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

@Italiya said in #250:

In that case, I choose the 5/4 ratio
I like it better, do you mind?
The World Series requires fewer steps to prove the relevance of the example. In fact, I have already demonstrated its relevance, and you ignored my reasoning. Apple requires more steps to prove its relevance. Any ratio that reflects this idea can be appropriate, but the greater the hyperbole, the more vividly the idea is conveyed.

How does the 5/4 ratio (more steps for proving the relevance of World Series and fewer steps for proving the relevance of Apple) convey the idea that proving the relevance of World Series takes fewer steps than Apple? Do you not see the logical error? So you can choose any ratios you like, but they will have nothing to do with my illustration.

You are substituting my illustration with the opposite in meaning and presenting it as an alternative. But that is no longer an illustration of my idea — it is a distortion.

@Italiya said in #250:

A direct accusation.
According to your statement, I can be complained about for off-topic.
Yes, I could have already filed a complaint, since you have repeatedly violated forum etiquette, and this could have led to your punishment — but that is not interesting to me. I find it more fair and effective as a punishment to consistently expose the weakness of your arguments.

Thus, you end up punishing yourself: you try to come up with counterarguments, but they get refuted again and again, which hurts your pride, because you don’t know how to lose. Then you look for new hooks, which also fail, and this strikes your pride even harder — and the cycle repeats.

It is reminiscent of an old pastime, where a barrel with nails was thrown in front of a bear: the bear would strike it, grow furious, strike harder, and eventually bleed out. In this metaphor, the barrel is my reasoning.

This is only a metaphor, illustrating the futility of your strategy — nothing more.

In the end, you will either continue punishing yourself if, instead of seeking truth, you keep trying to win the argument by any means, or you will return to a constructive path, and we will finish the discussion with concrete conclusions.

I am not going to prevent you from striking the barrel by filing a complaint, so that later you could claim that you would have responded, but evil Lichess did not let you, unfairly depriving you of the opportunity to participate because your arguments were supposedly too crushing.

Of course, you could try moving on to outright insults or even posting prohibited links, in which case you might get banned even without anyone filing a complaint — if it is easier for you to get yet another restricted account than to conduct a constructive discussion.

@Italiya said in #250:

You repeated this several times.
Later, you write that you don’t mind wasting your time, but it just takes longer, but this example is suitable for analysis.
The fact that I have time for discussion does not mean that I cannot strive to conduct it as efficiently as possible.

We are having a constructive discussion, aren’t we? If so, then it is most rational to use less controversial examples, when available, so as not to waste extra time. A constructive discussion presupposes focusing on substance in the most effective manner, because any strategies that drag the discussion out or lead it off track do not correspond to the format of a constructive discussion.

Or are you admitting that your goal is not the pursuit of truth, but winning the argument at any cost?

@Italiya said in #250:

Despite the fact that you yourself say that there is no guarantee that other examples can be analyzed faster. This is only your assumption.
This is not baseless speculation but a reasoned assumption. Moreover, I have already proven the relevance of the 'World Series' example, and I haven’t seen any counterarguments from you. That is, it took me one message to do so. This makes what I said not just a reasoned assumption but a reasoned assumption confirmed in practice. This is because the messages devoted to the Apple dispute are far more than one.

@Italiya said in #250:

That is, you yourself offered a list of examples, nowhere indicated what can be chosen and what cannot, then began to accuse me of leading the discussion astray, right down to off-topic.
You started with accusations, now you've softened your rhetoric.
You seem to have trouble remembering the chronology of the discussion. Or you’re incorrectly translating from English to Russian. Here’s what I wrote from the very beginning:
'If you don’t like that example, you can take another — the point remains the same. There’s no need to sidetrack the discussion.'
Where you saw accusations here is unclear. It’s also unclear where you saw a softening of rhetoric, as I haven’t retracted any of the words I’ve said within the current discussion. I accused you of derailing the discussion only when you refused to move to a less contentious example. Before that, I only suggested not going off track. That wasn’t an accusation against you; it was a pointer to actions to avoid to keep the discussion constructive, productive, and effective.

@Italiya said in #250:

Now you're ready to adapt.
Where did you see that I’m now ready to adapt when I wasn’t before? From the very beginning, I said that I try not to waste more time than necessary but act according to the situation.
What you’re doing is called 'suppressed evidence' in logic textbooks. That is, you’re ignoring other, less contentious examples. This is a logical fallacy. I can’t stop you from making logical fallacies, but I can point them out and show how to correct them, as we’re having a constructive discussion.
But if you keep making the same logical fallacy, the most reasonable strategy is to adapt to the situation while continuing to point out the logical fallacy to steer the discussion back to a more productive course or to understand why you persist in making the logical fallacy. If it’s intentional and reaching the truth as quickly as possible is no longer your priority, then I can draw the appropriate conclusions and proceed based on that information."

@Italiya said in #250:

The funniest thing is that you intentionally directly suggested to me several times to go off-topic:

<I've already told you: if you just really want to prove me wrong about something, it would be easier to look for grammar mistakes. That would also be unrelated to the core issue, but at least you'd have a better chance there.>
You know what’s really funny? :D
What’s even funnier is that you take it seriously, interpreting it literally as a call to action. You’re pulling an ironic remark out of context and treating it as literal. I didn’t think a sign saying 'irony' was needed here. The point of the statement was that arguing about Apple is as pointless as arguing about grammar mistakes, since there are less contentious examples, but with grammar mistakes, you’d at least have a better chance. It’s not a call to action but an illustration of the futility of trying to latch onto something just to prove I’m wrong somewhere.

@Italiya said in #250:

It's impossible to comment on this in my right mind, but on this occasion I can quote.
After all, it's so logical to say that you're looking for a shorter path, but at the same time you're ready to lengthen it with an outright off-topic.
Usually, my interlocutors can recognize irony, so I couldn’t have imagined you’d take irony as a call to action. If you had actually done that, I would have simply pointed it out as proof of the weakness of your position and likely ended the discussion. The same would happen if you started with direct insults or in certain other cases.

@Italiya said in #250:

You also wrote that you're not interested in having a dialogue in terms of "I like it/I don't like it."
Exactly. There’s no point in arguing about emotional evaluations. I’m interested in logic, not emotions.

@Italiya said in #250:

So now you yourself are saying that you don't want to analyze it using Apple as an example, because you don't like it.
After all, you consider it relevant and are not even sure that others will take less time.
No need to distort my words so much or confuse subjective evaluation with subjective choice. I suggested using the 'World Series' example because it’s less contentious and requires fewer steps to argue its relevance, not because I subjectively dislike Apple. I prefer more cautious phrasing, so I don’t deal in guarantees. I spoke of a reasoned assumption based on the characteristics of the 'World Series' brand. And in the end, this was confirmed in practice, as it took me one message to prove the relevance of 'World Series.' That’s definitely fewer messages than the substantive ones we’ve spent arguing about Apple.

@Italiya said in #250:

I do not confuse it with a trademark, this applies to a brand first and foremost, since a brand should evoke an association with uniqueness, and not with a category.
In certain cases, some categories can become trademarks. There are criteria for this.
Also, using categories in marketing is permissible if you’re not claiming brand protection. For example, you can name a store 'Sausages.' You just can’t register that brand as a trademark or protect it from copying.
In general, you’re confusing the legal aspect with formal truth. In legal practice, there are rules for registering a brand as a trademark, but formally, even a category can be a brand—it just won’t have legal protection."

@Italiya said in #250:

It is not about the plural, but about the fact that an apple can be a tree, but a knife cannot.
You initially wrote:
'Considering the fact that the store is called an apple, and not apples, it is even more necessary to make sure that this is not the only apple bought.'
That is, the problem, according to your own words, is that a person might think only one apple is sold there. In the case of 'Knife Depot,' you say that 'Depot' serves as a clue indicating that more than one knife may be sold. Therefore, by the same logic, in 'Apple Store,' 'Store' serves as a clue indicating that more than one apple may be sold.
Then you object, saying it’s different because 'Apple' has two main meanings—apple and apple tree.
How do the two possible definitions interfere with applying the logic that the second word indicates that more than one object, defined by the first word, may be sold at that place?
In other words, we have:
def_1 - first definition
def_2 - second definition, if applicable
(Person sees Knife Depot) => (Knife:def_1) => (Depot provides a clue) => (Knife:def_1 > 1) (more than one knife is sold)
(Person sees Apple Store) => (Apple:def_1) => (Store provides a clue) => (Apple:def_1 > 1) (more than one apple is sold)
(Person sees Apple Store) => (Apple:def_2) => (Store provides a clue) => (Apple:def_2 > 1) (more than one tree is sold)
The result is the same regardless of which base definition a person chooses.
In summary: both in the case of 'Knife Depot' and 'Apple Store,' the second word indicates plurality. Therefore, your argument that an apple can be a tree while a knife cannot does not negate the logic. This is a substitution of the discussed property.

@Italiya said in #250:

An analogy is a direct comparison.
How is the need to go to a website equated to studying history?
Not at all. You should read at least one logic textbook to understand the terms you’re using.
An analogy is a method of reasoning in which we transfer properties, characteristics, or relationships established for one object to another based on their similarity.
Thus, equating 'visiting a website to dispel a misconception' with 'studying tournament history to dispel a misconception' is just as 'direct' as your analogy.
We’re simply equating different aspects. But I see no reason why I should use your analogy instead of mine. Your analogy is neither better nor worse; it just equates a different informational aspect.

@Italiya said in #250:

You are trying to equate a sign without additional information with directly going to a website or physically to a store.
No, I’m equating visiting a website to dispel a misconception with studying tournament history to dispel a misconception.

