Sensei

Yet another ridiculous thread about prime numbers. Sigh. You can use your intuition when talking to a girl you don't know.. And even more so if you are familiar with her... ;) ..because it does not make sense.. I'm beginning to doubt your mathematical abilities.. a*b*c = d a*b*c*5 = d*5 Using a prime number (e.g., 5) still gives the same factors (if d was not prime). But you don't know which numbers are primes, smaller than ‘value’... Unless you create a database.. Reading from the database will take up a lot of processor time. In other words, you are talking about an algorithm like this: #include <stdio.h> bool is_prime( int value ) { if( value < 2 ) return( false ); if( value == 2 ) return( true ); for( int i = 2; i < value; i++ ) { if( ( value % i ) == 0 ) return( false ); } return( true ); } int main() { for( int i = 1; i < 100; i++ ) { if( is_prime( i ) ) { printf( "%d is prime!\n", i ); } } return( 0 ); }Use: g++ primes.cpp -o primesto compile the code in C/C++. No, this is not a good algorithm. Anyone who knows mathematics knows that: a*b=c and that b*a=c For example, if you are checking whether the number 19 is prime or not, you do not need to perform modulo on the numbers 11, 13, and 17. So, in the simplest form, make loops only up to value/2 (because more than that doesn't make sense). After this operation, you have accelerated your code twice. Knowing that the only prime number that is even is 2, you increase the counter by 2, skipping even numbers. This way, you already achieve a fourfold acceleration of the algorithm. When reading prime numbers from a previously generated database, the biggest bottleneck after a certain amount of time will be the lookup of data records from the database itself. Sieve is a very easy algorithm. You buy a 1 TB NVMe/SSD disk and you are able to make a map of primes from 0 to 8.796093022*10^12. One bit for one number. I just suspect that you wouldn't have had enough time. Then you have a database of these prime numbers. But why do you need them at all? I've told you a few times, learn to program. Without programming, you can't do anything here. You can figure out about the first few hundred on a piece of paper. And if you spend your life on it, a few thousand. And it will still be full of mistakes (as you can see in this thread). If you generated (algorithm in C/C++ above) all prime numbers, e.g., from 0 to 2^32 (~ 4.3 bln), put them in a database or .txt file so that they could be easily grepped (Linux: grep), you could play around with making some statistics that would allow you to assess when and under what circumstances we have larger groups of prime numbers, and when we have fewer. For example, it seems to me that decimal numbers with an even number of digits have fewer prime numbers. Take the number 1111, for example. You don't need to do any complicated calculations to see that it has a built-in pattern, 11 * 101. This does not work with numbers that have an odd (and prime) number of decimal digits. The same is true when the number is converted to binary. For example, we have %1101111011, an even number of binary digits, and we see the pattern %11011 * %100001. Based on this thesis, one can suspect that non-prime numbers occur more frequently when the number of digits (e.g. decimal, binary) is also a non-prime number. To reject a number as not being prime, it is sufficient to find any divisor of it. This can be significantly accelerated. All you need to do is find a pattern in these digits is some numerical system. However, to be certain that a number 'value' is prime, you must check whether it is divisible by all prime numbers smaller than ‘value/2’.

Your post should be trashed, not mine.. I didn't talk about masturbation etc. there.. At least my post was funny, yours is gross.. and off-topic.. The OP said “I love artificial intelligence,” and ChatGPT couldn't answer on its own, so I got involved, copied and pasted the answer from it, which was more or less "the guy is lying", which made the OP laugh. It was only Swanson's malice that ruined the thread. How old do you have to be to behave in such a childish way? It is not Swansont who decides whether OP is offended or not. Only OP knows that. I am outraged by your post about masturbation.. Because it reduces you to the level of some moron.

You don't know what he was laughing at because Swansont cut out the most important part of the thread..

So you no longer need medication for your urinary tract?

Funny, ChatGPT told me that you are lying, see: Tell me, what do you disagree with in his assessment of you? :) ps. See, you can fire pseudo-scientists who call themselves psychologists and psychiatrists, because examining a patient takes a fraction of a second... ;) ps2. I think that if someone claims that they cheated on exams, there is no problem in analyzing their claims in the same way.. ;)

In this whole task, you were an unnecessary nuisance who could have been eliminated without any harm to the goal. You didn't contribute anything to the whole process.

