• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 00:39
CEST 06:39
KST 13:39
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments0[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence10Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon9[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12
Community News
BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch0Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups4WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments1SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia8Weekly Cups (Sept 1-7): MaxPax rebounds & Clem saga continues29
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy SpeCial on The Tasteless Podcast Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments
Tourneys
Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 491 Night Drive Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Soulkey on ASL S20 A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL20 General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch [ASL20] Ro16 Group D [ASL20] Ro16 Group C
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Borderlands 3 General RTS Discussion Thread Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread UK Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
I <=> 9
KrillinFromwales
The Personality of a Spender…
TrAiDoS
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
RTS Design in Hypercoven
a11
Evil Gacha Games and the…
ffswowsucks
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1613 users

Math+Physics = Truth? - Page 2

Blogs > UGC4
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 All
EtherealDeath
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
United States8366 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-12-01 16:09:46
December 01 2009 16:05 GMT
#21
On December 01 2009 22:51 UGC4 wrote:
Hi everyone, before you read on let me warn you, this will probably be a boring blog to some of you because it is math related. i dislike math myself, even though i know how useful it can be. i just wanna discuss a couple of aspects of it with the smart TL community that cares enough to read.

Anyway. I remember having a discussion in a class regarding the topic of TRUTH. The discussion then derailed into the subjects of Mathematics + Physics and their proximity to perfection or truth, because most students argued that these sciences could prove everything. I understood their argument completely for obvious reasons, but then i asked the following:

- if math/physics is such accurate systems, why do they have such innate flaws? for example, x / 0 is undefined, etc.
- why would math/physics be any more special or accurate when they are nothing but a human construct? for example, multiplication comes before summation, but says who? obviously it works well that way, but humans created the system.

mind you, these are very vague memories of about 4 years ago, so im sorry for the lousy wording recreation. thanks for your input. i'd like to hear from those who are good at the subjects in discussion especially


Mathematical truth is strange. Here's something I am currently annoyed at:

Suppose you have a sound system of logic L, that is, all theorems of L are true. Now suppose L is also powerful enough to prove all true statements of the form "Turing machine M halts on input x" which can be done by simulating M until it halts. This is NOT the halting problem.

Let Tj be the Turing machine which on input i halts if the statement "Ti fails to halt on input i" is provable in L, and otherwise does not halt. Then the statement "Tj fails to halt on input j" is true but not provable in L.

This is because if Tj halted on j, by definition of Tj it follows that Tj does not halt on j. Since L is sound, the latter must be true, thus a contradiction. Therefore Tj does not halt on input j. Again by definition of Tj, it follows that it is not provable in L that Tj does not halt on input j.

But yet we have determined that Tj does not halt. Therefore we do not think within any fixed sound logical system, no matter how vast it is.

What then is our logic?

oops there were a few typos ^^
BottleAbuser
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)1888 Posts
December 01 2009 17:09 GMT
#22
I think you're talking about the Halting problem.

It's basically a proof that there exist some problems that cannot be solved by computers, no matter how cleverly designed.

More examples of uncomputable problems:

A barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave himself. Does the barber shave himself?

The adjective "heterological" describes adjectives which do not possess the trait they describe. Is the word heterological heterological?

A set S is defined as containing every element x that is not in S. What elements are in set S?

Now, get your head around this:

There are an uncountably infinite number of problems (larger than the set of computable problems for which there exists a program to solve it).

For every computable problem, there exists an infinite number of programs that can solve it (just add blank spaces or comments as many times as you like, and you have an infinite number of variations of the same program).

However, the number of programs that exist are countably infinite, which is infinitely smaller than the number of problems that exist. (Proof that programs are countably infinite: map them by lexographical order to the natural numbers)
Compilers are like boyfriends, you miss a period and they go crazy on you.
EtherealDeath
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
United States8366 Posts
December 01 2009 17:21 GMT
#23
Nah it's not the halting problem. It's Gödel's incompleteness theorem in the context of Turing machines. Or rather, it is how you would generate such an undecideable problem.


There are an uncountably infinite number of problems (larger than the set of computable problems for which there exists a program to solve it).

