You think your friend "has thought through every thing around Jakob’s situation that he thinks is relevant for his future fitness" - hard to believe.
You can start writing a book about it, it will not change the pure fact: his chances are not 0% and they are not 100% (and, no, there are no arguments for those numbers).
Both is impossible. For sure any numbers which someone gives (like me) are just some attempt of expressing the own valuing of the known facts. There isn't a true percentage which can explain his chances - and something like this can't be proved after the event has happened (which I think you nonsensically believe).
When someone - against all odds - wins in the lottery, I'm pretty sure you will argue that the chances were not that small like anybody has said...
Jakob's achievements as a runner so far clearly tell us his chances are not 0% - for sure. Also his injuries can't bring them down to 0%. 0% is pure dumbness. Same for 100% - pure dumbness. That you try to argue for those numbers as possibilities tells us a lot.
The chances of winning in a lottery, or getting 6 when you throw a dice, are chances one has objectively answers too, by mathematically methods that also are confirmed by experience (throw a dice enough times, and you will get the predicted chances/times for each number on the dice).
But chances like that aren’t what we are talking about when we are debating Jakob, because his races aren’t a random throw of a dice -we know things that influence his running and fitness, contrary to a dice where the circumstances have no impact (properly done with no cheating, manipulation of the dice, inbuilt magnetism and so on).
You seem to confuse Jakob with a dice, but it’s only in the latter we find defined/definite chances in %. In Jakob’s case it’s totally different -if we think we have control over all the things that decide his fitness we can easily conclude zero chance or a hundred % certainty of WRs. (But we will be wrong if we have overlooked/misinterpreted some of the information).Only if we think we lack good enough information we must start talking about chances in a graded per cent -that per cent will then not say anything of the chances for a certain outcome, but is only a number/measurement for ones lack of certainty, confidence and understanding. So one is guessing an outcome, and guessing a per cent of chance. -Very unreliable, whereas the zero/hundred % are very reliable if one knows and understands the information correctly.
Conclusion: Your claim of a need of per cent chance is flawed. -Especially because you base your guesses so little on specifically information about Jakob, knowledge about Achilles injuries and so on. And you don’t get the following: There are only three correct answers on Jakob’s chances: 1. Zero 2. A hundred % 3. We don’t know (too hard to evaluate).
Your % will always be wrong, because it’s not a dice per cent -it only measures the % of lack of knowledge you got…
No, I don't confuse him with a dice - did you even read my comments?
That you still try to argue for the possibility that zero and 100% might be the correct answer (depending on the information someone might have) shows that you are really close to your friend in intellectual abilities.
100% is even more laughable than 0%. There is absolutely no information someone might have about the situation which could reason 100%.
Will Mondo set another WR?
Will SML win another race?
Will the women's 800m WR survive 1 more season?
Will this record still stand in 50 years?
Astonishing that something like this has to be explained: none is for certain (100%).
For (close to) 0% there can be some information: for example if he had both legs amputated. Some achilles injury isn't such an information.
I clearly told you that there can't be a concrete number. But it's the most natural thing to express the own thinking in such cases by numbers. I don't think he will get the 1500m WR but for sure I'm aware that's possible.
You write such an enormous amount of nonsense that I really have no problem to call this stupid.
Have you even realised that your friend still failed to understand easy sentences like "For sure it's not for sure that he will get those records."?
It's beyond him. Way beyond. But you say he is not stupid, even intelligent.
No, I don't confuse him with a dice - did you even read my comments?
That you still try to argue for the possibility that zero and 100% might be the correct answer (depending on the information someone might have) shows that you are really close to your friend in intellectual abilities.
100% is even more laughable than 0%. There is absolutely no information someone might have about the situation which could reason 100%.
Will Mondo set another WR?
Will SML win another race?
Will the women's 800m WR survive 1 more season?
Will this record still stand in 50 years?
Astonishing that something like this has to be explained: none is for certain (100%).
For (close to) 0% there can be some information: for example if he had both legs amputated. Some achilles injury isn't such an information.
I clearly told you that there can't be a concrete number. But it's the most natural thing to express the own thinking in such cases by numbers. I don't think he will get the 1500m WR but for sure I'm aware that's possible.
You write such an enormous amount of nonsense that I really have no problem to call this stupid.
Have you even realised that your friend still failed to understand easy sentences like "For sure it's not for sure that he will get those records."?
