- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

The annual arenas are held twice a year, but not all...

#191

@Italiya said in #190:

First of all, you still need to explain how it is that your next statement completely contradicts the previous one, so that I can understand what your statements are worth. After all, you corrected me and said with absolute certainty how it should be:
You’re seeing a contradiction where there isn’t one. The second statement is consistent with both cases.

It applies both to the first example (Hourly Bullet Arena) and to the second (Hourly Rapid Arena). But since the absence of an inductive error in the first case had already been shown, using that broader explanation there as an additional argument against the accusation of deception would have been redundant. The second statement specifically clarifies why “Hourly Rapid” is not deceptive.

And as I wrote earlier, these two tournaments alone don’t form an acceptable or sufficient sample to establish a pattern that would prove an intention to mislead.

@Italiya said in #190: > First of all, you still need to explain how it is that your next statement completely contradicts the previous one, so that I can understand what your statements are worth. After all, you corrected me and said with absolute certainty how it should be: You’re seeing a contradiction where there isn’t one. The second statement is consistent with both cases. It applies both to the first example (Hourly Bullet Arena) and to the second (Hourly Rapid Arena). But since the absence of an inductive error in the first case had already been shown, using that broader explanation there as an additional argument against the accusation of deception would have been redundant. The second statement specifically clarifies why “Hourly Rapid” is not deceptive. And as I wrote earlier, these two tournaments alone don’t form an acceptable or sufficient sample to establish a pattern that would prove an intention to mislead.
#192

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #191:

You’re seeing a contradiction where there isn’t one. The second statement is consistent with both cases.

It applies both to the first example (Hourly Bullet Arena) and to the second (Hourly Rapid Arena). But since the absence of an inductive error in the first case had already been shown, using that broader explanation there as an additional argument against the accusation of deception would have been redundant. The second statement specifically clarifies why “Hourly Rapid” is not deceptive.

And as I wrote earlier, these two tournaments alone don’t form an acceptable or sufficient sample to establish a pattern that would prove an intention to mislead.

<hourly can mean occurring every hour or multiple times within each hour.
If you have an official statement from Lichess (in the ToS or other official documents) that says the Hourly Bullet Arena happens only once per hour, then please provide it.>

And now, without any official confirmation, you cancel the above and declare that this is, rather, a category. And the arena in this category can last as long as desired, and not within one hour.

<It’s more of a category label meaning ‘regular, frequently recurring arena,’ regardless of whether the event itself lasts 1 hour, 2 hours, or more.>

Then you confidently declare without any basis.
Again, no need to back up with any documents

<Also the tournament names (Hourly Bullet, Hourly Blitz, Hourly Rapid) are branded labels, not precise descriptions of the interval.>

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #191: > You’re seeing a contradiction where there isn’t one. The second statement is consistent with both cases. > > It applies both to the first example (Hourly Bullet Arena) and to the second (Hourly Rapid Arena). But since the absence of an inductive error in the first case had already been shown, using that broader explanation there as an additional argument against the accusation of deception would have been redundant. The second statement specifically clarifies why “Hourly Rapid” is not deceptive. > > And as I wrote earlier, these two tournaments alone don’t form an acceptable or sufficient sample to establish a pattern that would prove an intention to mislead. <hourly can mean occurring every hour or multiple times within each hour. If you have an official statement from Lichess (in the ToS or other official documents) that says the Hourly Bullet Arena happens only once per hour, then please provide it.> And now, without any official confirmation, you cancel the above and declare that this is, rather, a category. And the arena in this category can last as long as desired, and not within one hour. <It’s more of a category label meaning ‘regular, frequently recurring arena,’ regardless of whether the event itself lasts 1 hour, 2 hours, or more.> Then you confidently declare without any basis. Again, no need to back up with any documents <Also the tournament names (Hourly Bullet, Hourly Blitz, Hourly Rapid) are branded labels, not precise descriptions of the interval.>
#193

@Italiya said in #192:

<hourly can mean occurring every hour or multiple times within each hour.
If you have an official statement from Lichess (in the ToS or other official documents) that says the Hourly Bullet Arena happens only once per hour, then please provide it.>

And now, without any official confirmation, you cancel the above and declare that this is, rather, a category. And the arena in this category can last as long as desired, and not within one hour.