For every computable problem, there exists an infinite number of programs that can solve it (just add blank spaces or comments as many times as you like, and you have an infinite number of variations of the same program).

However, the number of programs that exist are countably infinite, which is infinitely smaller than the number of problems that exist. (Proof that programs are countably infinite: map them by lexographical order to the natural numbers)


Not sure how the first paragraph is relevant to the next two (since there are a countably infinite number of computable problems). Seems to just be an analogy of how every integer appears in an infinite number of rational numbers, but both are countably infinite sets.
vAltyR
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States581 Posts
December 01 2009 17:34 GMT
#24
On December 02 2009 01:05 EtherealDeath wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 01 2009 22:51 UGC4 wrote:
Hi everyone, before you read on let me warn you, this will probably be a boring blog to some of you because it is math related. i dislike math myself, even though i know how useful it can be. i just wanna discuss a couple of aspects of it with the smart TL community that cares enough to read.

Anyway. I remember having a discussion in a class regarding the topic of TRUTH. The discussion then derailed into the subjects of Mathematics + Physics and their proximity to perfection or truth, because most students argued that these sciences could prove everything. I understood their argument completely for obvious reasons, but then i asked the following:

- if math/physics is such accurate systems, why do they have such innate flaws? for example, x / 0 is undefined, etc.
- why would math/physics be any more special or accurate when they are nothing but a human construct? for example, multiplication comes before summation, but says who? obviously it works well that way, but humans created the system.

mind you, these are very vague memories of about 4 years ago, so im sorry for the lousy wording recreation. thanks for your input. i'd like to hear from those who are good at the subjects in discussion especially


Mathematical truth is strange. Here's something I am currently annoyed at:

Suppose you have a sound system of logic L, that is, all theorems of L are true. Now suppose L is also powerful enough to prove all true statements of the form "Turing machine M halts on input x" which can be done by simulating M until it halts. This is NOT the halting problem.

Does this include all true statements of the form "Turing machine M does not halt on input x?" Also, does this also mean it is strong enough to disprove all false statements of the same forms?

Let Tj be the Turing machine which on input i halts if the statement "Ti fails to halt on input i" is provable in L, and otherwise does not halt. Then the statement "Tj fails to halt on input j" is true but not provable in L.

You don't mention Ti again in your post. Is Tj supposed to be a recursive Turing machine, or does it work on a different Turing machine?

This is because if Tj halted on j, by definition of Tj it follows that Tj does not halt on j. Since L is sound, the latter must be true, thus a contradiction. Therefore Tj does not halt on input j. Again by definition of Tj, it follows that it is not provable in L that Tj does not halt on input j.

But yet we have determined that Tj does not halt. Therefore we do not think within any fixed sound logical system, no matter how vast it is.

What then is our logic?

oops there were a few typos ^^

I need to know the answers to my previous questions before I can continue my response. Thanks for the intriguing puzzle though!
내 호버크라프트는 장어로 가득 차 있어요
meeple
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
Canada10211 Posts
December 01 2009 17:35 GMT
#25
On December 02 2009 02:21 EtherealDeath wrote:
Nah it's not the halting problem. It's Gödel's incompleteness theorem in the context of Turing machines. Or rather, it is how you would generate such an undecideable problem.

Show nested quote +

There are an uncountably infinite number of problems (larger than the set of computable problems for which there exists a program to solve it).

For every computable problem, there exists an infinite number of programs that can solve it (just add blank spaces or comments as many times as you like, and you have an infinite number of variations of the same program).

However, the number of programs that exist are countably infinite, which is infinitely smaller than the number of problems that exist. (Proof that programs are countably infinite: map them by lexographical order to the natural numbers)


Not sure how the first paragraph is relevant to the next two (since there are a countably infinite number of computable problems). Seems to just be an analogy of how every integer appears in an infinite number of rational numbers, but both are countably infinite sets.


If I understand them correctly, all those examples are Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, just different examples of it.