@Italiya said in #250:

We are surrounded by names that do not understand what is meant - a store, a film or an amusement park.
I don’t know where you live, but if I’m surrounded by words with commonly accepted dictionary meanings, I understand them quite well. If the meaning of a word or the association it evokes does not lead to incorrect decisions, then the word is not misleading. If it can lead to incorrect decisions, then it can be misleading.
If the meaning of a word is unclear, it’s likely a unique combination of letters.

@Italiya said in #250:

If you had to align yourself with aliens from another planet, then detailed information would be written under each sign, but the focus is on modern society.
This does not negate the fact that if a person is unfamiliar with the Apple brand, they can be misled in certain situations. They don’t need to be an alien for that.

@Italiya said in #250:

"Little Shop of Horrors" and the like does not mean that this is a store at all.
Of course, but that doesn’t mean such a brand can’t be misleading.

@Italiya said in #250:

You wrote that if a person is nearby, he can come in. That is, you understand that a person will not go somewhere specially without knowing for sure.
So if a person comes in out of curiosity on the way, this will not be considered misleading.
If a person, out of curiosity, wanted to visit a store related to apples or apple trees but saw something they didn’t expect, it means the brand led to an incorrect decision, which fits the definition of 'misleading,' making the brand suitable as an example of brands that can mislead.
So, depending on the type of curiosity, the brand can indeed be misleading.

@Italiya said in #250:

However, the point is that in the store itself, be it physical or online, it can no longer be the case that there is a phone with a description of the apple on the display.
For a brand to be suitable as an example of brands that can mislead, it’s enough for there to be a possibility of misleading in the absence of additional information. The absence of misleading when a person encounters the brand in a store or on a website does not negate the possibility of misleading if they are unfamiliar with the brand and encounter it outside the context of electronics.

@Italiya said in #250:

Not the history of the brand, but the name and description.
Everything is clear at the selection stage.
This is the main difference, that at this stage, Arena Lichess is misleading.
The fact that everything becomes clear at the phone selection stage does not mean that if a person is unfamiliar with the brand, a misconception couldn’t arise before they entered the store or visited the website. Therefore, the brand fits the definition of 'misleading' and is valid as an example.
After reviewing the tournament history, everything becomes clear too.

@Italiya said in #250:

I can also return to the translation.
Firstly, not the translation, but the choice of language provided by the site - this is a huge difference.
Secondly, you wrote that then I will have to come to the conclusion that the Chinese or Germans are deliberately misled, unlike the English, which will be absurd.
What do you mean "I'll have to come to a conclusion?" You never know what might be absurd to you personally. In fact, it won't be like that?
What’s the big difference between translating into other languages and choosing languages provided by the site? Translation is the process of interpreting the meaning of text or speech from a source language and creating new, equivalent text in the target language. All non-original languages (those not present at the site’s launch) are translations. The fact that the site offers a language choice doesn’t turn a translation into an 'original.'
As for the second point, I assume you’ll reason logically. Of course, if you rise above logic and equate knives with trees, then with that approach, your conclusions indeed become unpredictable. But then a constructive discussion becomes unlikely.
In any case, we’ve already discussed this and reached the current point in the discussion. I see no reason to revisit it and loop the discussion, as:

1. You chose to communicate in English, not another language.
2. This doesn’t refute that names are branded.
3. It doesn’t prove that a brand cannot be misleading by definition.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #251:

The World Series requires fewer steps to prove the relevance of the example. In fact, I have already demonstrated its relevance, and you ignored my reasoning. Apple requires more steps to prove its relevance. Any ratio that reflects this idea can be appropriate, but the greater the hyperbole, the more vividly the idea is conveyed.

How does the 5/4 ratio (more steps for proving the relevance of World Series and fewer steps for proving the relevance of Apple) convey the idea that proving the relevance of World Series takes fewer steps than Apple? Do you not see the logical error? So you can choose any ratios you like, but they will have nothing to do with my illustration.

You are substituting my illustration with the opposite in meaning and presenting it as an alternative. But that is no longer an illustration of my idea — it is a distortion.

Yes, I could have already filed a complaint, since you have repeatedly violated forum etiquette, and this could have led to your punishment — but that is not interesting to me. I find it more fair and effective as a punishment to consistently expose the weakness of your arguments.

Thus, you end up punishing yourself: you try to come up with counterarguments, but they get refuted again and again, which hurts your pride, because you don’t know how to lose. Then you look for new hooks, which also fail, and this strikes your pride even harder — and the cycle repeats.

It is reminiscent of an old pastime, where a barrel with nails was thrown in front of a bear: the bear would strike it, grow furious, strike harder, and eventually bleed out. In this metaphor, the barrel is my reasoning.

This is only a metaphor, illustrating the futility of your strategy — nothing more.

In the end, you will either continue punishing yourself if, instead of seeking truth, you keep trying to win the argument by any means, or you will return to a constructive path, and we will finish the discussion with concrete conclusions.

I am not going to prevent you from striking the barrel by filing a complaint, so that later you could claim that you would have responded, but evil Lichess did not let you, unfairly depriving you of the opportunity to participate because your arguments were supposedly too crushing.

Of course, you could try moving on to outright insults or even posting prohibited links, in which case you might get banned even without anyone filing a complaint — if it is easier for you to get yet another restricted account than to conduct a constructive discussion.

The fact that I have time for discussion does not mean that I cannot strive to conduct it as efficiently as possible.

We are having a constructive discussion, aren’t we? If so, then it is most rational to use less controversial examples, when available, so as not to waste extra time. A constructive discussion presupposes focusing on substance in the most effective manner, because any strategies that drag the discussion out or lead it off track do not correspond to the format of a constructive discussion.

Or are you admitting that your goal is not the pursuit of truth, but winning the argument at any cost?

This is not baseless speculation but a reasoned assumption. Moreover, I have already proven the relevance of the 'World Series' example, and I haven’t seen any counterarguments from you. That is, it took me one message to do so. This makes what I said not just a reasoned assumption but a reasoned assumption confirmed in practice. This is because the messages devoted to the Apple dispute are far more than one.

You seem to have trouble remembering the chronology of the discussion. Or you’re incorrectly translating from English to Russian. Here’s what I wrote from the very beginning:
'If you don’t like that example, you can take another — the point remains the same. There’s no need to sidetrack the discussion.'
Where you saw accusations here is unclear. It’s also unclear where you saw a softening of rhetoric, as I haven’t retracted any of the words I’ve said within the current discussion. I accused you of derailing the discussion only when you refused to move to a less contentious example. Before that, I only suggested not going off track. That wasn’t an accusation against you; it was a pointer to actions to avoid to keep the discussion constructive, productive, and effective.

Where did you see that I’m now ready to adapt when I wasn’t before? From the very beginning, I said that I try not to waste more time than necessary but act according to the situation.
What you’re doing is called 'suppressed evidence' in logic textbooks. That is, you’re ignoring other, less contentious examples. This is a logical fallacy. I can’t stop you from making logical fallacies, but I can point them out and show how to correct them, as we’re having a constructive discussion.
But if you keep making the same logical fallacy, the most reasonable strategy is to adapt to the situation while continuing to point out the logical fallacy to steer the discussion back to a more productive course or to understand why you persist in making the logical fallacy. If it’s intentional and reaching the truth as quickly as possible is no longer your priority, then I can draw the appropriate conclusions and proceed based on that information."

You know what’s really funny? :D
What’s even funnier is that you take it seriously, interpreting it literally as a call to action. You’re pulling an ironic remark out of context and treating it as literal. I didn’t think a sign saying 'irony' was needed here. The point of the statement was that arguing about Apple is as pointless as arguing about grammar mistakes, since there are less contentious examples, but with grammar mistakes, you’d at least have a better chance. It’s not a call to action but an illustration of the futility of trying to latch onto something just to prove I’m wrong somewhere.

Usually, my interlocutors can recognize irony, so I couldn’t have imagined you’d take irony as a call to action. If you had actually done that, I would have simply pointed it out as proof of the weakness of your position and likely ended the discussion. The same would happen if you started with direct insults or in certain other cases.

Exactly. There’s no point in arguing about emotional evaluations. I’m interested in logic, not emotions.

No need to distort my words so much or confuse subjective evaluation with subjective choice. I suggested using the 'World Series' example because it’s less contentious and requires fewer steps to argue its relevance, not because I subjectively dislike Apple. I prefer more cautious phrasing, so I don’t deal in guarantees. I spoke of a reasoned assumption based on the characteristics of the 'World Series' brand. And in the end, this was confirmed in practice, as it took me one message to prove the relevance of 'World Series.' That’s definitely fewer messages than the substantive ones we’ve spent arguing about Apple.

In certain cases, some categories can become trademarks. There are criteria for this.
Also, using categories in marketing is permissible if you’re not claiming brand protection. For example, you can name a store 'Sausages.' You just can’t register that brand as a trademark or protect it from copying.
In general, you’re confusing the legal aspect with formal truth. In legal practice, there are rules for registering a brand as a trademark, but formally, even a category can be a brand—it just won’t have legal protection."

You initially wrote:
'Considering the fact that the store is called an apple, and not apples, it is even more necessary to make sure that this is not the only apple bought.'
That is, the problem, according to your own words, is that a person might think only one apple is sold there. In the case of 'Knife Depot,' you say that 'Depot' serves as a clue indicating that more than one knife may be sold. Therefore, by the same logic, in 'Apple Store,' 'Store' serves as a clue indicating that more than one apple may be sold.
Then you object, saying it’s different because 'Apple' has two main meanings—apple and apple tree.
How do the two possible definitions interfere with applying the logic that the second word indicates that more than one object, defined by the first word, may be sold at that place?
In other words, we have:
def_1 - first definition
def_2 - second definition, if applicable
(Person sees Knife Depot) => (Knife:def_1) => (Depot provides a clue) => (Knife:def_1 > 1) (more than one knife is sold)
(Person sees Apple Store) => (Apple:def_1) => (Store provides a clue) => (Apple:def_1 > 1) (more than one apple is sold)
(Person sees Apple Store) => (Apple:def_2) => (Store provides a clue) => (Apple:def_2 > 1) (more than one tree is sold)
The result is the same regardless of which base definition a person chooses.
In summary: both in the case of 'Knife Depot' and 'Apple Store,' the second word indicates plurality. Therefore, your argument that an apple can be a tree while a knife cannot does not negate the logic. This is a substitution of the discussed property.