<It’s more of a category label meaning ‘regular, frequently recurring arena,’ regardless of whether the event itself lasts 1 hour, 2 hours, or more.>

Then you confidently declare without any basis.
Again, no need to back up with any documents

<Also the tournament names (Hourly Bullet, Hourly Blitz, Hourly Rapid) are branded labels, not precise descriptions of the interval.>
You are misunderstanding the structure of my argument. These are not contradictory claims, but two independent counter-arguments, each sufficient on its own to show that the use of “Hourly” does not amount to deception.

  1. Linguistic reading: In ordinary English, “hourly” can mean either “once per hour” or “several times per hour.” Under this interpretation, “Hourly Bullet” is still consistent and not misleading.
  2. Branding/category reading: Even if one does not accept the first point, the names like “Hourly Bullet,” “Hourly Blitz,” and “Hourly Rapid” can also be understood as branded category labels, where the exact duration of the arena is not encoded in the title but in the tournament description. This is common practice in event naming.

These are two alternative sufficient explanations, not mutually exclusive statements. The conclusion is the same in both cases: the use of “Hourly” does not prove intent to mislead.

I’m not declaring anything “without basis.” What I’m doing is presenting a plausible alternative explanation that fits the observed facts and does not require assuming intent to mislead. In logic, if a claim of deception is to hold, it must exclude reasonable alternative explanations.

The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation of deception, because such an accusation requires evidence of intent. As long as there are reasonable explanations (such as conventional naming patterns or branding categories), the claim of deception is not established.

So it is not me who needs to prove with official documents that “Hourly” is a brand. It is you who needs to prove that Lichess deliberately intended to mislead users — and that alternative explanations cannot account for the naming.

In more formal way:
H: "Lichess deliberately intends to mislead."
D1: "In Hourly Bullet there is no inductive error (the semantics of 'hourly' allow >1 times per hour)."
D2: "There are plausible alternative explanations (branding/internal terminology)."
D3: "The sample size is insufficient for a pattern (isolated cases, not a series)."
P: "There is a pattern of misleading names."
R: "Repetition (non-trivial share)."
S: "Unidirectional benefit."
A: "Alternative explanations are excluded at the set level."
E: "Alternative explanations are excluded altogether."
M: "There is motive/benefit (context)."
I: "Intent to mislead."

If each Di is sufficient on its own to refute H, then:
(D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H) ∧ (D3 -> ¬H) -> (D1 ∨ D2 ∨ D3) -> ¬H

If there is no pattern, or alternatives are not excluded, or there is no motive, then there is no proven intent:
(¬P ∨ ¬E ∨ ¬M) -> ¬I

If there is no repetition, or no unidirectionality, or alternatives are not excluded at the set level, then there is no pattern:
(¬R ∨ ¬S ∨ ¬A) -> ¬P

Thus we have:
(¬R ∨ ¬S ∨ ¬A) -> ¬P, (¬P ∨ ¬E ∨ ¬M) -> ¬I
From this we obtain:
(¬R ∨ ¬S ∨ ¬A ∨ ¬E ∨ ¬M) -> ¬I

Let’s denote:
S1: "Hourly keeps its ordinary English meaning; for Bullet this removes inductive error" (S1 -> D1).
S2: "Hourly is a brand/series, not a precise interval label" (S2 -> D2).

Then:
(S1 ∨ S2) -> (¬H)
where
S1 -> D1 -> ¬H, S2 -> D2 -> ¬H

This shows that the theses are compatible and independent: for Bullet, S1 is sufficient; for Rapid, S2 is appropriate. There is no logical conflict: both are different sufficient paths to ¬H.

That is: "We have (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven."