@OP Alot of those things are due to the axioms that mathematicians choose to work with.
There have been some experimentation in other axiom sets that produce some really weird results, but those results are largely dismissed by the mathematic community.

meeple
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
Canada10211 Posts
December 01 2009 17:37 GMT
#26
On December 01 2009 23:08 ViruX wrote:
Math is not a human construct, its an ultimate truth whose answer is defined by its meaning. Kind of like "I think, therefore I am".
As for dividing by zero, I always thought of it as trying to see how many empty cups of water it would it take to fill a bucket with water.

Physics is all theory and no matter how strong the evidence is you can't really prove anything.


That's a really cool way of thinking about the divide by zero problem...
EtherealDeath
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
United States8366 Posts
December 01 2009 18:00 GMT
#27

Does this include all true statements of the form "Turing machine M does not halt on input x?" Also, does this also mean it is strong enough to disprove all false statements of the same forms?


Sure, that can be in L. And no, L is not necessarily capable of disproving all false statements, or any at all, so we assume nothing about its power in this regard.

You don't mention Ti again in your post. Is Tj supposed to be a recursive Turing machine, or does it work on a different Turing machine?


Yep, you put Tj into itself (so that Tj is the Ti mentioned in the general functioning of Tj).
EtherealDeath
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
United States8366 Posts
December 01 2009 18:10 GMT
#28
There's a pretty amusing paper on this from the 1960s, regarding consistency and various things:

Minds, Machines, and Godel J.R.Lucas

+ Show Spoiler [An excerpt] +
If such a machine were built to produce theorems about arithmetic (in many ways the simplest part of mathematics), it would have only a finite number of components, and so there would be only a finite number of types of operation it could do, and only a finite number of initial (115) assumptions it could operate on. Indeed, we can go further, and say that there would only be a definite number of types of operation, and of initial assumptions, that could be built into it. Machines are definite: anything which was indefinite or infinite we [258] should not count as a machine. Note that we say number of types of operation, not number of operations. Given sufficient time, and provided that it did not wear out, a machine could go on repeating an operation indefinitely: it is merely that there can be only a definite number of different sorts of operation it can perform.

If there are only a definite number of types of operation and initial assumptions built into the system, we can represent them all by suitable symbols written down on paper. We can parallel the operation by rules ("rules of inference" or "axiom schemata") allowing us to go from one or more formulae (or even from no formula at all) to another formula, and we can parallel the initial assumptions (if any) by a set of initial formulae ("primitive propositions", "postulates" or "axioms"). Once we have represented these on paper, we can represent every single operation: all we need do is to give formulae representing the situation before and after the operation, and note which rule is being invoked. We can thus represent on paper any possible sequence of operations the machine might perform. However long, the machine went on operating, we could, give enough time, paper and patience, write down an analogue of the machine's operations. This analogue would in fact be a formal proof: every operation of the machine is represented by the application of one of the rules: and the conditions which determine for the machine whether an operation can be performed in a certain situation, become, in our representation, conditions which settle whether a rule can be applied to a certain formula, i.e., formal conditions of applicability. Thus, construing our rules as rules of inference, we shall have a proof-sequence of {47} formulae, each one being written down in virtue of some formal rule of inference having been applied to some previous formula or formulae (except, of course, for the initial formulae, which are given because they represent initial assumptions built into the system). The conclusions it is possible for the machine to produce as being true will therefore correspond to the theorems that can be proved in the corresponding formal system. We now construct a Goedelian formula in this formal system. This formula cannot be proved-in-the- system. Therefore the machine cannot produce the corresponding formula as being true. But we can see that the Goedelian formula is true: any rational being could follow Goedel's argument, and convince himself that the Goedelian formula, although unprovable-in-the-system, was nonetheless----in fact, for that very reason---true. Now any mechanical model of the mind must include a mechanism which can enunciate truths of arithmetic, because this is something which minds can do: in fact, it is easy to produce mechanical models which will in many respects produce truths of arithmetic far [259] better than human beings can. But in this one respect they cannot do so well: in that for every machine there is a truth which it cannot produce as being true, but which a mind can. This shows that a machine cannot be a complete and adequate model of the mind. It cannot do everything that a mind can do, since however much it can do, there is always something which it cannot do, and a mind can. This is not to say that we cannot build a machine to simulate any desired piece of mind-like behaviour: it is only that we cannot build a machine to simulate every piece of mind-like behaviour. We can (or shall be able to one day) build machines capable of reproducing bits of mind-like behaviour, and indeed of outdoing the performances of human minds: but however good the machine is, and however much better (116) it can do in nearly all respects than a human mind can, it always has this one weakness, this one thing which it cannot do, whereas a mind can. The Goedelian formula is the Achilles' heel of the cybernetical machine. And therefore we cannot hope ever to produce a machine that will be able to do all that a mind can do: we can never not even in principle, have a mechanical model of the mind.
vAltyR
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States581 Posts
December 01 2009 18:21 GMT
#29
Okay, so let me go over the problem again. Tj is a recursive Turing machine that halts if and only if the statement "Tj fails to halt on input j" is provable in L. Then it follows that if Tj does not halt, then the statement "Tj fails to halt on input j" is not provable in L.