If you use that crappy Google Gemini (as of September 2025), there is an icon on the right side of the answer that you can click to get a link to the source of the data used in the summary. I don't think you understand that every source is unreliable. The question is just how much. When someone uses LLM, they expect 100% certainty. And when the answer comes from a human, you don't expect 100%. Or maybe you're just fooling yourself? I know you wouldn't stand a chance with that crappy ChatGPT on any topic. Unfortunately, they downgraded it, so now it will be worse than it was a few months ago. That's why I asked you play chess with it, as an example of your human frailty, to show you how mediocre you are compared to that shitty LLM. If I get an answer from ChatGPT 4o, it will be 99.9% better than any human's answer on the same topic. It has read the entire Wikipedia and all those scientific PDFs. And it remembers everything word for word. To detect an error in its results, you would have to be a genius and know a lot about the subject. It's damn difficult. Again, we're not talking about that piece of s**t called Google Gemini. When someone mentions “AI”/LLM, they shouldn't even mention that thing. Every time I use ChatGPT, I have to criticize it for making mistakes. It's not like “you ask,” it's “okay.”. It gets criticized all the answer. To criticize it, you have to know what you're talking about. “Where's the error handling?!” “Why didn't you do this and that in this and that line?!” To make a damn script in Bash on Linux using ChatGPT, I spent more time scolding it for generating bad code than I would have if I had written it myself. But it was fun! I felt almost like a slave overseer. If someone doesn't know anything about programming, they would say “wow” after seeing the first (crappy) version.. and wouldn't know that it's crappy.. I don't understand why people here are even talking about this crap called Google Gemini. You don't understand how it works at all. It only "reads" what it finds in the search results that pop up just below summary. It can't come up with anything, absolutely nothing, that isn't in those Google search engine results. If the results of a regular Google search do not contain the right answer, it will not invent it out of thin air. Use IMDB to check who created the soundtrack for the film, and search for their songs based on their full name. Besides, why would anyone digitize some prehistoric pieces? You'd have to be some kind of hobbyist of such an author.. See how many years must pass after the death of the heirs for something to become ‘public domain’. The heirs may not want something to be in the public domain. Spotify is a bad place to look for such things ;) Today, I had a DNS server installation. The local installation went smoothly without any problems and google searches etc. I expected everything to go as smoothly on the remote server as it did locally. Except that it's a different Linux, a different architecture, and everything else is different. I searched Google classic search. They wrote what to do. It didn't work. So I asked that shitty ChatGPT (asking Google Gemini anything makes no sense whatsoever). After 30-60 minutes of struggling with everything that needed to be tested, one by one, we figured out the options that works. In fact, it is unclear why these configuration options work on one system but not on another. The documentation advised not to use these options at all. But they helped. @studiot Bad news. They downgrade ChatGPT's from 4o to 4, so it has even less knowledge and less efficient than we talked about earlier: When we talked about this earlier, a month or two months ago, I said they were training it until 2023. That's no longer the case. We are talking about what is free and does not require logging in, etc. The most annoying change is that it can no longer read what is provided in the link and does not load it with curl/wget etc. ps. What a beautiful day - I found a beer in the kitchen that I had no idea was there.. Which second? Daddy Cop "The Rookie" would be too easy..

Gaza is the new Jews. They were exterminated by the Jews. Those who survived the Holocaust, their children, and grandchildren became war criminals who did the same thing as the Nazis.. but in slightly different ways.. but still for the same purpose, namely extermination... According to netanjahu et al, they could disappear into nothingness, into oblivion...

I think you haven't read what we were talking about. No one has an LHC or Hubble at home... or the ability to verify their data, etc. So you're talking about something different than what we're talking about... I don't deny science, quantum physics, or anything like that. I simply stated the fact that some random person who has no idea about he/she reads (if they can :) ) things... and it's exactly the same as LLM reading the same things.. Ordinary people don't have an LHC or a Hubble telescope at home. LLM doesn't either. So all the data that LLM has, and that an ordinary person like Swanson has, is the same data... ps. Why are you dumber than ChatGPT (not you StringJunky) ? I don't get it! I didn't give you the example of “play chess with ChatGPT” to show you how pathetic you are.. exchemist answered, “I don't play chess”... what kind of idiot doesn't know how to play chess? No wonder he's afraid to use LLM.. In the 1990s, people were excited that “A.I.” would beat the chess champion, and now this ex-chemist is shitting his pants.. What a day! What an age! How can people from such an ‘elite’ group not be afraid of all these 'a.i.'s? If someone considers themselves to be elite and smart, they should be the first to play chess with such an 'a.i.'