@Italiya said in #192: > <hourly can mean occurring every hour or multiple times within each hour. > If you have an official statement from Lichess (in the ToS or other official documents) that says the Hourly Bullet Arena happens only once per hour, then please provide it.> > > And now, without any official confirmation, you cancel the above and declare that this is, rather, a category. And the arena in this category can last as long as desired, and not within one hour. > > <It’s more of a category label meaning ‘regular, frequently recurring arena,’ regardless of whether the event itself lasts 1 hour, 2 hours, or more.> > > Then you confidently declare without any basis. > Again, no need to back up with any documents > > <Also the tournament names (Hourly Bullet, Hourly Blitz, Hourly Rapid) are branded labels, not precise descriptions of the interval.> You are misunderstanding the structure of my argument. These are not contradictory claims, but two independent counter-arguments, each sufficient on its own to show that the use of “Hourly” does not amount to deception. 1. Linguistic reading: In ordinary English, “hourly” can mean either “once per hour” or “several times per hour.” Under this interpretation, “Hourly Bullet” is still consistent and not misleading. 2. Branding/category reading: Even if one does not accept the first point, the names like “Hourly Bullet,” “Hourly Blitz,” and “Hourly Rapid” can also be understood as branded category labels, where the exact duration of the arena is not encoded in the title but in the tournament description. This is common practice in event naming. These are two alternative sufficient explanations, not mutually exclusive statements. The conclusion is the same in both cases: the use of “Hourly” does not prove intent to mislead. I’m not declaring anything “without basis.” What I’m doing is presenting a plausible alternative explanation that fits the observed facts and does not require assuming intent to mislead. In logic, if a claim of deception is to hold, it must exclude reasonable alternative explanations. The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation of deception, because such an accusation requires evidence of intent. As long as there are reasonable explanations (such as conventional naming patterns or branding categories), the claim of deception is not established. So it is not me who needs to prove with official documents that “Hourly” is a brand. It is you who needs to prove that Lichess deliberately intended to mislead users — and that alternative explanations cannot account for the naming. In more formal way: H: "Lichess deliberately intends to mislead." D1: "In Hourly Bullet there is no inductive error (the semantics of 'hourly' allow >1 times per hour)." D2: "There are plausible alternative explanations (branding/internal terminology)." D3: "The sample size is insufficient for a pattern (isolated cases, not a series)." P: "There is a pattern of misleading names." R: "Repetition (non-trivial share)." S: "Unidirectional benefit." A: "Alternative explanations are excluded at the set level." E: "Alternative explanations are excluded altogether." M: "There is motive/benefit (context)." I: "Intent to mislead." If each Di is sufficient on its own to refute H, then: (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H) ∧ (D3 -> ¬H) -> (D1 ∨ D2 ∨ D3) -> ¬H If there is no pattern, or alternatives are not excluded, or there is no motive, then there is no proven intent: (¬P ∨ ¬E ∨ ¬M) -> ¬I If there is no repetition, or no unidirectionality, or alternatives are not excluded at the set level, then there is no pattern: (¬R ∨ ¬S ∨ ¬A) -> ¬P Thus we have: (¬R ∨ ¬S ∨ ¬A) -> ¬P, (¬P ∨ ¬E ∨ ¬M) -> ¬I From this we obtain: (¬R ∨ ¬S ∨ ¬A ∨ ¬E ∨ ¬M) -> ¬I Let’s denote: S1: "Hourly keeps its ordinary English meaning; for Bullet this removes inductive error" (S1 -> D1). S2: "Hourly is a brand/series, not a precise interval label" (S2 -> D2). Then: (S1 ∨ S2) -> (¬H) where S1 -> D1 -> ¬H, S2 -> D2 -> ¬H This shows that the theses are compatible and independent: for Bullet, S1 is sufficient; for Rapid, S2 is appropriate. There is no logical conflict: both are different sufficient paths to ¬H. That is: "We have (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven."
#194
<Comment deleted by user>
#195

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #193:

You are misunderstanding the structure of my argument. These are not contradictory claims, but two independent counter-arguments, each sufficient on its own to show that the use of “Hourly” does not amount to deception.

  1. Linguistic reading: In ordinary English, “hourly” can mean either “once per hour” or “several times per hour.” Under this interpretation, “Hourly Bullet” is still consistent and not misleading.
  2. Branding/category reading: Even if one does not accept the first point, the names like “Hourly Bullet,” “Hourly Blitz,” and “Hourly Rapid” can also be understood as branded category labels, where the exact duration of the arena is not encoded in the title but in the tournament description. This is common practice in event naming.