Not at all. You should read at least one logic textbook to understand the terms you’re using.
An analogy is a method of reasoning in which we transfer properties, characteristics, or relationships established for one object to another based on their similarity.
Thus, equating 'visiting a website to dispel a misconception' with 'studying tournament history to dispel a misconception' is just as 'direct' as your analogy.
We’re simply equating different aspects. But I see no reason why I should use your analogy instead of mine. Your analogy is neither better nor worse; it just equates a different informational aspect.

No, I’m equating visiting a website to dispel a misconception with studying tournament history to dispel a misconception.

I don’t know where you live, but if I’m surrounded by words with commonly accepted dictionary meanings, I understand them quite well. If the meaning of a word or the association it evokes does not lead to incorrect decisions, then the word is not misleading. If it can lead to incorrect decisions, then it can be misleading.
If the meaning of a word is unclear, it’s likely a unique combination of letters.

This does not negate the fact that if a person is unfamiliar with the Apple brand, they can be misled in certain situations. They don’t need to be an alien for that.

Of course, but that doesn’t mean such a brand can’t be misleading.

If a person, out of curiosity, wanted to visit a store related to apples or apple trees but saw something they didn’t expect, it means the brand led to an incorrect decision, which fits the definition of 'misleading,' making the brand suitable as an example of brands that can mislead.
So, depending on the type of curiosity, the brand can indeed be misleading.

For a brand to be suitable as an example of brands that can mislead, it’s enough for there to be a possibility of misleading in the absence of additional information. The absence of misleading when a person encounters the brand in a store or on a website does not negate the possibility of misleading if they are unfamiliar with the brand and encounter it outside the context of electronics.

The fact that everything becomes clear at the phone selection stage does not mean that if a person is unfamiliar with the brand, a misconception couldn’t arise before they entered the store or visited the website. Therefore, the brand fits the definition of 'misleading' and is valid as an example.
After reviewing the tournament history, everything becomes clear too.

What’s the big difference between translating into other languages and choosing languages provided by the site? Translation is the process of interpreting the meaning of text or speech from a source language and creating new, equivalent text in the target language. All non-original languages (those not present at the site’s launch) are translations. The fact that the site offers a language choice doesn’t turn a translation into an 'original.'
As for the second point, I assume you’ll reason logically. Of course, if you rise above logic and equate knives with trees, then with that approach, your conclusions indeed become unpredictable. But then a constructive discussion becomes unlikely.
In any case, we’ve already discussed this and reached the current point in the discussion. I see no reason to revisit it and loop the discussion, as:

1. You chose to communicate in English, not another language.
2. This doesn’t refute that names are branded.
3. It doesn’t prove that a brand cannot be misleading by definition.

<Here the numbers 30, 50, or 100 do not matter at all.>

Well, I like the illustration - 5/4 how does this distort the meaning?

<First, what I said is that I try to avoid wasting more time than necessary in a discussion. It doesn’t always work, but it is the goal. If you don’t want to follow a logical and efficient path, then I simply adapt and continue as constructively as possible.>

So, is it possible to have a constructive dialogue using the Apple example or not?

The fact that it seems illogical to you is another matter.
You are trying to belittle it as much as possible, but this is your example, I am not forcing it on you.
Once again, is this example usable so that you don’t accuse me of leading the discussion astray or off-topic?

Well, thank God it was ironic. Apparently, in your understanding, irony repeated several times becomes more ironic.

"Sausage" by definition will not evoke an association with a specific store, if it really sells sausage, and not electronics. The name of the category is the name of the category. It even sounds ridiculous: buy sausage in "sausage". That's why brands are not called that, neither from a legal point of view, nor from any other.

I do not argue with the plural. I say that, unlike Apple, the word "knife" can only mean a knife, so that sign is more informative.

The thing is that you visit the store, choose a product and the history of the brand = study the history.
Although studying the history is a separate and optional category.
You are trying to make an optional category the main one.
Then you need to prove that a person can mistakenly buy something other than what he sees on the display case, and that to prevent this, you need to study the history. Then it will be a direct analogy with the Lichess arenas, where this really happens.

<I don’t know where you live, but if I’m surrounded by words with commonly accepted dictionary meanings, I understand them quite well.>

With Apple as an example, there can be many similar signs/signs.
And if you are unfamiliar with brands, then everything around you is misleading. That’s why I say that the focus is on modern society, and not on aliens from another planet. In modern society, this is not considered misleading, since otherwise there would be a minimum description everywhere.

<In any case, we’ve already discussed this and reached the current point in the discussion.>

Not really, the discussion stopped at the quote I gave.

As for the original language, let me remind you that the creator of Lichess is French.
Translating by a third-party translator and when it is provided for by the site are two different things.
In the first case, these are the user’s problems.
In the second case, the site is responsible.
You said that we will have to come to the conclusion that the Chinese or Germans are being deliberately misled, which is absurd.
Well, whether it is absurd or not from your point of view is another question.
But the fact remains a fact?

You’ve started repeating claims while ignoring my arguments, so to avoid repeating myself, I’ll introduce a system of labeled arguments here as well.

@Italiya said in #252:

Well, I like the illustration - 5/4 how does this distort the meaning?

arg_01 = "You’re replacing my illustration with one that’s opposite in meaning and presenting it as an alternative. The meaning of the hyperbole was outlined here: 'because it’s hyperbole used only to illustrate that instead of choosing the shorter path, you insist on the longer one.' Thus, this distorts the original meaning of the illustration."

@Italiya said in #252:

So, is it possible to have a constructive dialogue using the Apple example or not?

In the full sense, no. If you keep ignoring less contentious examples, it will steer the discussion away from a constructive direction. But "constructiveness" isn’t a binary state; it’s a gradient. I’ll still keep pushing to bring the discussion back to a constructive track. However, if your unwillingness to increase the gradient toward constructiveness is revealed, it could serve as evidence of the weakness of your position. If you’re dragging out the argument instead of working toward the stated goal (confirming or refuting the original thesis that "brands, by definition, cannot be misleading"), it suggests you’re no longer interested in pursuing truth. This would imply you’ve realized it’s difficult to prove your position through honest means and have resorted to demagoguery. In that case, I’ll point this out, note the moment, and proceed differently moving forward.

@Italiya said in #252:

The fact that it seems illogical to you is another matter.

It doesn’t "seem" illogical to me; it is illogical, and I’ve explained why.

@Italiya said in #252:

You are trying to belittle it as much as possible, but this is your example, I am not forcing it on you.
Once again, is this example usable so that you don’t accuse me of leading the discussion astray or off-topic?

This example is relevant, but there’s another, less contentious example whose relevance I’ve already proven. Ignoring the less contentious example directly points to the logical fallacy of "suppressed evidence." I’m still addressing your points regarding Apple. But you haven’t responded to my points about the "World Series." If you continue to ignore my example, I see no reason why I shouldn’t mirror your approach. Either you engage in the discussion honestly, or I can respond in kind.

You haven’t provided counterarguments against the "World Series" example, where the name implies a global scale, but only the USA and Canada participate. This clearly shows that brands can be misleading. Can you refute this example?

@Italiya said in #252:

Well, thank God it was ironic. Apparently, in your understanding, irony repeated several times becomes more ironic.

So, in your view, if the same irony is repeated multiple times because it’s applicable in the given context, it becomes more ironic each time? This partially explains why you keep repeating arguments I’ve already addressed. Apparently, you think repeating your refuted arguments makes them stronger. But I’m sorry to disappoint you—it doesn’t work that way. Even if you write "2+2=5 in the decimal system" ten times, it won’t become true.

@Italiya said in #252:

"Sausage" by definition will not evoke an association with a specific store, if it really sells sausage, and not electronics. The name of the category is the name of the category. It even sounds ridiculous: buy sausage in "sausage". That's why brands are not called that, neither from a legal point of view, nor from any other.

arg_02 = "A store’s name doesn’t have to be unique. If you want to discuss the legal side, you should first familiarize yourself with the legal nuances of the issue. There’s nothing funny about a store with a sign saying 'Vegetables' selling vegetables. Similarly, it wouldn’t be surprising for a store named 'Sausage' to sell sausages.
The fact that you find something funny isn’t an argument. We’re reasoning from the perspective of truth, not your emotional evaluations. Your emotional evaluations aren’t grounds for prohibiting any actions.
I don’t recall denying that a category name is a category name. But that doesn’t negate the following:

1. A category name can be used as a store’s name if the store doesn’t claim to register it as a trademark.
2. In some cases, with certain criteria met (e.g., secondary distinctiveness), categories can be registered as trademarks.
3. If you claim that categories can’t function as brands from any perspective, show me in the definition of a brand where it explicitly states that category names cannot serve as brands. You can save your time—there’s no such clarification in the definition of a brand."

@Italiya said in #252:

I do not argue with the plural. I say that, unlike Apple, the word "knife" can only mean a knife, so that sign is more informative.

arg_03 = "And I responded that having two possible basic definitions for the word 'Apple' versus one for 'Knife' doesn’t make the indication that more than one item can be sold less informative. There’s no logical connection between the number of definitions and the indication of the number of items sold as defined by that term.

In formal terms:

W = set of words (base nouns, e.g., "apple", "knife").
D(w) = set of dictionary meanings of word w ∈ W.
|D(w)| = number of dictionary meanings (polysemy).
M = set of multiplicity markers.