It's beyond him. Way beyond. But you say he is not stupid, even intelligent.
I agree “none is for certain (100%)” -e.g even the sun making its way in the sky again isn’t a hundred %. So “almost 100%” is a better phrase, but I think it’s possible to agree that this is a little knit picking.
So I can imagine someone thinking the chance of Jakob not coming back from what could (not that I do) be regarded as a minor injury (Achilles tendon), and not breaking WRs based on the potential he has showed, is so close to zero, that one doesn’t bother to use the phrase “almost a 100%” chance of 3 WRs, but goes for “a 100%” without “almost”, despite knowing Jakob could stumble over one of his dogs and hurt himself huge (regarding the latter so unlikely to happen that the 100% nevertheless is kept). -Not my thinking, but I can imagine fans that do, and I don’t think they then would be any more stupid than say you…
The chances of winning in a lottery, or getting 6 when you throw a dice, are chances one has objectively answers too, by mathematically methods that also are confirmed by experience (throw a dice enough times, and you will get the predicted chances/times for each number on the dice).
But chances like that aren’t what we are talking about when we are debating Jakob, because his races aren’t a random throw of a dice -we know things that influence his running and fitness, contrary to a dice where the circumstances have no impact (properly done with no cheating, manipulation of the dice, inbuilt magnetism and so on).
You seem to confuse Jakob with a dice, but it’s only in the latter we find defined/definite chances in %. In Jakob’s case it’s totally different -if we think we have control over all the things that decide his fitness we can easily conclude zero chance or a hundred % certainty of WRs. (But we will be wrong if we have overlooked/misinterpreted some of the information).Only if we think we lack good enough information we must start talking about chances in a graded per cent -that per cent will then not say anything of the chances for a certain outcome, but is only a number/measurement for ones lack of certainty, confidence and understanding. So one is guessing an outcome, and guessing a per cent of chance. -Very unreliable, whereas the zero/hundred % are very reliable if one knows and understands the information correctly.
Conclusion: Your claim of a need of per cent chance is flawed. -Especially because you base your guesses so little on specifically information about Jakob, knowledge about Achilles injuries and so on. And you don’t get the following: There are only three correct answers on Jakob’s chances: 1. Zero 2. A hundred % 3. We don’t know (too hard to evaluate).
Your % will always be wrong, because it’s not a dice per cent -it only measures the % of lack of knowledge you got…
No, I don't confuse him with a dice - did you even read my comments?
That you still try to argue for the possibility that zero and 100% might be the correct answer (depending on the information someone might have) shows that you are really close to your friend in intellectual abilities.
100% is even more laughable than 0%. There is absolutely no information someone might have about the situation which could reason 100%.
Will Mondo set another WR?
Will SML win another race?
Will the women's 800m WR survive 1 more season?
Will this record still stand in 50 years?
Astonishing that something like this has to be explained: none is for certain (100%).
For (close to) 0% there can be some information: for example if he had both legs amputated. Some achilles injury isn't such an information.
I clearly told you that there can't be a concrete number. But it's the most natural thing to express the own thinking in such cases by numbers. I don't think he will get the 1500m WR but for sure I'm aware that's possible.
You write such an enormous amount of nonsense that I really have no problem to call this stupid.
Have you even realised that your friend still failed to understand easy sentences like "For sure it's not for sure that he will get those records."?
It's beyond him. Way beyond. But you say he is not stupid, even intelligent.
"For sure it's not for sure" ...
Only an illiterate m*ron can come up with that - despite also being told again and again that it is a contradictory absurdity.
Evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.
That must apply to everyone on the thread. The title is "Ingebrigtsen going for 3 records next year". Gee, I wonder what that means?
I know you struggle with English.
The title says what you quoted, your post said that he claimed he was going to take the records.
Saying he will attempt to, is not the same as claiming he will take them.
It's sad when you insult foreigners for making mistakes in your language when you, yourself, can't really understand it, and it's the only one you speak.
No, I don't confuse him with a dice - did you even read my comments?
That you still try to argue for the possibility that zero and 100% might be the correct answer (depending on the information someone might have) shows that you are really close to your friend in intellectual abilities.
100% is even more laughable than 0%. There is absolutely no information someone might have about the situation which could reason 100%.
Will Mondo set another WR?
Will SML win another race?
Will the women's 800m WR survive 1 more season?