These are two alternative sufficient explanations, not mutually exclusive statements. The conclusion is the same in both cases: the use of “Hourly” does not prove intent to mislead.

I’m not declaring anything “without basis.” What I’m doing is presenting a plausible alternative explanation that fits the observed facts and does not require assuming intent to mislead. In logic, if a claim of deception is to hold, it must exclude reasonable alternative explanations.

The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation of deception, because such an accusation requires evidence of intent. As long as there are reasonable explanations (such as conventional naming patterns or branding categories), the claim of deception is not established.

So it is not me who needs to prove with official documents that “Hourly” is a brand. It is you who needs to prove that Lichess deliberately intended to mislead users — and that alternative explanations cannot account for the naming.

In more formal way:
H: "Lichess deliberately intends to mislead."
D1: "In Hourly Bullet there is no inductive error (the semantics of 'hourly' allow >1 times per hour)."
D2: "There are plausible alternative explanations (branding/internal terminology)."
D3: "The sample size is insufficient for a pattern (isolated cases, not a series)."
P: "There is a pattern of misleading names."
R: "Repetition (non-trivial share)."
S: "Unidirectional benefit."
A: "Alternative explanations are excluded at the set level."
E: "Alternative explanations are excluded altogether."
M: "There is motive/benefit (context)."
I: "Intent to mislead."

If each Di is sufficient on its own to refute H, then:
(D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H) ∧ (D3 -> ¬H) -> (D1 ∨ D2 ∨ D3) -> ¬H

If there is no pattern, or alternatives are not excluded, or there is no motive, then there is no proven intent:
(¬P ∨ ¬E ∨ ¬M) -> ¬I

If there is no repetition, or no unidirectionality, or alternatives are not excluded at the set level, then there is no pattern:
(¬R ∨ ¬S ∨ ¬A) -> ¬P

Thus we have:
(¬R ∨ ¬S ∨ ¬A) -> ¬P, (¬P ∨ ¬E ∨ ¬M) -> ¬I
From this we obtain:
(¬R ∨ ¬S ∨ ¬A ∨ ¬E ∨ ¬M) -> ¬I

Let’s denote:
S1: "Hourly keeps its ordinary English meaning; for Bullet this removes inductive error" (S1 -> D1).
S2: "Hourly is a brand/series, not a precise interval label" (S2 -> D2).

Then:
(S1 ∨ S2) -> (¬H)
where
S1 -> D1 -> ¬H, S2 -> D2 -> ¬H

This shows that the theses are compatible and independent: for Bullet, S1 is sufficient; for Rapid, S2 is appropriate. There is no logical conflict: both are different sufficient paths to ¬H.

That is: "We have (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven."

You are trying to manipulate the fact that this necessarily involves deception.

I specifically point out your contradictory statements.

was:

<hourly can mean occurring every hour or multiple times within each hour.
If you have an official statement from Lichess (in the ToS or other official documents) that says the Hourly Bullet Arena happens only once per hour, then please provide it.>

Now:

<It’s more of a category label meaning ‘regular, frequently recurring arena,’ regardless of whether the event itself lasts 1 hour, 2 hours, or more.>