P(w,m) = predicate: "when w is combined with marker m ∈ M, the phrase indicates that more than one item of type w is present/sold/shown."

1. ∀w ∈ W: |D(w)| ≥ 1.
2. ∀w ∈ W, ∀m ∈ M: P(w,m) => (∃n ≥ 2) (items of type w are implied).

w = "knife", |D(knife)| = 1, m = "depot":
P(knife, depot) => ∃n ≥ 2 (knives).
w = "apple", |D(apple)| = 2 (fruit, tree), m = "store":
P(apple, store) => ∃n ≥ 2 (apples).

Note: "∃n ≥ 2" means "the wording implies multiplicity", not that the exact number is defined.

Conclusion:
P(w,m) depends only on the multiplicity marker m, not on |D(w)|.
Therefore, informativeness ("more than one item is implied") is the same regardless of whether w has 1 meaning or several.
"

@Italiya said in #252:

The thing is that you visit the store, choose a product and the history of the brand = study the history.
Although studying the history is a separate and optional category.
You are trying to make an optional category the main one.
Then you need to prove that a person can mistakenly buy something other than what he sees on the display case, and that to prevent this, you need to study the history. Then it will be a direct analogy with the Lichess arenas, where this really happens.

arg_04 = "I’ve already responded to this. Repeating or ignoring my counterarguments doesn’t make your arguments stronger. I don’t adhere to your hierarchy and equate other aspects. You can’t force me to use your analogy just by repeating it, as I see no reason why I should use your analogy over mine. The fact that you don’t like mine because it equates other aspects isn’t a reason for me to adopt yours. My analogy emphasizes the process of dispelling a misconception. Here’s what I said in response:
An analogy is a method of reasoning in which we transfer properties, characteristics, or relationships established for one object to another based on their similarity.
Thus, equating 'visiting a website to dispel a misconception' with 'studying tournament history to dispel a misconception' is just as 'direct' as your analogy.
We’re simply equating different aspects. But I see no reason why I should use your analogy instead of mine. Your analogy is neither better nor worse; it just equates a different informational aspect."

@Italiya said in #252:

With Apple as an example, there can be many similar signs/signs.
And if you are unfamiliar with brands, then everything around you is misleading. That’s why I say that the focus is on modern society, and not on aliens from another planet. In modern society, this is not considered misleading, since otherwise there would be a minimum description everywhere.

Not all brands can be misleading. Only those that, due to their dictionary meanings, can lead to incorrect associations and thus to incorrect decisions. Most brands are either unique...
So what you’re trying to do now is generalize based on a common trait, which is a logical fallacy. The fact that some brands can be misleading without additional information doesn’t mean all brands will be misleading without additional information.
I’m reasoning solely from the perspective of logic and possible scenarios. Therefore, I’m not going to accept your framework of what you understand as "modern society." For the brand "Apple" to be misleading, it’s enough for someone to be unfamiliar with the brand. They don’t need to be an alien. Thus, the brand "Apple" is a valid example of brands that can be misleading.
Since what you understand as "modern society" doesn’t affect my argumentation, as I didn’t build my argument on your interpretation of that concept, I’m not going to confine my argument to that framework for your convenience.

@Italiya said in #252:

Not really, the discussion stopped at the quote I gave.

The discussion on this topic is off-topic, as its outcome won’t prove or disprove the thesis you’re defending:
"Brands, by definition, cannot be misleading."
If you can’t prove this thesis, I see no point in discussing translations.

@Italiya said in #252:

As for the original language, let me remind you that the creator of Lichess is French.

And let me remind you that Lichess was initially positioned as an international platform. Which language is international? French or English? Correct, English. From the start, English was available. Also, English, not French, is the primary language of Lichess’s documentation.

@Italiya said in #252:

Translating by a third-party translator and when it is provided for by the site are two different things.

You’re again confusing concepts, passing off your definitions as universally accepted. By your logic, if we launch a site in Russian and then, when entering the international market, translate it into English and offer users an English interface, the English interface automatically ceases to be a translation from Russian.

Your mistake is thinking that using a translation in a certain context changes the fact that it’s a translation. The defining quality of a translation is the existence of an original. Using a translation in an interface doesn’t make it the original; it remains a translation relative to the original.

A translation isn’t just text provided in real-time by a third-party translator.

@Italiya said in #252:

In the first case, these are the user’s problems.
In the second case, the site is responsible.

This is a matter of translation quality, not the status of the text as a "translation."

@Italiya said in #252:

But the fact remains a fact?

1. First prove this "fact". Considering that you have a poor knowledge of English, I highly doubt that you have a deep knowledge of German or Chinese.
2. Even if you manage to prove the translation’s clumsiness, it won’t prove it was done to mislead rather than due to insufficient language knowledge or lack of suitable alternatives.
3. Even if you prove the translation’s clumsiness, it won’t prove that brands, by definition, cannot be misleading, and the argument about branded names will still hold.
4. Absurdity isn’t my personal assessment; it’s a characteristic of conclusions if they lead to the stated outcomes due to their inconsistency. Proving that Lichess intentionally misleads speakers of certain languages is even harder than proving intentional deception of all users. In one case, you need to prove intent; in the other, you also need to explain and prove Lichess’s intent to deceive only specific nationalities.

Regardless of how side arguments are evaluated, the core thesis — 'brands, by definition, cannot be misleading' — remains unproven.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #255:

You’ve started repeating claims while ignoring my arguments, so to avoid repeating myself, I’ll introduce a system of labeled arguments here as well.

arg_01 = "You’re replacing my illustration with one that’s opposite in meaning and presenting it as an alternative. The meaning of the hyperbole was outlined here: 'because it’s hyperbole used only to illustrate that instead of choosing the shorter path, you insist on the longer one.' Thus, this distorts the original meaning of the illustration."

In the full sense, no. If you keep ignoring less contentious examples, it will steer the discussion away from a constructive direction. But "constructiveness" isn’t a binary state; it’s a gradient. I’ll still keep pushing to bring the discussion back to a constructive track. However, if your unwillingness to increase the gradient toward constructiveness is revealed, it could serve as evidence of the weakness of your position. If you’re dragging out the argument instead of working toward the stated goal (confirming or refuting the original thesis that "brands, by definition, cannot be misleading"), it suggests you’re no longer interested in pursuing truth. This would imply you’ve realized it’s difficult to prove your position through honest means and have resorted to demagoguery. In that case, I’ll point this out, note the moment, and proceed differently moving forward.

It doesn’t "seem" illogical to me; it is illogical, and I’ve explained why.

This example is relevant, but there’s another, less contentious example whose relevance I’ve already proven. Ignoring the less contentious example directly points to the logical fallacy of "suppressed evidence." I’m still addressing your points regarding Apple. But you haven’t responded to my points about the "World Series." If you continue to ignore my example, I see no reason why I shouldn’t mirror your approach. Either you engage in the discussion honestly, or I can respond in kind.

You haven’t provided counterarguments against the "World Series" example, where the name implies a global scale, but only the USA and Canada participate. This clearly shows that brands can be misleading. Can you refute this example?

So, in your view, if the same irony is repeated multiple times because it’s applicable in the given context, it becomes more ironic each time? This partially explains why you keep repeating arguments I’ve already addressed. Apparently, you think repeating your refuted arguments makes them stronger. But I’m sorry to disappoint you—it doesn’t work that way. Even if you write "2+2=5 in the decimal system" ten times, it won’t become true.

arg_02 = "A store’s name doesn’t have to be unique. If you want to discuss the legal side, you should first familiarize yourself with the legal nuances of the issue. There’s nothing funny about a store with a sign saying 'Vegetables' selling vegetables. Similarly, it wouldn’t be surprising for a store named 'Sausage' to sell sausages.
The fact that you find something funny isn’t an argument. We’re reasoning from the perspective of truth, not your emotional evaluations. Your emotional evaluations aren’t grounds for prohibiting any actions.
I don’t recall denying that a category name is a category name. But that doesn’t negate the following:

1. A category name can be used as a store’s name if the store doesn’t claim to register it as a trademark.
2. In some cases, with certain criteria met (e.g., secondary distinctiveness), categories can be registered as trademarks.
3. If you claim that categories can’t function as brands from any perspective, show me in the definition of a brand where it explicitly states that category names cannot serve as brands. You can save your time—there’s no such clarification in the definition of a brand."

arg_03 = "And I responded that having two possible basic definitions for the word 'Apple' versus one for 'Knife' doesn’t make the indication that more than one item can be sold less informative. There’s no logical connection between the number of definitions and the indication of the number of items sold as defined by that term.

In formal terms:

W = set of words (base nouns, e.g., "apple", "knife").
D(w) = set of dictionary meanings of word w ∈ W.
|D(w)| = number of dictionary meanings (polysemy).
M = set of multiplicity markers.

P(w,m) = predicate: "when w is combined with marker m ∈ M, the phrase indicates that more than one item of type w is present/sold/shown."

1. ∀w ∈ W: |D(w)| ≥ 1.
2. ∀w ∈ W, ∀m ∈ M: P(w,m) => (∃n ≥ 2) (items of type w are implied).

w = "knife", |D(knife)| = 1, m = "depot":
P(knife, depot) => ∃n ≥ 2 (knives).
w = "apple", |D(apple)| = 2 (fruit, tree), m = "store":
P(apple, store) => ∃n ≥ 2 (apples).

Note: "∃n ≥ 2" means "the wording implies multiplicity", not that the exact number is defined.