If Tj halted on j, then the statement "Tj fails to halt on input j" is false. In our definition, we said L is strong enough to prove all true statements of this form, but not strong enough to disprove a statement. So unless L is strong enough to prove a false statement is true, then I don't see any contradiction in logic here.

I think it might be how you worded the problem, but the definition you gave for Tj is:
Let Tj be the Turing machine which on input i halts if the statement "Ti fails to halt on input i" is provable in L, and otherwise does not halt.
So the issue isn't whether Tj halts or not, but whether it is provable in L.
내 호버크라프트는 장어로 가득 차 있어요
BottleAbuser
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)1888 Posts
December 01 2009 18:55 GMT
#30
All of these uncomputable problems I listed (which I'm sure are related to the discussion on logic systems) have in common the characteristic of denying their own answers. I'm not sure if there is any other kind of uncomputable problem.
Compilers are like boyfriends, you miss a period and they go crazy on you.
EtherealDeath
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
United States8366 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-12-01 19:09:09
December 01 2009 19:08 GMT
#31
On December 02 2009 03:21 vAltyR wrote:
Okay, so let me go over the problem again. Tj is a recursive Turing machine that halts if and only if the statement "Tj fails to halt on input j" is provable in L. Then it follows that if Tj does not halt, then the statement "Tj fails to halt on input j" is not provable in L.

If Tj halted on j, then the statement "Tj fails to halt on input j" is false. In our definition, we said L is strong enough to prove all true statements of this form, but not strong enough to disprove a statement. So unless L is strong enough to prove a false statement is true, then I don't see any contradiction in logic here.

I think it might be how you worded the problem, but the definition you gave for Tj is:
Show nested quote +
Let Tj be the Turing machine which on input i halts if the statement "Ti fails to halt on input i" is provable in L, and otherwise does not halt.
So the issue isn't whether Tj halts or not, but whether it is provable in L.


So we have Tj(j) halts if "Tj fails to halt on input j" is provable in L, and otherwise does not halt.. If Tj halts, then the statement in parentheses "Tj fails to halt on input j" must be provable in L by defintion of Tj. Since L is sound, it follows that this must be true, that Tj fails to halt on j, contradicting the assumption that Tj halts on j. Therefore Tj does not halt on j. By definition of Tj(j) not halting, this means that in L it is not provable that Tj does not halt on input j. However, we have just shown that it is in fact true that Tj does not halt on j. Thus we have a statement that we know to be true but nevertheless is not provable within L, regardless of what L is, so long as L is a sound system of logic and is powerful enough to prove all true statements of the form "Turing machine M halts on input x", but the latter condition is pretty obvious for humans: just simulate M. Thus it seems we are left wondering whether humans reason with any fixed sound system of logic.
vAltyR
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States581 Posts
December 01 2009 19:30 GMT
#32
Ahhh, I see. Cool!
내 호버크라프트는 장어로 가득 차 있어요
UGC4
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Peru532 Posts
December 01 2009 19:50 GMT
#33
wow, thanks everyone you guys consistently exceed my expectations when it comes to input.
i'd like to quickly apologize again for the bad wording of the discussion, i know "truth" and "perfect" are impossible to define but im glad most people got my point.
i should also apologize for the lousy examples that i provided for my questions, seen as they do seem to have an answer. but it was good to see other people put forward their own examples, which i guess leaves the ultimate question of whether math is a human construct or not unanswered, but im perfectly fine with that. thanks again for all your input, and for the recommended reads. i'll be sure to take a look at them!
#1 Movie fan~ he's got so much skill it oozes out of his skin in the form of acne. ~family comes first~
EtherealDeath
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
United States8366 Posts
December 01 2009 22:02 GMT
#34
On December 02 2009 04:50 UGC4 wrote:
wow, thanks everyone you guys consistently exceed my expectations when it comes to input.
i'd like to quickly apologize again for the bad wording of the discussion, i know "truth" and "perfect" are impossible to define but im glad most people got my point.
i should also apologize for the lousy examples that i provided for my questions, seen as they do seem to have an answer. but it was good to see other people put forward their own examples, which i guess leaves the ultimate question of whether math is a human construct or not unanswered, but im perfectly fine with that. thanks again for all your input, and for the recommended reads. i'll be sure to take a look at them!


