It's just not what the word axiom means nor how anyone uses it. An axiom is unprovable by definition - is it a thing we accept to be true because it is useful to do so (e.g. there exists an empty set)

"Provably Correct Axiom" is nonsense. An axiom is unprovable.

Just "provably correct" would've been fine. This chess stuff is hilariously pretentious.

> Just "provably correct" would've been fine. This chess stuff is hilariously pretentious.

Apparently a bit of humour when responding to a self-identified pedantic response didn't come across as I thought it would.

Lesson learned.

It's grok-level cringe is what it is.

I just nod and keep playing checkers.

Sorry but the entire line of argumentation and all it’s chess flavor is miles off the mark. This is not the sound of arguing with someone who studied what they talked about.

> Sorry but the entire line of argumentation and all it’s chess flavor is miles off the mark.

Apparently a bit of humour when responding to a self-identified pedantic response didn't come across as I thought it would.

Lesson learned.

> And, of course, a hypothesis is capable of being proven.

No, that's just you not understanding the definition of 'postulate'.

Username checks out

> Username checks out

Of all possible replies in the set of "meaningful and/or contributory", this does not have membership thereof.

At least the other responders had the common courtesy of putting forth some intellectual effort and not resort to a trite Reddit meme.