Will this record still stand in 50 years?
Astonishing that something like this has to be explained: none is for certain (100%).
For (close to) 0% there can be some information: for example if he had both legs amputated. Some achilles injury isn't such an information.
I clearly told you that there can't be a concrete number. But it's the most natural thing to express the own thinking in such cases by numbers. I don't think he will get the 1500m WR but for sure I'm aware that's possible.
You write such an enormous amount of nonsense that I really have no problem to call this stupid.
Have you even realised that your friend still failed to understand easy sentences like "For sure it's not for sure that he will get those records."?
It's beyond him. Way beyond. But you say he is not stupid, even intelligent.
"For sure it's not for sure" ...
Only an illiterate m*ron can come up with that - despite also being told again and again that it is a contradictory absurdity.
That must apply to everyone on the thread. The title is "Ingebrigtsen going for 3 records next year". Gee, I wonder what that means?
I know you struggle with English.
The title says what you quoted, your post said that he claimed he was going to take the records.
Saying he will attempt to, is not the same as claiming he will take them.
It's sad when you insult foreigners for making mistakes in your language when you, yourself, can't really understand it, and it's the only one you speak.
So when Jakob says he will "attempt" (his words or yours?) 3 records next year he is also saying he doesn't know that he will get them? He didn't add that part. Most posters here have taken the view that he means he will get them. When a runner says they will go for a series of world records (and not just one) that's a pretty confident forecast. They don't usually say that unless they think they can do it.
But you seem to be coming around to my view. He probably won't get them. Fortunately - according to you - he didn't say he would.
Only an illiterate m*ron can come up with that - despite also being told again and again that it is a contradictory absurdity.
Everyone understood him but you.
That's because illiteracy is a commonplace here. "For sure nothing is for sure" - including that statement. For sure you haven't a clue what you are sure of.
The title says what you quoted, your post said that he claimed he was going to take the records.
Saying he will attempt to, is not the same as claiming he will take them.
It's sad when you insult foreigners for making mistakes in your language when you, yourself, can't really understand it, and it's the only one you speak.
But you seem to be coming around to my view. He probably won't get them. Fortunately - according to you - he didn't say he would.
Great that you have corrected your nonsensical view that his chances are zero! What was your turning point? When did you realise your view is so utterly stupid? Next step for you: try to rethink more of the nonsense which you have wrotten over the years in this forum? I know, it's not easy, there are som any. But you already have done the first step - so, kudos to you!
Anybody who just tries to argue his chances are (almost) 100% is stupid.
Anybody who just tries to argue his chances are (almost) 0% is stupid.
Anybody who tries to argue for such stupid people is stupid.
Let me shift the question (a little) and the athlete involved here with two of his Norwegian compatriots, that run the same distances as Jakob, just to show you how strange your dismissal of zero/100% might look in another, not too dissimilar situation:
So let’s concentrate on only one of the WRs Jakob hope to break (to simplify a little): The 1500m. -Narve Nordås has a 3.29.47 PR, and Håkon Moe Berg, who is 19 years old: 3.30.28 PR. And here is the question: What is the chance for one of these two to break the 1500m WR in 2026?
Well, I’m pretty sure almost everyone who knows the sport would say “zero chance” (They are simply too far off 3.26.00).
So let’s compare these two uninjured Norwegians (neither has a history of injuries) with Jakob. -The latter has 2.74 sec better PR than Nordås, and 3.55 sec vs Moe Berg. But the question is: Are there any factors that can close this fitness gap the PR gap indicates between those three athletes in 2026, so Jakob will share their WR chance? Yes, there is: In the outdoor 2025 season Jakob wasn’t any better than these two countrymen (the WC showed this) because of his injury. Can this happen also in 2026? Again: Yes. -But the tricky part is of course how likely is it? And some -guys like you- will probably guess, and come up with a random graded percentage. But what if someone took a look on Jakob’s recurring severe injuries through two years now, and also thinks he even uninjured cannot break the 1500m WR (because of lack of speed talent, or age, worn down body and so on) and combines these, and therefore concludes with zero chance..? Does this person have to be stupid, or does he just weight Jakob’s problems a little differently than you do?
Conclusion: If we think there are zero chance for WR breaking from the second and third best Norwegians ever in 2026, that Jakob couldn’t out run in 2025, why would people who say the same about Jakob (based on his current problems) have to be stupid for saying the same thing about him..!?