Conclusion:
P(w,m) depends only on the multiplicity marker m, not on |D(w)|.
Therefore, informativeness ("more than one item is implied") is the same regardless of whether w has 1 meaning or several.
"

arg_04 = "I’ve already responded to this. Repeating or ignoring my counterarguments doesn’t make your arguments stronger. I don’t adhere to your hierarchy and equate other aspects. You can’t force me to use your analogy just by repeating it, as I see no reason why I should use your analogy over mine. The fact that you don’t like mine because it equates other aspects isn’t a reason for me to adopt yours. My analogy emphasizes the process of dispelling a misconception. Here’s what I said in response:
An analogy is a method of reasoning in which we transfer properties, characteristics, or relationships established for one object to another based on their similarity.
Thus, equating 'visiting a website to dispel a misconception' with 'studying tournament history to dispel a misconception' is just as 'direct' as your analogy.
We’re simply equating different aspects. But I see no reason why I should use your analogy instead of mine. Your analogy is neither better nor worse; it just equates a different informational aspect."

Not all brands can be misleading. Only those that, due to their dictionary meanings, can lead to incorrect associations and thus to incorrect decisions. Most brands are either unique...
So what you’re trying to do now is generalize based on a common trait, which is a logical fallacy. The fact that some brands can be misleading without additional information doesn’t mean all brands will be misleading without additional information.
I’m reasoning solely from the perspective of logic and possible scenarios. Therefore, I’m not going to accept your framework of what you understand as "modern society." For the brand "Apple" to be misleading, it’s enough for someone to be unfamiliar with the brand. They don’t need to be an alien. Thus, the brand "Apple" is a valid example of brands that can be misleading.
Since what you understand as "modern society" doesn’t affect my argumentation, as I didn’t build my argument on your interpretation of that concept, I’m not going to confine my argument to that framework for your convenience.

The discussion on this topic is off-topic, as its outcome won’t prove or disprove the thesis you’re defending:
"Brands, by definition, cannot be misleading."
If you can’t prove this thesis, I see no point in discussing translations.

And let me remind you that Lichess was initially positioned as an international platform. Which language is international? French or English? Correct, English. From the start, English was available. Also, English, not French, is the primary language of Lichess’s documentation.

You’re again confusing concepts, passing off your definitions as universally accepted. By your logic, if we launch a site in Russian and then, when entering the international market, translate it into English and offer users an English interface, the English interface automatically ceases to be a translation from Russian.

Your mistake is thinking that using a translation in a certain context changes the fact that it’s a translation. The defining quality of a translation is the existence of an original. Using a translation in an interface doesn’t make it the original; it remains a translation relative to the original.

A translation isn’t just text provided in real-time by a third-party translator.

This is a matter of translation quality, not the status of the text as a "translation."

1. First prove this "fact". Considering that you have a poor knowledge of English, I highly doubt that you have a deep knowledge of German or Chinese.
2. Even if you manage to prove the translation’s clumsiness, it won’t prove it was done to mislead rather than due to insufficient language knowledge or lack of suitable alternatives.
3. Even if you prove the translation’s clumsiness, it won’t prove that brands, by definition, cannot be misleading, and the argument about branded names will still hold.
4. Absurdity isn’t my personal assessment; it’s a characteristic of conclusions if they lead to the stated outcomes due to their inconsistency. Proving that Lichess intentionally misleads speakers of certain languages is even harder than proving intentional deception of all users. In one case, you need to prove intent; in the other, you also need to explain and prove Lichess’s intent to deceive only specific nationalities.

Regardless of how side arguments are evaluated, the core thesis — 'brands, by definition, cannot be misleading' — remains unproven.

I am not changing the meaning or giving an alternative version.
I am simply changing the numbers that you yourself call random.
I would change the meaning if I said that another example requires fewer steps.

<In the full sense, no>
<This example is relevant>

So yes or no?

"A brand cannot be named in a way that is likely to mislead the consumer, is offensive, violates someone's rights, or is completely descriptive (for example, the name "Sausage" for a sausage product)."

Funny thing: you call the Apple brand misleading, but this is impossible, because in this case it is a registered brand.

That is, the Apple brand a priori cannot violate branding laws.

I repeat, in the case of knives and apples, it is not about quantity, but about the fact that a knife is just a knife, and an apple is not just an apple, but also a tree. Therefore, the sign with knives is more informative

I will explain in a popular way what an analogy is in our case:
"History of arenas" Lichess is similar to the item "about the product" Apple.

Although the names are different, they lead to the same category.

The category of choosing a product and choosing arenas has nothing to do with the history of the product and the history of the product.
Therefore, there are 4 direct analogies:

1. Go to the site
2. Select a product = select a tournament
3. Buy a product = participate in a tournament.
4. View "about the product" = view the history of arenas".

And since Apple, according to the established rules, has never misled, there is no dispelling here.

As for translation, the proper name is not translated, if you did not know.
If you go to the Apple website and select any language, then Apple will remain unchanged, not translated. It can even be written in German letters or Chinese, but it will be exactly "Apple".

Now, if you select a language on Lichess, you will see that the name of the arena has been translated, but some words remain unchanged. That is, Lichess itself chooses what needs to be translated and what not. If you use a third-party translator, it will translate what was not translated when choosing a language.
Moreover, it will translate some words differently than when choosing a language on Lichess, which proves their uniqueness.
Thus, if the names of the arenas are brands, they should not translated, just like Apple.

So it turns out that the names of the arenas, firstly, are not brands, and secondly, they deliberately mislead all those players who choose a language other than English, of which there are a sufficient number.
The awkwardness of the translation is excluded, since specialists from different countries work for Lichess.
And even those for whom English is the native language, first of all, will think that we are talking about a tournament once an hour and once a year, respectively.
Well, how can this not be intentional, if it is completely controlled?

@Italiya said in #256:

I am not changing the meaning or giving an alternative version.
I am simply changing the numbers that you yourself call random.
I would change the meaning if I said that another example requires fewer steps.

arg_01_1 = "You’ve taken the phrase out of context. The numbers are random but follow a rule specified in the part of the statement you didn’t quote. The full quote was:
'Here the numbers 30, 50, or 100 do not matter at all. I could replace 50 with 500 right now, because it’s hyperbole used only to illustrate that instead of choosing the shorter path, you insist on the longer one.'
In other words, my examples of ratios were: (5/30; 5/50; 5/100; 5/500), meaning instead of taking 5 steps, you take 30/50/100/500, which corresponds to the rule of selecting a range of random values (illustrating that you choose a greater number of steps instead of fewer).
Your example (5/4) illustrates that instead of 5 steps, you take 4, which distorts the original illustration.
Moreover, if you had said that another example requires fewer steps, it would not have distorted the meaning of my illustration, as its purpose was precisely to show that you choose the longer path over the shorter one. Therefore, what was written in arg_01 remains relevant:
'You’re replacing my illustration with one that’s opposite in meaning and presenting it as an alternative. The meaning of the hyperbole was outlined here: "because it’s hyperbole used only to illustrate that instead of choosing the shorter path, you insist on the longer one." Thus, this distorts the original meaning of the illustration.'"

@Italiya said in #256:

"So yes or no? "
This is a false dichotomy.

It’s like asking:

• Have you stopped eating hedgehogs?
• Stopped? I never ate them in the first place.
• So yes or no?

arg_05 = "Constructiveness is not a binary value; it’s a gradient. Therefore, answering simply yes or no is impossible, as both answers without clarification would be incorrect.
Here’s the precise answer to your question:
"In the full sense, no. If you keep ignoring less contentious examples, it will steer the discussion away from a constructive direction. But "constructiveness" isn’t a binary state; it’s a gradient. I’ll still keep pushing to bring the discussion back to a constructive track. However, if your unwillingness to increase the gradient toward constructiveness is revealed, it could serve as evidence of the weakness of your position. If you’re dragging out the argument instead of working toward the stated goal (confirming or refuting the original thesis that "brands, by definition, cannot be misleading"), it suggests you’re no longer interested in pursuing truth. This would imply you’ve realized it’s difficult to prove your position through honest means and have resorted to demagoguery. In that case, I’ll point this out, note the moment, and proceed differently moving forward.""

@Italiya said in #256:

"A brand cannot be named in a way that is likely to mislead the consumer, is offensive, violates someone's rights, or is completely descriptive (for example, the name "Sausage" for a sausage product)."
Funny thing: you call the Apple brand misleading, but this is impossible, because in this case it is a registered brand.
That is, the Apple brand a priori cannot violate branding laws.

This is a logical fallacy of substituting the criterion.

1. If you want to discuss this topic, you’ll need to dive into legal nuances or consult a lawyer. Google alone won’t help if you’re unfamiliar with formal logic and/or jurisprudence.
   You misunderstood the legal meaning of the condition you yourself cited. Pay attention to this part: "that is likely to." In other words, a brand can be misleading, but the evaluation may not deem the misleading nature significant in a specific case. Additionally, evaluations may differ across countries, and what is permissible in one case may not be allowed for registration in another.
2. Legal registration ≠ absence of misleading perception among people, as legal permissibility ≠ cognitive clarity.
3. We are debating whether brands can be misleading by the definition of a brand. We are discussing this outside the legal framework, as we’ve already established that for a symbol or phrase to be considered branded, it doesn’t need to be registered as a trademark; it’s sufficient for the symbol or sign to fit the definition of a brand. Accordingly, we rely on logical arguments regarding misleading potential, not on the evaluation of a registration authority regarding the presence or significance of misleading elements.
4. During legal registration, a different approach is used to assess the characteristic of "misleading" compared to formal reasoning. For registration, logical precision (ensuring a brand cannot mislead) is less important than compliance with evaluation criteria. Moreover, misleading elements are permissible in cases of "secondary meaning" or if the expert group deems the misleading nature insignificant.
   Brand registration does not mean it cannot cause confusion. It only means the registering authority deemed it legally permissible. From a consumer perspective, the association "Apple = fruit" persists. If a person is unfamiliar with Apple, they may be misled, making Apple a suitable example of a brand that can be misleading.
5. Even misleading symbols or names can be registered if they acquire "secondary meaning" or if the expert group deems the misleading nature permissible. For example, registering "Lichess Yearly Rapid Arena" as a trademark would not eliminate the possibility of misleading, just as registering "World Series" did not make that brand less misleading.
6. It’s amusing that you make bold claims like "a priori" without analyzing the criterion you yourself cited.