So there’s nothing left of the first statement in the second. Now you’re simply saying that the arena can last as long as you like.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #193: > You are misunderstanding the structure of my argument. These are not contradictory claims, but two independent counter-arguments, each sufficient on its own to show that the use of “Hourly” does not amount to deception. > > 1. Linguistic reading: In ordinary English, “hourly” can mean either “once per hour” or “several times per hour.” Under this interpretation, “Hourly Bullet” is still consistent and not misleading. > 2. Branding/category reading: Even if one does not accept the first point, the names like “Hourly Bullet,” “Hourly Blitz,” and “Hourly Rapid” can also be understood as branded category labels, where the exact duration of the arena is not encoded in the title but in the tournament description. This is common practice in event naming. > > These are two alternative sufficient explanations, not mutually exclusive statements. The conclusion is the same in both cases: the use of “Hourly” does not prove intent to mislead. > > I’m not declaring anything “without basis.” What I’m doing is presenting a plausible alternative explanation that fits the observed facts and does not require assuming intent to mislead. In logic, if a claim of deception is to hold, it must exclude reasonable alternative explanations. > > The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation of deception, because such an accusation requires evidence of intent. As long as there are reasonable explanations (such as conventional naming patterns or branding categories), the claim of deception is not established. > > So it is not me who needs to prove with official documents that “Hourly” is a brand. It is you who needs to prove that Lichess deliberately intended to mislead users — and that alternative explanations cannot account for the naming. > > In more formal way: > H: "Lichess deliberately intends to mislead." > D1: "In Hourly Bullet there is no inductive error (the semantics of 'hourly' allow >1 times per hour)." > D2: "There are plausible alternative explanations (branding/internal terminology)." > D3: "The sample size is insufficient for a pattern (isolated cases, not a series)." > P: "There is a pattern of misleading names." > R: "Repetition (non-trivial share)." > S: "Unidirectional benefit." > A: "Alternative explanations are excluded at the set level." > E: "Alternative explanations are excluded altogether." > M: "There is motive/benefit (context)." > I: "Intent to mislead." > > If each Di is sufficient on its own to refute H, then: > (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H) ∧ (D3 -> ¬H) -> (D1 ∨ D2 ∨ D3) -> ¬H > > If there is no pattern, or alternatives are not excluded, or there is no motive, then there is no proven intent: > (¬P ∨ ¬E ∨ ¬M) -> ¬I > > If there is no repetition, or no unidirectionality, or alternatives are not excluded at the set level, then there is no pattern: > (¬R ∨ ¬S ∨ ¬A) -> ¬P > > Thus we have: > (¬R ∨ ¬S ∨ ¬A) -> ¬P, (¬P ∨ ¬E ∨ ¬M) -> ¬I > From this we obtain: > (¬R ∨ ¬S ∨ ¬A ∨ ¬E ∨ ¬M) -> ¬I > > Let’s denote: > S1: "Hourly keeps its ordinary English meaning; for Bullet this removes inductive error" (S1 -> D1). > S2: "Hourly is a brand/series, not a precise interval label" (S2 -> D2). > > Then: > (S1 ∨ S2) -> (¬H) > where > S1 -> D1 -> ¬H, S2 -> D2 -> ¬H > > This shows that the theses are compatible and independent: for Bullet, S1 is sufficient; for Rapid, S2 is appropriate. There is no logical conflict: both are different sufficient paths to ¬H. > > That is: "We have (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven." You are trying to manipulate the fact that this necessarily involves deception. I specifically point out your contradictory statements. was: <hourly can mean occurring every hour or multiple times within each hour. If you have an official statement from Lichess (in the ToS or other official documents) that says the Hourly Bullet Arena happens only once per hour, then please provide it.> Now: <It’s more of a category label meaning ‘regular, frequently recurring arena,’ regardless of whether the event itself lasts 1 hour, 2 hours, or more.> So there’s nothing left of the first statement in the second. Now you’re simply saying that the arena can last as long as you like.
#196

@Italiya said in #195:

I specifically point out your contradictory statements.
There is no manipulation because whole argumentation is connected in one structure and you try to take statements out of context. And I explained why there is no contradiction:
We have (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven.

"Now you’re simply saying that the arena can last as long as you like."
This is true while it is within the bounds of common sense. Theoretically arena can last for a year, but it will be against common sense of Lichess developers. 2 hours are within acceptable boundaries of Lichess developers.

@Italiya said in #195: > I specifically point out your contradictory statements. There is no manipulation because whole argumentation is connected in one structure and you try to take statements out of context. And I explained why there is no contradiction: We have (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven. >"Now you’re simply saying that the arena can last as long as you like." This is true while it is within the bounds of common sense. Theoretically arena can last for a year, but it will be against common sense of Lichess developers. 2 hours are within acceptable boundaries of Lichess developers.
#197

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #196:

There is no manipulation because whole argumentation is connected in one structure and you try to take statements out of context. And I explained why there is no contradiction:
We have (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven.

This is true while it is within the bounds of common sense. Theoretically arena can last for a year, but it will be against common sense of Lichess developers. 2 hours are within acceptable boundaries of Lichess developers.