(I’m not saying what I mean about Jakob’s chances here, just posing a reasoning un stupid people might do).
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
Anybody who just tries to argue his chances are (almost) 100% is stupid.
Anybody who just tries to argue his chances are (almost) 0% is stupid.
Anybody who tries to argue for such stupid people is stupid.
Let me shift the question (a little) and the athlete involved here with two of his Norwegian compatriots, that run the same distances as Jakob, just to show you how strange your dismissal of zero/100% might look in another, not too dissimilar situation:
So let’s concentrate on only one of the WRs Jakob hope to break (to simplify a little): The 1500m. -Narve Nordås has a 3.29.47 PR, and Håkon Moe Berg, who is 19 years old: 3.30.28 PR. And here is the question: What is the chance for one of these two to break the 1500m WR in 2026?
Well, I’m pretty sure almost everyone who knows the sport would say “zero chance” (They are simply too far off 3.26.00).
So let’s compare these two uninjured Norwegians (neither has a history of injuries) with Jakob. -The latter has 2.74 sec better PR than Nordås, and 3.55 sec vs Moe Berg. But the question is: Are there any factors that can close this fitness gap the PR gap indicates between those three athletes in 2026, so Jakob will share their WR chance? Yes, there is: In the outdoor 2025 season Jakob wasn’t any better than these two countrymen (the WC showed this) because of his injury. Can this happen also in 2026? Again: Yes. -But the tricky part is of course how likely is it? And some -guys like you- will probably guess, and come up with a random graded percentage. But what if someone took a look on Jakob’s recurring severe injuries through two years now, and also thinks he even uninjured cannot break the 1500m WR (because of lack of speed talent, or age, worn down body and so on) and combines these, and therefore concludes with zero chance..? Does this person have to be stupid, or does he just weight Jakob’s problems a little differently than you do?
Conclusion: If we think there are zero chance for WR breaking from the second and third best Norwegians ever in 2026, that Jakob couldn’t out run in 2025, why would people who say the same about Jakob (based on his current problems) have to be stupid for saying the same thing about him..!?
(I’m not saying what I mean about Jakob’s chances here, just posing a reasoning un stupid people might do).
What are "the second and third best Norwegians ever in 2026" ?
El Guerrouj's PB before his WR: 3:28.91
Phanuel Koech's PBs before his 3:27.72: 1:46.93 and 3:32.26
Narve Nordas' PB until 2022 (year before 3:29.47): 3:36.23
Hakon Moe Berg improved from 3:37.25 to 3:30.28 (shortly after he turned 19)
No, there chances are not zero.
And Jakob doesn't have a PB of 3:29.47, and he is not 19. He is the forth fastest 1500m runner in history with 3:26.73 and turned 25 two months ago.
Can he be injured again in 2026? What a stupid question: for sure he can. Is the "chance" for this 100%? For sure not.
Is his chance for breaking the 1500m WR in 2026 zero? For sure not. Only a stupid person tries to argue for the opposite.
And, just because you have implied something different in a previous post: for sure your friend can't be proved to be correct. If Jakob doesn't break the 1500m WR next season (what most observers - myself included - might think to be very likely) for sure this wouldn't prove him to be correct. If something doesn't happen it doesn't tell us it was not possible.
People who say his chances are zero have to be stupid, yes. Why? Because his chances are - obviously to anybody - not zero.
What are "the second and third best Norwegians ever in 2026" ?
El Guerrouj's PB before his WR: 3:28.91
Phanuel Koech's PBs before his 3:27.72: 1:46.93 and 3:32.26
Narve Nordas' PB until 2022 (year before 3:29.47): 3:36.23
Hakon Moe Berg improved from 3:37.25 to 3:30.28 (shortly after he turned 19)
No, there chances are not zero.
And Jakob doesn't have a PB of 3:29.47, and he is not 19. He is the forth fastest 1500m runner in history with 3:26.73 and turned 25 two months ago.
Can he be injured again in 2026? What a stupid question: for sure he can. Is the "chance" for this 100%? For sure not.
Is his chance for breaking the 1500m WR in 2026 zero? For sure not. Only a stupid person tries to argue for the opposite.
And, just because you have implied something different in a previous post: for sure your friend can't be proved to be correct. If Jakob doesn't break the 1500m WR next season (what most observers - myself included - might think to be very likely) for sure this wouldn't prove him to be correct. If something doesn't happen it doesn't tell us it was not possible.