@Italiya said in #256:

I repeat, in the case of knives and apples, it is not about quantity, but about the fact that a knife is just a knife, and an apple is not just an apple, but also a tree. Therefore, the sign with knives is more informative

I must note an obvious attempt to shift this part of the debate from a constructive plane to a yes/no argument. Instead of providing a counterargument, you ignored my response and repeated what you said without adding new information. Perhaps you genuinely believe that repeating a refuted claim makes it stronger, but that’s not how it works. You didn’t refute my formal reasoning proving the invalidity of your claim.
Therefore, since you repeated your claim without providing counterarguments, I’ll repeat my response that refuted it:
arg_06 = "
W = set of words (base nouns, e.g., "apple", "knife").
D(w) = set of dictionary meanings of word w ∈ W.
|D(w)| = number of dictionary meanings (polysemy).
M = set of multiplicity markers.

P(w,m) = predicate: "when w is combined with marker m ∈ M, the phrase indicates that more than one item of type w is present/sold/shown."

1. ∀w ∈ W: |D(w)| ≥ 1.
2. ∀w ∈ W, ∀m ∈ M: P(w,m) => (∃n ≥ 2) (items of type w are implied).

w = "knife", |D(knife)| = 1, m = "depot":
P(knife, depot) => ∃n ≥ 2 (knives).
w = "apple", |D(apple)| = 2 (fruit, tree), m = "store":
P(apple, store) => ∃n ≥ 2 (apples).

Note: "∃n ≥ 2" means "the wording implies multiplicity", not that the exact number is defined.

Conclusion:
P(w,m) depends only on the multiplicity marker m, not on |D(w)|.
Therefore, informativeness ("more than one item is implied") is the same regardless of whether w has 1 meaning or several.
"

@Italiya said in #256:

I will explain in a popular way what an analogy is in our case:
"History of arenas" Lichess is similar to the item "about the product" Apple.

Although the names are different, they lead to the same category.

The category of choosing a product and choosing arenas has nothing to do with the history of the product and the history of the product.
Therefore, there are 4 direct analogies:

1. Go to the site
2. Select a product = select a tournament
3. Buy a product = participate in a tournament.
4. View "about the product" = view the history of arenas".

And since Apple, according to the established rules, has never misled, there is no dispelling here.

You’ve just explained your analogy again. But no matter how many times you repeat it or how detailed you make it, it doesn’t refute my analogy, as analogies are merely illustrations. It would be better if you explained in a straightforward way how the existence of your analogy refutes mine. You equate one thing, I equate another. Thus, both our analogies are equally "direct." Since you haven’t refuted my claims, I’ll repeat them:

arg_07 = "An analogy is a method of reasoning in which we transfer properties, characteristics, or relationships established for one object to another based on their similarity."

arg_04_1 = "Repeating or ignoring my counterarguments doesn’t make your arguments stronger. I don’t adhere to your hierarchy and equate other aspects. You can’t force me to use your analogy just by repeating it, as I see no reason why I should use your analogy over mine. The fact that you don’t like mine because it equates other aspects isn’t a reason for me to adopt yours. My analogy emphasizes the process of dispelling a misconception.
I equate 'visiting a website to dispel a misconception' with 'studying tournament history to dispel a misconception'. This analogy is just as 'direct' as your analogy.

This is your analogy:

1. Go to the site
2. Select a product = select a tournament
3. Buy a product = participate in a tournament.
4. View "about the product" = view "the history of arenas".

This is mine analogy:

1. Visit the Apple website to dispel a misconception = Visit the tournament history to dispel a misconception
2. Choosing a product = choosing an arena
3. Buying a product = participating in a tournament

We’re simply equating different aspects. But I see no reason why I should use your analogy instead of mine. Your analogy is neither better nor worse; it just equates a different informational aspects."

Thus, my example with Apple remains valid as an example of a brand that can be misleading in certain situations if a person is unfamiliar with the brand.

@Italiya said in #256:

As for translation, the proper name is not translated, if you did not know.
If you go to the Apple website and select any language, then Apple will remain unchanged, not translated. It can even be written in German letters or Chinese, but it will be exactly "Apple".

If you didn’t know, brands can be translated, as they are not always solely proper nouns and, in the context of branding, may only function as proper nouns. For example, "Mr. Clean" was translated as "Meister Proper" in Germany or "Mastro Lindo" in Italy. Or "Head & Shoulders" was translated as "Kopf & Schultern" in Germany.

Moreover, the definition of a brand does not mention any prohibition on translating brands into other languages.

@Italiya said in #256:

Now, if you select a language on Lichess, you will see that the name of the arena has been translated, but some words remain unchanged. That is, Lichess itself chooses what needs to be translated and what not. If you use a third-party translator, it will translate what was not translated when choosing a language.
Moreover, it will translate some words differently than when choosing a language on Lichess, which proves their uniqueness.

This proves a difference in translation approaches, not uniqueness. The same phrases and words can be adapted into another language in different ways. For example, the Russian phrase "он был напуган" can be translated into English as "he was scared" or "he was spooked." This doesn’t mean that choosing a particular translation makes it unique; it only reflects the subjective choice of the translators.

@Italiya said in #256:

Thus, if the names of the arenas are brands, they should not translated, just like Apple.

But nothing prohibits them from being translated into other languages, as I’ve shown with examples of other brands and the absence of a translation prohibition in the definition of a brand. They could have chosen not to translate, but they decided to translate.

@Italiya said in #256:

So it turns out that the names of the arenas, firstly, are not brands, and secondly, they deliberately mislead all those players who choose a language other than English, of which there are a sufficient number.

It turns out that the names do fit the definition of a brand.
Also, it seems you’re quietly trying to slip in an unproven claim that arena names in other languages are misleading, hoping I wouldn’t notice. But I noticed.
Moreover, you’ve also tried to sneak in an unproven claim of intentional misleading, which you haven’t substantiated, given the explanations through branding and poor translation. In other words, you’re not only trying to divide the skin of an unkilled bear but also trying to make a coat out of it. First, you need to defeat the bear.

@Italiya said in #256:

The awkwardness of the translation is excluded, since specialists from different countries work for Lichess.

Is this possibility excluded because you say so?
This is a non-commercial platform, so translations were done not by specialists but by volunteer enthusiasts using the Crowdin platform. Therefore, in the case of insufficiently accurate adaptation, it could be the result of a translator’s subjective choice, lack of competence, or error, not an intent to mislead.
To prove that Lichess intentionally misleads representatives of a particular nationality, you need to:

1. Identify a language, other than Russian or English, that you know well.
2. Prove that in the chosen language (e.g., Chinese), there is clear misleading due to the language’s semantics and established meanings, where the word has only one possible interpretation, and provide an acceptable alternative.
3. Prove that the translator chose this translation with the intent to deceive, not due to inexperience, error, or subjective choice (e.g., because it sounds better).
4. Prove that Lichess’s administration had an expert fluent in the language to ensure that, when accepting the translation, they weren’t misled themselves and intentionally chose a misleading adaptation without additional clarification.
5. Prove that the tournament names do not fit the definition of a brand.
6. Prove that there is no publicly available information about the frequency of tournaments on Lichess.
7. Prove that all other explanations besides intentional misleading (e.g., a pleasant-sounding name, subjective choice, etc.) are excluded, providing evidence.

Only when you prove all of this can you claim that Lichess intentionally misleads players. For now, you’re skipping all these steps and making an unsubstantiated claim of intentional misleading by Lichess, which, without addressing these steps, is a baseless accusation.

@Italiya said in #256:

And even those for whom English is the native language, first of all, will think that we are talking about a tournament once an hour and once a year, respectively.
Well, how can this not be intentional, if it is completely controlled?

You’re mixing everything up again...
Are you assuming I forgot our discussion and won’t recall that I already addressed why "hourly" isn’t misleading for English speakers? I can’t believe you’d forget the chronology of our debate so quickly.
Since you seem to have forgotten, I’ll repeat what we’ve already discussed—why "hourly" doesn’t mislead English speakers:

arg_08 = "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 there is no context, the word can take any of its available meanings. What exactly a native speaker will think of at the moment - it's up to him. Most likely, he will look at the context and then decide which meaning to choose.

If you insist that English speakers primarily interpret 'hourly' in one specific way, provide evidence (a survey, research, or a certificate of telepathic abilities) that all English speakers on Lichess interpret 'hourly' in only one particular sense."

As for your question about controlled actions—I’ve already addressed this too. Why are you looping the discussion? I answered this, and we reached the current point in our debate.
I’ll respond again, but next time I’ll simply refer to the labeled arguments:

arg_09 = "The fact that controlled actions can lead to a misleading result doesn’t mean those actions were performed with the intent to mislead. I explained this using the example of a birdhouse and a table.

For any action A:
C(A) = action A is controlled
M(A) = action A may lead to a misleading result
I(A) = intent to mislead through action A ∀A ( C(A) ∧ M(A) =/=> I(A) )
or
(C(A) ∧ M(A)) => <>I(A)"

Given that you continue to steer the discussion away from the vector of maximum efficiency and constructiveness, to increase the gradient of constructive discussion, I’m introducing a priority system.
There will be three priority levels. The priority level will be assigned based on its impact on the constructiveness gradient, i.e., how much the discussed issue contributes to proving the key thesis: brands, by definition, cannot be misleading, or to proving theses that may affect the applicability of the previously stated thesis.
To increase efficiency and prevent the discussion from being derailed, I’ll primarily respond to first-priority topics. For second- and third-priority topics, I’ll either use the labeled argument method or note their priority, addressing them after discussing first-priority topics if necessary.

