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

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #210:

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.

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?"

<The second one explains why the naming is still acceptable.>

How is the second one still acceptable if there is no explanation on the site and all we can rely on is the base value?

@Italiya said in #211 :

How is the second one still acceptable if there is no explanation on the site and all we can rely on is the base value?

1. The tournament schedule and schedule history always shows the duration of Hourly Rapid Arena. If someone can read the tournament’s name, they can also see its length — it’s not hidden anywhere.
2. Even if the duration weren’t available, the branding argument I explained in detail earlier (see message #165) would still apply. I won’t repeat the same points here.
3. Yes, the name involves an inductive error — I never denied that. But deception requires proving the intent to mislead, and that has not been demonstrated.

So that’s how it is. Shall we wrap this up, or do you want to continue?"

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #212:

@Italiya said in #211 :

1. The tournament schedule and schedule history always shows the duration of Hourly Rapid Arena. If someone can read the tournament’s name, they can also see its length — it’s not hidden anywhere.
2. Even if the duration weren’t available, the branding argument I explained in detail earlier (see message #165) would still apply. I won’t repeat the same points here.
3. Yes, the name involves an inductive error — I never denied that. But deception requires proving the intent to mislead, and that has not been demonstrated.

So that’s how it is. Shall we wrap this up, or do you want to continue?"

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

It is unclear where you get this from.
Instead of a basic understanding, you fantasize and invent what the developers meant. Although if you use all the information available on the site, nothing like this is said anywhere.

@Italiya said in #213:

It is unclear where you get this from.
Trying a different angle this time? :D

I rely on observable facts, where there are no extreme cases of inductive errors. The deviation usually does not exceed a couple of times.
Moreover, the frequency of tournaments fits within the broader definition of the English word "hourly", which is: very frequently or continually. So even if the Hourly Rapid Arena takes place once every two hours, that is still “frequent,” and therefore in English the word "hourly" can be used for such events.
And no, knowing you in advance, I’ll say: there is no contradiction between the first argument, the second, or the third one I just mentioned.

There is also another meaning of the word hourly in English, but to avoid turning this into an English lesson, I’ll stop at these two. You can google additional information about the word hourly yourself if you’re interested.

Sometimes it’s worth using logic — it helps to operate correctly with “basic understanding.” Without it, one can fall into many cognitive errors.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #214:

Trying a different angle this time? :D

I rely on observable facts, where there are no extreme cases of inductive errors. The deviation usually does not exceed a couple of times.
Moreover, the frequency of tournaments fits within the broader definition of the English word "hourly", which is: very frequently or continually. So even if the Hourly Rapid Arena takes place once every two hours, that is still “frequent,” and therefore in English the word "hourly" can be used for such events.
And no, knowing you in advance, I’ll say: there is no contradiction between the first argument, the second, or the third one I just mentioned.

There is also another meaning of the word hourly in English, but to avoid turning this into an English lesson, I’ll stop at these two. You can google additional information about the word hourly yourself if you’re interested.

Sometimes it’s worth using logic — it helps to operate correctly with “basic understanding.” Without it, one can fall into many cognitive errors.

So in this case it doesn't mean hourly, but often? So if you ask a native speaker what the expression Hourly Rapid Arena means? Will he answer - constant? Like, for example, hourly use of medicine? I will also remind you that this list includes all arenas, including 24-hour ones. Then they could all be called Hourly, if it still doesn't mean that the arena should go on an hour or every hour.

@Italiya said in #215:

Will he answer - constant?
This is one of the possible definitions of the word. If there is no context, the word can take any of its available meanings. What exactly a native speaker will think of at the moment you ask the question — and which definition he will choose — I cannot say for sure. Most likely, he would want to look at the context and then decide which meaning best fits in terms of inductive truth.

In the sense of 'frequently,' hourly describes repeated actions within a 24-hour period. Typically this means once every few hours, many times per day, or even continuously. For example: She checks her phone hourly. Or: The situation worsens hourly. There is no strict boundary within 24 hours.

If something happens once every 24 hours or so, then the word daily is used instead. If an event occurs once every 24 hours or less often, calling it hourly could only be justified as a branding choice, but it would contradict common sense — so developers generally do not use such naming in those cases.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #216:

<calling it hourly could only be justified as a branding choice, but it would contradict common sense — so developers generally do not use such naming in those cases.>

Well, you justify everything with branding.
Hourly does not necessarily have to be hourly, annual may not be annual. You do not take common sense into account.

@Italiya said in #217:

Well, you justify everything with branding.
Hourly does not necessarily have to be hourly, annual may not be annual. You do not take common sense into account.
If you think about it, in the case of 'hourly' there’s actually no need to use the branding argument, since there is no inductive error here. That argument only becomes relevant when such an error exists — I just mentioned it as a precaution.

And I do take common sense into account. From the very beginning I never denied the inductive error; I only pointed out that its presence does not prove an intent to mislead, especially when there is at least an alternative explanation through branding.

So, if I’ve already addressed the key points, we can wrap this up.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #218:

So you yourself defined "hourly" as an event that happens either every hour or during an hour, and then you started to come up with excuses that it could be more than an hour.
That's how players think that the main meaning is meant. This is called manipulation.

@Italiya said in #219:

So you yourself defined "hourly" as an event that happens either every hour or during an hour, and then you started to come up with excuses that it could be more than an hour.
Since when is pointing out that a word can have multiple definitions considered an excuse? When you solve a math problem, are you not solving it but merely making excuses?
I presented one of the definitions that refuted your claim. That doesn’t mean it was the only argument I could have used.

You yourself accused me of supposedly speaking for everyone without conducting any surveys. So have you now conducted a survey and can speak for all players about which exact definition of 'hourly' they apply in context? Or do you have evidence that you possess telepathic abilities and can declare what others are thinking?
Not to mention, even if many people believe that the brain works at only 10 percent, that doesn’t make it true — and pointing out otherwise is not manipulation.

@Italiya said in #219:

This is called manipulation.
Clarifying that a word can take multiple meanings is not twisting facts; it’s simply describing how language works. That’s called logic, not manipulation.

It seems you’ve run out of arguments on the actual substance of the discussion, so you’ve resorted to demagoguery. By now you should have realized that such rhetorical tricks won’t work on me.

If this is the end of constructive arguments, I suggest we end the discussion.