People who say his chances are zero have to be stupid, yes. Why? Because his chances are - obviously to anybody - not zero.
You are lost in semantics, and that’s probably one of the reasons you think people who haven’t the exact same wording as you have are stupid…
I personally think “there’s zero chance Moe Berg breaks the 1500m WR in 2026” despite that he is young, and clearly in progress. And also despite, if I should bet my life on it, I would be more comfortable with predicting a far slower athlete than him to the zero chance, just to have a little more margin…
One cannot know with absolute certainty that Moe Berg has zero chances, but I think a lot of us, given how we use chance in a daily wording, don’t want to percentage grade his chances, given they obviously are so slim. The same with Armstronglivs, my self and many others probably -we don’t regard it as natural to grade chances between zero and a 100. We land on overwhelming indications for one or another outcome, and thus use the terms 100% or zero chance, or (as I often do) if we find the information to complex go for “I don’t know”. -We don’t find it natural to grade…
Armstronglivs clearly doesn’t mean zero chance for Jakob in an absolute sense. Like all of us he knows very few things are absolute. And you can tell by a slip in one of his posts: He uses the word probably. But that doesn’t mean that he cannot stand for the zero chance; it only means that he regards Jakob’s chances so slim that it’s natural to use the term zero, as most of us would do given how our language normally is functioning. But you clearly quarrel around the term (in stead of discussing the overall thread content) because the need of picking up an off topic fight, for some reason, despite that it’s obvious that both Armstronglivs and myself of course (like everyone else, maybe with you as an exception) know we can be wrong, and of course wouldn’t give our lives for and absolute term (f.x zero) that never never can fail, when the theme is only sport…
Armstronglivs’ zero is of course an overall estimate he has been summing up from weighting all the indications of Jakob not having a chance in 2026, well knowing he has been quite close (as you stress) time wise in the 1500m/mile in 2023/2024. So if you disagree, you should focus better on why you think there is a chance, instead of quarrel around how Armstronglivs and a lot of us use the term chance in our common language.
You are lost in semantics, and that’s probably one of the reasons you think people who haven’t the exact same wording as you have are stupid…
I personally think “there’s zero chance Moe Berg breaks the 1500m WR in 2026” despite that he is young, and clearly in progress. And also despite, if I should bet my life on it, I would be more comfortable with predicting a far slower athlete than him to the zero chance, just to have a little more margin…
One cannot know with absolute certainty that Moe Berg has zero chances, but I think a lot of us, given how we use chance in a daily wording, don’t want to percentage grade his chances, given they obviously are so slim. The same with Armstronglivs, my self and many others probably -we don’t regard it as natural to grade chances between zero and a 100. We land on overwhelming indications for one or another outcome, and thus use the terms 100% or zero chance, or (as I often do) if we find the information to complex go for “I don’t know”. -We don’t find it natural to grade…
Armstronglivs clearly doesn’t mean zero chance for Jakob in an absolute sense. Like all of us he knows very few things are absolute. And you can tell by a slip in one of his posts: He uses the word probably. But that doesn’t mean that he cannot stand for the zero chance; it only means that he regards Jakob’s chances so slim that it’s natural to use the term zero, as most of us would do given how our language normally is functioning. But you clearly quarrel around the term (in stead of discussing the overall thread content) because the need of picking up an off topic fight, for some reason, despite that it’s obvious that both Armstronglivs and myself of course (like everyone else, maybe with you as an exception) know we can be wrong, and of course wouldn’t give our lives for and absolute term (f.x zero) that never never can fail, when the theme is only sport…
Armstronglivs’ zero is of course an overall estimate he has been summing up from weighting all the indications of Jakob not having a chance in 2026, well knowing he has been quite close (as you stress) time wise in the 1500m/mile in 2023/2024. So if you disagree, you should focus better on why you think there is a chance, instead of quarrel around how Armstronglivs and a lot of us use the term chance in our common language.
I forgot to fix an obvious error in one of my previous posts: Moe Berg is the fourth best in Norway ever, not the third, that is Filip -3.30.01.
What are "the second and third best Norwegians ever in 2026" ?
