4 ms·

> it is a provably correct axiom. Pedantically, axioms by definition are assumed/defined without proof and not provable; if it is provable from axioms/definiti

> it is a provably correct axiom. Pedantically, axioms by definition are assumed/defined without proof and not provable; if it is provable from axioms/definitions, it is a theorem, not an axiom.

AdieuToLogic 11mo ago
[flagged]
- endofreach 11mo ago
  I just nod and keep playing checkers.
- zkldi 11mo ago
  It's just not what the word axiom means nor how anyone uses it. An axiom is unprovable by definition - is it a thing we accept to be true because it is useful to do so (e.g. there exists an empty set) "Provably Correct Axiom" is nonsense. An axiom is unprovable. Just "provably correct" would've been fine. This chess stuff is hilariously pretentious.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ModernMech 11mo ago
    It's grok-level cringe is what it is.
  - AdieuToLogic 11mo ago
    > Just "provably correct" would've been fine. This chess stuff is hilariously pretentious. Apparently a bit of humour when responding to a self-identified pedantic response didn't come across as I thought it would. Lesson learned.
- antonvs 11mo ago
  Username checks out
  - AdieuToLogic 11mo ago
    > Username checks out Of all possible replies in the set of "meaningful and/or contributory", this does not have membership thereof. At least the other responders had the common courtesy of putting forth some intellectual effort and not resort to a trite Reddit meme.
- threatofrain 11mo ago
  Sorry but the entire line of argumentation and all it’s chess flavor is miles off the mark. This is not the sound of arguing with someone who studied what they talked about.
  - AdieuToLogic 11mo ago
    > Sorry but the entire line of argumentation and all it’s chess flavor is miles off the mark. Apparently a bit of humour when responding to a self-identified pedantic response didn't come across as I thought it would. Lesson learned.
- thaumasiotes 11mo ago
  > And, of course, a hypothesis is capable of being proven. No, that's just you not understanding the definition of 'postulate'.

> it is a provably correct axiom. Pedantically, axioms by definition are assumed/defined without proof and not provable; if it is provable from axioms/definitions, it is a theorem, not an axiom.

AdieuToLogic 11mo ago

[flagged]

endofreach 11mo ago
I just nod and keep playing checkers.
zkldi 11mo ago
It's just not what the word axiom means nor how anyone uses it. An axiom is unprovable by definition - is it a thing we accept to be true because it is useful to do so (e.g. there exists an empty set) "Provably Correct Axiom" is nonsense. An axiom is unprovable. Just "provably correct" would've been fine. This chess stuff is hilariously pretentious.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- ModernMech 11mo ago
  It's grok-level cringe is what it is.
- AdieuToLogic 11mo ago
  > Just "provably correct" would've been fine. This chess stuff is hilariously pretentious. Apparently a bit of humour when responding to a self-identified pedantic response didn't come across as I thought it would. Lesson learned.
antonvs 11mo ago
Username checks out
- AdieuToLogic 11mo ago
  > Username checks out Of all possible replies in the set of "meaningful and/or contributory", this does not have membership thereof. At least the other responders had the common courtesy of putting forth some intellectual effort and not resort to a trite Reddit meme.
threatofrain 11mo ago
Sorry but the entire line of argumentation and all it’s chess flavor is miles off the mark. This is not the sound of arguing with someone who studied what they talked about.
- AdieuToLogic 11mo ago
  > Sorry but the entire line of argumentation and all it’s chess flavor is miles off the mark. Apparently a bit of humour when responding to a self-identified pedantic response didn't come across as I thought it would. Lesson learned.
thaumasiotes 11mo ago
> And, of course, a hypothesis is capable of being proven. No, that's just you not understanding the definition of 'postulate'.