Priority distribution:
p1 - first priority
p2 - second priority
p3 - third priority

p1 { Refuting the relevance of the World Series example as a brand that can be misleading }
p1 { Show in the definition of the concept of a brand that it cannot be misleading due to inductive errors or other reasons }
p1 { Permissibility of translating brands }
p1 { Presence of a prohibition on translating brands in the definition of a brand }
p1 { Identify a language, other than Russian or English, that you know well and prove that in the chosen language (e.g., Chinese), there is clear misleading due to the language’s semantics and established meanings, where the word has only one possible interpretation, and provide an acceptable alternative }

p2 { Intent of the translator(s) to mislead a particular nationality }
p2 { Why Apple can be misleading despite the trademark registration criterion }

p3 { Incorrect substitution of numbers and distortion of my illustration’s meaning }
p3 { Decreasing the constructiveness gradient when discussing Apple and ignoring less contentious alternatives }
p3 { Equal informativeness despite different numbers of base meanings }
p3 { hourly }
p3 { Control ≠ intent }

General remarks:

1. Your reasoning lacks "depth" due to a lack of practice in conducting constructive discussions with opponents who can challenge you, assuming they have the time and desire. Using chess as an illustration, you’re calculating 1-2 moves ahead, not 10-15. This makes your arguments easy to refute, but you flood the discussion with volume rather than quality, which lowers the constructiveness gradient. Just like in chess, the ability to conduct discussions and debates constructively requires years of practice and studying relevant literature. Figuratively speaking, you’re now facing, if not a grandmaster in this field, then at least an international master. In chess, you likely understand the chances of a less experienced player with a significant rating gap defeating an IM.
2. You make many logical fallacies, often repeating the same ones. This suggests that you may not be reflecting on them, which again reduces the quality of reasoning.
3. You focus on secondary details instead of the main thesis, which derails the discussion.
4. If your logical fallacies are intentional, they resemble demagogic tactics — which shift the focus from truth-seeking to simply trying to ‘win’ at any cost, using any methods, which contradicts the nature of communication in this forum section and is more suited to the "flood" section.
5. You sometimes present your opinion as truth, treating your understanding of concepts as universally accepted, as if there’s a tablet somewhere declaring that everyone must adopt your terminology and worldview. But no one has chosen you as a standard. At least I haven’t, and I have no intention of accepting your subjective interpretations as truth.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #258:

arg_01_1 = "You’ve taken the phrase out of context. The numbers are random but follow a rule specified in the part of the statement you didn’t quote. The full quote was:
'Here the numbers 30, 50, or 100 do not matter at all. I could replace 50 with 500 right now, because it’s hyperbole used only to illustrate that instead of choosing the shorter path, you insist on the longer one.'
In other words, my examples of ratios were: (5/30; 5/50; 5/100; 5/500), meaning instead of taking 5 steps, you take 30/50/100/500, which corresponds to the rule of selecting a range of random values (illustrating that you choose a greater number of steps instead of fewer).
Your example (5/4) illustrates that instead of 5 steps, you take 4, which distorts the original illustration.
Moreover, if you had said that another example requires fewer steps, it would not have distorted the meaning of my illustration, as its purpose was precisely to show that you choose the longer path over the shorter one. Therefore, what was written in arg_01 remains relevant:
'You’re replacing my illustration with one that’s opposite in meaning and presenting it as an alternative. The meaning of the hyperbole was outlined here: "because it’s hyperbole used only to illustrate that instead of choosing the shorter path, you insist on the longer one." Thus, this distorts the original meaning of the illustration.'"

This is a false dichotomy.

It’s like asking:

• Have you stopped eating hedgehogs?
• Stopped? I never ate them in the first place.
• So yes or no?

arg_05 = "Constructiveness is not a binary value; it’s a gradient. Therefore, answering simply yes or no is impossible, as both answers without clarification would be incorrect.
Here’s the precise answer to your question:
"In the full sense, no. If you keep ignoring less contentious examples, it will steer the discussion away from a constructive direction. But "constructiveness" isn’t a binary state; it’s a gradient. I’ll still keep pushing to bring the discussion back to a constructive track. However, if your unwillingness to increase the gradient toward constructiveness is revealed, it could serve as evidence of the weakness of your position. If you’re dragging out the argument instead of working toward the stated goal (confirming or refuting the original thesis that "brands, by definition, cannot be misleading"), it suggests you’re no longer interested in pursuing truth. This would imply you’ve realized it’s difficult to prove your position through honest means and have resorted to demagoguery. In that case, I’ll point this out, note the moment, and proceed differently moving forward.""

This is a logical fallacy of substituting the criterion.

1. If you want to discuss this topic, you’ll need to dive into legal nuances or consult a lawyer. Google alone won’t help if you’re unfamiliar with formal logic and/or jurisprudence.
   You misunderstood the legal meaning of the condition you yourself cited. Pay attention to this part: "that is likely to." In other words, a brand can be misleading, but the evaluation may not deem the misleading nature significant in a specific case. Additionally, evaluations may differ across countries, and what is permissible in one case may not be allowed for registration in another.
2. Legal registration ≠ absence of misleading perception among people, as legal permissibility ≠ cognitive clarity.
3. We are debating whether brands can be misleading by the definition of a brand. We are discussing this outside the legal framework, as we’ve already established that for a symbol or phrase to be considered branded, it doesn’t need to be registered as a trademark; it’s sufficient for the symbol or sign to fit the definition of a brand. Accordingly, we rely on logical arguments regarding misleading potential, not on the evaluation of a registration authority regarding the presence or significance of misleading elements.
4. During legal registration, a different approach is used to assess the characteristic of "misleading" compared to formal reasoning. For registration, logical precision (ensuring a brand cannot mislead) is less important than compliance with evaluation criteria. Moreover, misleading elements are permissible in cases of "secondary meaning" or if the expert group deems the misleading nature insignificant.
   Brand registration does not mean it cannot cause confusion. It only means the registering authority deemed it legally permissible. From a consumer perspective, the association "Apple = fruit" persists. If a person is unfamiliar with Apple, they may be misled, making Apple a suitable example of a brand that can be misleading.
5. Even misleading symbols or names can be registered if they acquire "secondary meaning" or if the expert group deems the misleading nature permissible. For example, registering "Lichess Yearly Rapid Arena" as a trademark would not eliminate the possibility of misleading, just as registering "World Series" did not make that brand less misleading.
6. It’s amusing that you make bold claims like "a priori" without analyzing the criterion you yourself cited.

I must note an obvious attempt to shift this part of the debate from a constructive plane to a yes/no argument. Instead of providing a counterargument, you ignored my response and repeated what you said without adding new information. Perhaps you genuinely believe that repeating a refuted claim makes it stronger, but that’s not how it works. You didn’t refute my formal reasoning proving the invalidity of your claim.
Therefore, since you repeated your claim without providing counterarguments, I’ll repeat my response that refuted it:
arg_06 = "
W = set of words (base nouns, e.g., "apple", "knife").
D(w) = set of dictionary meanings of word w ∈ W.
|D(w)| = number of dictionary meanings (polysemy).
M = set of multiplicity markers.

P(w,m) = predicate: "when w is combined with marker m ∈ M, the phrase indicates that more than one item of type w is present/sold/shown."

1. ∀w ∈ W: |D(w)| ≥ 1.
2. ∀w ∈ W, ∀m ∈ M: P(w,m) => (∃n ≥ 2) (items of type w are implied).

w = "knife", |D(knife)| = 1, m = "depot":
P(knife, depot) => ∃n ≥ 2 (knives).
w = "apple", |D(apple)| = 2 (fruit, tree), m = "store":
P(apple, store) => ∃n ≥ 2 (apples).

Note: "∃n ≥ 2" means "the wording implies multiplicity", not that the exact number is defined.

Conclusion:
P(w,m) depends only on the multiplicity marker m, not on |D(w)|.
Therefore, informativeness ("more than one item is implied") is the same regardless of whether w has 1 meaning or several.
"

You’ve just explained your analogy again. But no matter how many times you repeat it or how detailed you make it, it doesn’t refute my analogy, as analogies are merely illustrations. It would be better if you explained in a straightforward way how the existence of your analogy refutes mine. You equate one thing, I equate another. Thus, both our analogies are equally "direct." Since you haven’t refuted my claims, I’ll repeat them:

arg_07 = "An analogy is a method of reasoning in which we transfer properties, characteristics, or relationships established for one object to another based on their similarity."

arg_04_1 = "Repeating or ignoring my counterarguments doesn’t make your arguments stronger. I don’t adhere to your hierarchy and equate other aspects. You can’t force me to use your analogy just by repeating it, as I see no reason why I should use your analogy over mine. The fact that you don’t like mine because it equates other aspects isn’t a reason for me to adopt yours. My analogy emphasizes the process of dispelling a misconception.
I equate 'visiting a website to dispel a misconception' with 'studying tournament history to dispel a misconception'. This analogy is just as 'direct' as your analogy.

This is your analogy:

1. Go to the site
2. Select a product = select a tournament
3. Buy a product = participate in a tournament.
4. View "about the product" = view "the history of arenas".

This is mine analogy:

1. Visit the Apple website to dispel a misconception = Visit the tournament history to dispel a misconception
2. Choosing a product = choosing an arena
3. Buying a product = participating in a tournament

We’re simply equating different aspects. But I see no reason why I should use your analogy instead of mine. Your analogy is neither better nor worse; it just equates a different informational aspects."

Thus, my example with Apple remains valid as an example of a brand that can be misleading in certain situations if a person is unfamiliar with the brand.