In this case, the context does not matter, since you are evaluating the system as such. You will assure that the arena should go for an hour, then - as much as you like

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #196: > There is no manipulation because whole argumentation is connected in one structure and you try to take statements out of context. And I explained why there is no contradiction: > We have (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven. > > > This is true while it is within the bounds of common sense. Theoretically arena can last for a year, but it will be against common sense of Lichess developers. 2 hours are within acceptable boundaries of Lichess developers. In this case, the context does not matter, since you are evaluating the system as such. You will assure that the arena should go for an hour, then - as much as you like
#198

@Italiya said in #197:

You will assure that the arena should go for an hour, then - as much as you like
The definition of the word "hourly" in English does not require that an "Hourly Arena" must last exactly one hour. This point only shows why there is no inductive mistake in the first case. So there is no contradiction: one statement explains why "hourly" does not strictly mean one hour, and the other explains why the label functions as a recurring category. Both are consistent with each other.

Logic is simple:
(D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven.

@Italiya said in #197: > You will assure that the arena should go for an hour, then - as much as you like The definition of the word "hourly" in English does not require that an "Hourly Arena" must last exactly one hour. This point only shows why there is no inductive mistake in the first case. So there is no contradiction: one statement explains why "hourly" does not strictly mean one hour, and the other explains why the label functions as a recurring category. Both are consistent with each other. Logic is simple: (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven.
#199

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #198:

The definition of the word "hourly" in English does not require that an "Hourly Arena" must last exactly one hour. This point only shows why there is no inductive mistake in the first case. So there is no contradiction: one statement explains why "hourly" does not strictly mean one hour, and the other explains why the label functions as a recurring category. Both are consistent with each other.

Logic is simple:
(D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven.

In the first message you stated that the event takes place within an hour. I emphasize - WITHIN AN HOUR. In the next one you already state that it can go on for as long as you like.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #198: > The definition of the word "hourly" in English does not require that an "Hourly Arena" must last exactly one hour. This point only shows why there is no inductive mistake in the first case. So there is no contradiction: one statement explains why "hourly" does not strictly mean one hour, and the other explains why the label functions as a recurring category. Both are consistent with each other. > > Logic is simple: > (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven. In the first message you stated that the event takes place within an hour. I emphasize - WITHIN AN HOUR. In the next one you already state that it can go on for as long as you like.
#200

@Italiya said in #199:

In the first message you stated that the event takes place within an hour. I emphasize - WITHIN AN HOUR. In the next one you already state that it can go on for as long as you like.
Lets check.

My quote:
"In English, 'hourly' can be used to refer to events that occur regularly within an hour."
Pay attention: "can be used to refer to events."

If something can be used in one set of conditions, this does not mean it cannot be used in other contexts as well.

For example: The word "contactless" can be used when the following condition is met: no physical, electromagnetic, or any other kind of interaction. In such a case there is no inductive mistake. But the same word is also used in the phrase "Contactless Payment" based on branding reasons. The fact that "contactless" can be used in cases where it directly matches its strict definition does not mean that it cannot also be used in cases where, strictly speaking, it would otherwise create an inductive mistake.

Hence both statements are consistent with each other:
(D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven.

@Italiya said in #199: > In the first message you stated that the event takes place within an hour. I emphasize - WITHIN AN HOUR. In the next one you already state that it can go on for as long as you like. Lets check. My quote: "In English, 'hourly' can be used to refer to events that occur regularly within an hour." Pay attention: "can be used to refer to events." If something can be used in one set of conditions, this does not mean it cannot be used in other contexts as well. For example: The word "contactless" can be used when the following condition is met: no physical, electromagnetic, or any other kind of interaction. In such a case there is no inductive mistake. But the same word is also used in the phrase "Contactless Payment" based on branding reasons. The fact that "contactless" can be used in cases where it directly matches its strict definition does not mean that it cannot also be used in cases where, strictly speaking, it would otherwise create an inductive mistake. Hence both statements are consistent with each other: (D1 -> ¬H) ∧ (D2 -> ¬H), therefore (D1 ∨ D2) -> ¬H. Since at least one of D1, D2 is true, H is not proven.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.