we need certainty.">

4. Again, clarify what you mean by logic?

But <Richard Taylor> can underpin absolute nonsense.

It was a great discovery in philosophy that we are not allknowing Gods except <Richard Taylor>.>

But have you ever fought The Ant in Bahrein? 'There was something about Squatter, he had that indefinable quality: I,I,I should call it stupidity'...

I have my own system of logic or philosophy which involves the basic tests for knowledge. But I am referring to Russell and Whitehead, Frege,Wittgenstein and also the various other problems such as the continuum, logical positivism, free will, the problem of knowledge, the Cogito (and refutations or contestations starting with Hobbes et al): Berkley and Hume's default to "common sense" and so on.

By the way as it happens there was a philosopher called Richard Taylor who wrote on Free Will. That was contested by various and also by David Foster Wallace, the author of 'Infinite Jest'.. He did a PhD in Philosophy as well as literature. He felt he had refuted my namesake's thesis. (I quoted Richard Taylor in an essay I did -- I think it was about the Cogito). Of course no matter what one argues on these things there is always a negation or there are holes.

2. Clarify what you mean by "logic"?

Logic as studied in University courses for Philosophy but also for computer people. I know about logic circuits and so on, thus truth tables, but the logic I mean is that of Russell and so on. Or it is a way of thinking that tries to eliminate contradiction (an impossibility in my view).

<"The only recourse for knowledge is a lower level of test.">

<3. For example? What does "lower level" mean?

I have a way of dealing with what I call 'essential or "high" questions' which seem impossible to prove or disprove, such as the existence of God, whether the universal constants could change in the future at any time [for no reason we know of as the Universe and consciousness is / are essentially ineffable in my view].

So I imagined an infinite stack of logic spaces (not quite alternate universes), ranging from zero test of the (knowledge-truth) to an infinitely astringent test. More realistially a transfinite test. So, for example, even though it can easily be shown that the odd numbers are infinite and so on, I require at say Ln (where n is the "level of test criteria") or is close to infinity, L is a logic space); that the only way to know, key word know, such a thing, or to verify to know, would be to count to an actual infinity. An artist called Opalka did this, perhaps not for my reasons here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman...

<"All logic reduces to tautology if we need certainty.">

4. Again, clarify what you mean by logic?

I'm curious what your basis is for writing this stuff. No worries if you can't explain/don't have time/don't want to.

Some answers. I realise that mostly we stay in a "middle region" but I think this idea of cascading logic spaces means someone could accept say, as I postulate, that God simultaneously does and does not exist as it is our state of knowledge and limitations thus. Something like that.

It is a kind of hobby horse of mine. Most will think me insane or full of cobblers but, well, there you are...

But have you ever fought The Ant in Bahrein? 'There was something about Squatter, he had that indefinable quality: I,I,I should call it stupidity'...>

He was, I have his big book but I have to say I haven't read it. I read the book about his challenge to the other Taylor, which is interesting, and his good afterword to 'Wittgenstein's Mistress': both that discussion and the book by David Markson are worth a read.

So Karjakin lost a match in tiebreak against Carlsen in 2016 and thus Carlsen is no better than #15 Karjakin and the system has to be changed to one where Carlsen wouldn’t have to win a playoff to keep the title.

<This is not a fair system and needs to be changed next time. I don't know why FIDE agreed to this format, but then again, they do keep tinkering with these things>

The same format has been used the last eight title matches.

<This is akin to a penalty shoot out after extra time>