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

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #200:

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.

What difference does it make in what context, if the essence does not change - within an hour. If you did not mean this, you would have immediately written - any duration.

@Italiya said in #201:

What difference does it make in what context, if the essence does not change - within an hour.
The whole discussion started in the context of “the name is intentionally misleading.” That was the framework of my reply.

@Italiya said in #201:

If you did not mean this, you would have immediately written - any duration.
I could, but why should I?
To refute your first claim, the first argument was enough, because it already showed there was not even an inductive mistake. When that was no longer sufficient, and there was an inductive mistake, I brought in the second argument to show that the naming can be explained by reasons other than an intent to mislead. There was no need to use the second argument from the very beginning if the first one was already enough to disprove the accusation.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #202:

The whole discussion started in the context of “the name is intentionally misleading.” That was the framework of my reply.

I could, but why should I?
To refute your first claim, the first argument was enough, because it already showed there was not even an inductive mistake. When that was no longer sufficient, and there was an inductive mistake, I brought in the second argument to show that the naming can be explained by reasons other than an intent to mislead. There was no need to use the second argument from the very beginning if the first one was already enough to disprove the accusation.

<In English, "hourly" can be used to refer to events that occur regularly within an hour.>

Now you want to say that in English "hourly" can mean 2 hours or more?

@Italiya said in #203:

Now you want to say that in English "hourly" can mean 2 hours or more?
I want to say that if something can be used in one set of conditions, this does not mean it cannot be used in other contexts as well as example with word "contactless" illustrates.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #204:

I want to say that if something can be used in one set of conditions, this does not mean it cannot be used in other contexts as well as example with word "contactless" illustrates.

You gave a specific definition of both the word "hourly":

<In English, "hourly" can be used to refer to events that occur regularly within an hour.>

And how it is used in Lichess:

<The label "hourly" does not change the English meaning of the word. Unless there’s an official statement from Lichess that Hourly Bullet Arena happens exactly once per hour, the default reading is the standard English one: hourly can mean occurring every hour or multiple times within each hour.

In both places you clearly say that it means that the tournament takes place within an hour.

@Italiya said in #205:

You gave a specific definition of both the word "hourly"
Yes, and from that you can argue whether something is inductively correct or incorrect. But that still does not prove that the naming cannot be explained by reasons other than an intent to mislead.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #206:

Yes, and from that you can argue whether something is inductively correct or incorrect. But that still does not prove that the naming cannot be explained by reasons other than an intent to mislead.

You are trying to manipulate again. I am not talking about misleading.

Based on your two statements, can we say that the tournament can go on for more than an hour?

@Italiya said in #207:

You are trying to manipulate again. I am not talking about misleading.
There is no manipulation here — you are trying to take statements out of the context in which they were made. I already explained the context.

@Italiya said in #207:

Based on your two statements, can we say that the tournament can go on for more than an hour?
Based on the second — yes. The first one only shows that, under the standard English meaning of 'hourly', there is no inductive mistake. It does not answer the question of whether the tournament can last longer than one hour, nor does it exclude other possible uses of the word.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #208:

There is no manipulation here — you are trying to take statements out of the context in which they were made. I already explained the context.

Based on the second — yes. The first one only shows that, under the standard English meaning of 'hourly', there is no inductive mistake. It does not answer the question of whether the tournament can last longer than one hour, nor does it exclude other possible uses of the word.

If you give a clear definition of something basic, for example, that the earth is round, then regardless of the context you will not say that it is square and vice versa.

You gave a clear definition, and then applied it to this situation:

<In English, "hourly" can be used to refer to events that occur regularly within an hour.>

<The label "hourly" does not change the English meaning of the word. Unless there’s an official statement from Lichess that Hourly Bullet Arena happens exactly once per hour, the default reading is the standard English one: hourly can mean occurring every hour or multiple times within each hour.>

If after this you say that "hourly" can mean more than one hour, then you have to admit that you were wrong.

@Italiya said in #209:

If you give a clear definition of something basic, for example, that the earth is round, then regardless of the context you will not say that it is square and vice versa.
The analogy is incorrect, because you are equating two statements that both claim inductive truth and contradict each other. Out of my two statements, only one of them claims inductive truth. The second one explains why the naming is still acceptable.

A more accurate analogy would be this:
It’s as if you were trying to prove that calling certain objects "Earth" is wrong and meant to deceive, and as an example of misnaming you gave our own planet Earth. Then I would respond that the name "Earth" can be used for round objects (leaving aside other details for simplicity), and since the planet we live on is round and not square, there is no inductive error in calling it "Earth." Therefore, your example does not work as an illustration of misnaming.

After that, you might give an example from a computer game where a square planet is called Earth. To that I would answer that the name "Earth" in the game could be used as a label, a brand, or the name of a group of planets of a certain class, even if it leads to inductive falsity relative to the classical definition. This means there are other reasons for naming an oddly shaped object "Earth" besides the intention to deceive. That in turn means your example introduces other possible explanations, so the intention to deceive remains unproven.

Thus, if I provide a basic definition of a word in order to check for inductive truth, this does not mean that the word cannot be applied in cases where it leads to inductive falsity, provided there are reasons for using it. Nor does it mean that an explanation of why the word is used in a non-standard way contradicts the definition I gave for the purpose of testing inductive truth.

@Italiya said in #209:

If after this you say that "hourly" can mean more than one hour, then you have to admit that you were wrong.
What I am saying is that the word "hourly" can be used as a group label or brand, and in that case it can be applied to events lasting more than one hour. But this does not change the basic definition of "hourly."
In such a case the naming leads to an inductive error relative to the basic definition, but this does not mean that the label "hourly" cannot be used when there are reasons for it, even if it results in inductive falsity. The arguments that reflect these meanings do not contradict each other.

I really don’t know how to explain this more simply. Try drawing Euler circles: the inner circle is the first argument, the outer circle is the second argument. The inclusion of the first within the second does not make them contradictory.

Why should I admit that I am wrong, when you have not proven that I am wrong?
And moreover, why do you not admit defeat yourself in those cases when I proved you wrong and you had nothing to reply, and instead you simply started a new round of the debate?

So you want me to admit being wrong even when I have a valid response, but you do not admit being wrong even when you have nothing to say and just ignore the argumentation, moving on to a new topic. Don’t you think that’s a bit unfair?"