Oh and as for your question of whether math is a human construct or something, I suppose the real question is do the objects of mathematics reside anywhere. As its constructs are infinite, it is impossible to store them anywhere in the physical universe (not enough particles!). How would you create a perfect line? Not enough atoms to do it, and besides atoms aren't small enough; nevertheless, the line obviously exists right? And then it goes into random philosophical bs, but yea -_- (the world of the mathematical objects anyone?)
Mortality
Profile Blog Joined December 2005
United States4790 Posts
December 02 2009 02:16 GMT
#35
Math has no flaws. Even things people think are "flaws" like the Banach-Tarski "paradox" aren't really flaws (nor is it really a paradox -- it's just called that because it defies intuition).

However, math is something we create. We take a bunch of statements that are true, create new definitions and then use things from the set of discovered truths to create new truths. If anything, what's so stunning about all of this is that these new truths that get uncovered turn out to have vast application to the "real world," even if no such intention was ever at work.



Physics, however, may be very "truthy," but is not "truth." It's an attempt to explain observable phenomena in the universe, but we have no way of knowing if any of what we've come up with is actually "the truth." We merely suspect that it is because our physical theories have withstood the test of time. But that doesn't mean they are "right."

Physics just tends to come out "better" than other forms of science because it's far less politicized. When a biologist does research on the genome, he's under political pressures he may not even comprehend from various groups with various objectives. Even in the United States, there was an intellectual movement advocating euthanasia of people with "unfavorable genes," that only lost steam after the world witnessed the horrors of the Holocaust. And even today, evolution can be a dangerously touchy subject.

And don't even get me started on the so-called "social sciences," where its easy to get ostracized if you present evidence that goes against the status quo.



In the end, just remember:

Biologists think they are chemists, chemists think they are physicists, physicists think they are god, and god is a mathematician.
Even though this Proleague bullshit has been completely bogus, I really, really, really do not see how Khan can lose this. I swear I will kill myself if they do. - nesix before KHAN lost to eNature
Prev 1 2 All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
19:00
Mid Season Playoffs
Spirit vs PercivalLIVE!
Cham vs TBD
ByuN vs Jumy
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 174
ProTech69
StarCraft: Brood War
PianO 331
Nal_rA 62
Bale 29
Icarus 4
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm138
League of Legends
JimRising 612
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K405
Coldzera 314
Super Smash Bros
Westballz24
Other Games
summit1g7880
C9.Mang0391
XaKoH 103
RuFF_SC251
ViBE43
Trikslyr24
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick972
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Sammyuel 26
• practicex 24
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• RayReign 15
• Diggity4
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo1090
• Stunt373
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
5h 22m
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
Map Test Tournament
6h 22m
The PondCast
8h 22m
RSL Revival
1d 5h
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
1d 22h
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
Online Event
3 days
[ Show More ]
Wardi Open
4 days
Monday Night Weeklies
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
LiuLi Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-09-10
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL World Championship of Poland 2025
IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL Season 21
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.