If you didn’t know, brands can be translated, as they are not always solely proper nouns and, in the context of branding, may only function as proper nouns. For example, "Mr. Clean" was translated as "Meister Proper" in Germany or "Mastro Lindo" in Italy. Or "Head & Shoulders" was translated as "Kopf & Schultern" in Germany.

Moreover, the definition of a brand does not mention any prohibition on translating brands into other languages.

This proves a difference in translation approaches, not uniqueness. The same phrases and words can be adapted into another language in different ways. For example, the Russian phrase "он был напуган" can be translated into English as "he was scared" or "he was spooked." This doesn’t mean that choosing a particular translation makes it unique; it only reflects the subjective choice of the translators.

But nothing prohibits them from being translated into other languages, as I’ve shown with examples of other brands and the absence of a translation prohibition in the definition of a brand. They could have chosen not to translate, but they decided to translate.

It turns out that the names do fit the definition of a brand.
Also, it seems you’re quietly trying to slip in an unproven claim that arena names in other languages are misleading, hoping I wouldn’t notice. But I noticed.
Moreover, you’ve also tried to sneak in an unproven claim of intentional misleading, which you haven’t substantiated, given the explanations through branding and poor translation. In other words, you’re not only trying to divide the skin of an unkilled bear but also trying to make a coat out of it. First, you need to defeat the bear.

Is this possibility excluded because you say so?
This is a non-commercial platform, so translations were done not by specialists but by volunteer enthusiasts using the Crowdin platform. Therefore, in the case of insufficiently accurate adaptation, it could be the result of a translator’s subjective choice, lack of competence, or error, not an intent to mislead.
To prove that Lichess intentionally misleads representatives of a particular nationality, you need to:

1. Identify a language, other than Russian or English, that you know well.
2. Prove that in the chosen language (e.g., Chinese), there is clear misleading due to the language’s semantics and established meanings, where the word has only one possible interpretation, and provide an acceptable alternative.
3. Prove that the translator chose this translation with the intent to deceive, not due to inexperience, error, or subjective choice (e.g., because it sounds better).
4. Prove that Lichess’s administration had an expert fluent in the language to ensure that, when accepting the translation, they weren’t misled themselves and intentionally chose a misleading adaptation without additional clarification.
5. Prove that the tournament names do not fit the definition of a brand.
6. Prove that there is no publicly available information about the frequency of tournaments on Lichess.
7. Prove that all other explanations besides intentional misleading (e.g., a pleasant-sounding name, subjective choice, etc.) are excluded, providing evidence.

Only when you prove all of this can you claim that Lichess intentionally misleads players. For now, you’re skipping all these steps and making an unsubstantiated claim of intentional misleading by Lichess, which, without addressing these steps, is a baseless accusation.

You’re mixing everything up again...
Are you assuming I forgot our discussion and won’t recall that I already addressed why "hourly" isn’t misleading for English speakers? I can’t believe you’d forget the chronology of our debate so quickly.
Since you seem to have forgotten, I’ll repeat what we’ve already discussed—why "hourly" doesn’t mislead English speakers:

arg_08 = "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 there is no context, the word can take any of its available meanings. What exactly a native speaker will think of at the moment - it's up to him. Most likely, he will look at the context and then decide which meaning to choose.

If you insist that English speakers primarily interpret 'hourly' in one specific way, provide evidence (a survey, research, or a certificate of telepathic abilities) that all English speakers on Lichess interpret 'hourly' in only one particular sense."

As for your question about controlled actions—I’ve already addressed this too. Why are you looping the discussion? I answered this, and we reached the current point in our debate.
I’ll respond again, but next time I’ll simply refer to the labeled arguments:

arg_09 = "The fact that controlled actions can lead to a misleading result doesn’t mean those actions were performed with the intent to mislead. I explained this using the example of a birdhouse and a table.

For any action A:
C(A) = action A is controlled
M(A) = action A may lead to a misleading result
I(A) = intent to mislead through action A ∀A ( C(A) ∧ M(A) =/=> I(A) )
or
(C(A) ∧ M(A)) => <>I(A)"

Given that you continue to steer the discussion away from the vector of maximum efficiency and constructiveness, to increase the gradient of constructive discussion, I’m introducing a priority system.
There will be three priority levels. The priority level will be assigned based on its impact on the constructiveness gradient, i.e., how much the discussed issue contributes to proving the key thesis: brands, by definition, cannot be misleading, or to proving theses that may affect the applicability of the previously stated thesis.
To increase efficiency and prevent the discussion from being derailed, I’ll primarily respond to first-priority topics. For second- and third-priority topics, I’ll either use the labeled argument method or note their priority, addressing them after discussing first-priority topics if necessary.

Priority distribution:
p1 - first priority
p2 - second priority
p3 - third priority

p1 { Refuting the relevance of the World Series example as a brand that can be misleading }
p1 { Show in the definition of the concept of a brand that it cannot be misleading due to inductive errors or other reasons }
p1 { Permissibility of translating brands }
p1 { Presence of a prohibition on translating brands in the definition of a brand }
p1 { Identify a language, other than Russian or English, that you know well and prove that in the chosen language (e.g., Chinese), there is clear misleading due to the language’s semantics and established meanings, where the word has only one possible interpretation, and provide an acceptable alternative }

p2 { Intent of the translator(s) to mislead a particular nationality }
p2 { Why Apple can be misleading despite the trademark registration criterion }

p3 { Incorrect substitution of numbers and distortion of my illustration’s meaning }
p3 { Decreasing the constructiveness gradient when discussing Apple and ignoring less contentious alternatives }
p3 { Equal informativeness despite different numbers of base meanings }
p3 { hourly }
p3 { Control ≠ intent }

General remarks:

1. Your reasoning lacks "depth" due to a lack of practice in conducting constructive discussions with opponents who can challenge you, assuming they have the time and desire. Using chess as an illustration, you’re calculating 1-2 moves ahead, not 10-15. This makes your arguments easy to refute, but you flood the discussion with volume rather than quality, which lowers the constructiveness gradient. Just like in chess, the ability to conduct discussions and debates constructively requires years of practice and studying relevant literature. Figuratively speaking, you’re now facing, if not a grandmaster in this field, then at least an international master. In chess, you likely understand the chances of a less experienced player with a significant rating gap defeating an IM.
2. You make many logical fallacies, often repeating the same ones. This suggests that you may not be reflecting on them, which again reduces the quality of reasoning.
3. You focus on secondary details instead of the main thesis, which derails the discussion.
4. If your logical fallacies are intentional, they resemble demagogic tactics — which shift the focus from truth-seeking to simply trying to ‘win’ at any cost, using any methods, which contradicts the nature of communication in this forum section and is more suited to the "flood" section.
5. You sometimes present your opinion as truth, treating your understanding of concepts as universally accepted, as if there’s a tablet somewhere declaring that everyone must adopt your terminology and worldview. But no one has chosen you as a standard. At least I haven’t, and I have no intention of accepting your subjective interpretations as truth.

Ah, you were confused by the order. Although I explained what I meant in favor of another example.
Okay, then 4/5.
This does not mean that I agree, but since the numbers are random, then let it be at least this way.

<So yes or no? "
This is a false dichotomy.

It’s like asking:

• Have you stopped eating hedgehogs?
• Stopped? I never ate them in the first place.
• So yes or no?>

If this were a question from this category, you would have answered like this: Apple as a brand? Apple has never been a brand.
But you gave two answers:

<In the full sense, no>
<This example is relevant>

In both cases, these are complete sentences, since what follows is an explanation of another question (about constructiveness, and not about whether Apple is a relevant example), so I ask you, which of these answers do you choose?
In the first case, there is uncertainty, in the second, essentially a monosyllabic answer - yes.

Official registration of the brand indicates that all consumer protection laws are observed.
And then I ask you again, what kind of society are you counting on when you say that it can be misleading?
In modern society, most store names, trademarks and etc. won't give you an idea of what's inside, but if it were a problem, there would be constant complaints and lawsuits.
This was true even without the Internet, and even more so with it.
You're looking at the brand situation as if you were an alien from another planet.

in the case of knives, I'm not arguing about quantity, I'm saying that unlike Apple (apples, apple tree, seeds), a knife can only be a knife. More than one or not - it doesn't matter.

<This is mine analogy:

1. Visit the Apple website to dispel a misconception = Visit the tournament history to dispel a misconception
2. Choosing a product = choosing an arena
3. Buying a product = participating in a tournament>

And what does looking at the history of, say, an iPhone equal to for you?
Lichess - Apple
Arena - iPhone

There is no ban on translation, but it is indicated on the website or in documents exclusively as a proper name.
For example, not "people's cart", and "Volkswagen".
"Mr. Clean" and "Meister Proper" are also unique names. This is not a translation.

Nothing prevents a third-party translator from translating, but if it is a brand, it should be written as a proper name on the site itself.
For example, on Lichess itself, when choosing a language, it does not change - "Titled Arena", although this is an easily translated expression.
And here one could argue about whether this is a brand.

This non-profit company has fixed salaries. You can find information about this in an interview with the founder. Perhaps even in his blogs on Lichess.
He even claimed that he could be fired.

Unlike Apple, you do not need to control stores around the world, but only one site. And you want to say that the fact that something is translated and something is not is an accidental oversight?

You yourself first claimed that hourly is an event within one hour.
When I gave an example with a two-hour rapid, then you already said, that there is a broader meaning.

As for general comments, this is not the first time you have gotten personal, saying that I need to read a book on such and such a topic, that I have no experience in conducting a discussion, and all that sort of stuff, which you cannot possibly know
This is a cheap provocation.

If I do not get personal and do not use inappropriate mathematical formulas, this does not mean that I am giving in to you in any way.
You can consider yourself whoever you want in whatever field you want. No one appointed you as a boss here.
If you want to discuss the issue constructively, then refrain from evaluating my personality and focus on the arguments and facts.