El Guerrouj's PB before his WR: 3:28.91
Phanuel Koech's PBs before his 3:27.72: 1:46.93 and 3:32.26
Narve Nordas' PB until 2022 (year before 3:29.47): 3:36.23
Hakon Moe Berg improved from 3:37.25 to 3:30.28 (shortly after he turned 19)
No, there chances are not zero.
And Jakob doesn't have a PB of 3:29.47, and he is not 19. He is the forth fastest 1500m runner in history with 3:26.73 and turned 25 two months ago.
Can he be injured again in 2026? What a stupid question: for sure he can. Is the "chance" for this 100%? For sure not.
Is his chance for breaking the 1500m WR in 2026 zero? For sure not. Only a stupid person tries to argue for the opposite.
And, just because you have implied something different in a previous post: for sure your friend can't be proved to be correct. If Jakob doesn't break the 1500m WR next season (what most observers - myself included - might think to be very likely) for sure this wouldn't prove him to be correct. If something doesn't happen it doesn't tell us it was not possible.
People who say his chances are zero have to be stupid, yes. Why? Because his chances are - obviously to anybody - not zero.
You are lost in semantics, and that’s probably one of the reasons you think people who haven’t the exact same wording as you have are stupid…
I personally think “there’s zero chance Moe Berg breaks the 1500m WR in 2026” despite that he is young, and clearly in progress. And also despite, if I should bet my life on it, I would be more comfortable with predicting a far slower athlete than him to the zero chance, just to have a little more margin…
One cannot know with absolute certainty that Moe Berg has zero chances, but I think a lot of us, given how we use chance in a daily wording, don’t want to percentage grade his chances, given they obviously are so slim. The same with Armstronglivs, my self and many others probably -we don’t regard it as natural to grade chances between zero and a 100. We land on overwhelming indications for one or another outcome, and thus use the terms 100% or zero chance, or (as I often do) if we find the information to complex go for “I don’t know”. -We don’t find it natural to grade…
Armstronglivs clearly doesn’t mean zero chance for Jakob in an absolute sense. Like all of us he knows very few things are absolute. And you can tell by a slip in one of his posts: He uses the word probably. But that doesn’t mean that he cannot stand for the zero chance; it only means that he regards Jakob’s chances so slim that it’s natural to use the term zero, as most of us would do given how our language normally is functioning. But you clearly quarrel around the term (in stead of discussing the overall thread content) because the need of picking up an off topic fight, for some reason, despite that it’s obvious that both Armstronglivs and myself of course (like everyone else, maybe with you as an exception) know we can be wrong, and of course wouldn’t give our lives for and absolute term (f.x zero) that never never can fail, when the theme is only sport…
Armstronglivs’ zero is of course an overall estimate he has been summing up from weighting all the indications of Jakob not having a chance in 2026, well knowing he has been quite close (as you stress) time wise in the 1500m/mile in 2023/2024. So if you disagree, you should focus better on why you think there is a chance, instead of quarrel around how Armstronglivs and a lot of us use the term chance in our common language.
His way of telling he was wrong...
I'm using 0% and 100% in this non-literal sense you dishonest person.
Also in dishonesty you touch the terribly low level of your friend.
And now tell me: what could be the reasoning for the statement: "Jakob by 100% will get the 1500m WR next year" (in the meaning, it's almost a certainty.
And the same for 0% (in the meaning, it's almost impossible).
Small hint: you can't. The two statements are completely nonsensical.
To improve the own PB by 0.74 seconds at age 25 for sure is possible (and - to clarify again for a non-understander like you - : not in the sense of by 0.0001%).
I would say it's very unlikely, but for sure possible (to express something like this more easily, people use numbers; I would say his chances are something like 2% to 5% (clearly higher for the career)).
I give him a clearly higher chance for the Mile (weaker record and longer distance) and even higher for the 5000m (closer to his maybe best distance of 3000m). But for sure very far from "a given" (his achilees injury, 12:35.36 still is little bit stronger than 7:17.55 for me, he hasn't gone for a fast time in the event so far - so we just don't know his capabilities here).
But you seem to be coming around to my view. He probably won't get them. Fortunately - according to you - he didn't say he would.
Great that you have corrected your nonsensical view that his chances are zero! What was your turning point? When did you realise your view is so utterly stupid? Next step for you: try to rethink more of the nonsense which you have wrotten over the years in this forum? I know, it's not easy, there are som any. But you already have done the first step - so, kudos to you!
I haven't corrected my view, I've just clarified the nonsense that is yours.