Knock yourself on the head. That's not what we're talking about. Can you read and understand the text? Someone is conducting these experiments, you (personally and literally you) believe in them, and you're just reading about them on the Internet.. All you know is that you believe they did their job well. You cannot obtain their data at home.

Thank you for confirming that you broke your own rules by not moving the entire @studiot thread to the Speculation section. Just like you don't. You don't have an LHC or Hubble under your pillow etc, nor do you have access to them, and all your “knowledge” is just rumors that have been extensively reprocessed. All you know is based on your belief that what they did is okay. Because you didn't do it yourself. And you try to believe in them.

..I should have sent this to you in a private message (as usual), not publicly in the thread..

..unless you make the law... ..take a look at the Ten Commandments..

Tom, you are artificial intelligence yourself, after all.. ..the problem arises when someone posts LLM answers and claims they are their own..

Since the scope of this thread isn't very clear, I'll jump in with a conversation with ChatGPT about Musk's Grok: ps. For me, ChatGPT isn't the one answering my questions, but the one asking me questions.. all day long.. If you ask such an LLM anything, you should first ask what day it is for it (Deepseek told me it's 2023 or so). It doesn't know what day, week, month, year, etc. it is because he doesn't think. It doesn't have data on current topics, so if someone asks it questions about this week events, how is it supposed to answer? It searches Google, etc., which is full of errors anyway, because the information from Google search can be easily manipulated.. About Kamala: A beautiful summary: stability versus disruption..

Your statement is not backed up by any data and only shows the extent of your ignorance because you couldn't be bothered to even check the real data. You are only showing how biased and prejudiced you are. The thing is, the @studiot uses Google Gemini for this. And you lump every LLM into the same basket and use them interchangeably. It's like lumping together the energy consumption and CO2 and NOx emissions of a combustion engine car, an electric car, and a truck, and not caring about the differences between them. So let's see how it really looks: IOW, not 10,000, but twice that amount. You were only wrong 5,000 times. A search engine is not simple. It searches the entire world every few minutes. If you have a static website, it will visit once a day, and if you have a dynamic website, it must do so every few minutes. Googlebot visits can be seen in the HTTP server logs. You can have more visits from search engine bots than from real people. There are several dozen such search engines. I've told the @studiot more than once that Google Gemini is crap, but he keeps talking about it like a maniac.. let him start using ChatGPT/DeepSeek.. But not ChatGPT v5, because they messed it up. ChatGPT does not require registration. Ask if it can play chess, and then play chess with this LLM. You'll shit your pants..

Nobody questioned the impossibility of predicting when a neutron particle will decay. I only questioned your statement that they are identical/the same. And if we add theories about hidden variables to the mix, then no particle is identical. You have bits in your computer. Can you say that they are identical/the same? They have different offsets in different bytes etc.

Why are humanists so dense? You haven't proven anything, because in physics you can have zero text and only calculations. It is the calculations that are the proof, not the description. You have a particle with spins 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, 5/2, 3, etc., and it gives you some number of dots on the screen, i.e., 2S+1. And now your goal is to show why these particles land exactly where we see (detect) them. If you don't understand what we're talking about, here's some reading material for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment Untrue, we have fast neutrons, we have thermal (slow) neutrons, we have free neutrons and neutrons bound to protons.. Maybe there are other classifications as well. You don't understand what “proof” is. Talk is proof only in court. Maybe try this first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory

@HbWhi5F Different elements have different electron configurations, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration meaning that their electron shells and subshells are filled differently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_shell The force of attraction of these electrons varies, which means that different amounts of energy are required to eject them or move them to a higher energy level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energies_of_the_elements_(data_page) To understand why nitrogen and oxygen form these compounds from your list, you need to understand what electron configurations, electron shells, and subshells are. Your dataset suggests that the only chloride and oxygen molecule is Cl2O7, but that is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichlorine_trioxide Cl2O3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichlorine_monoxide Cl2O etc. If that were true, then long before reaching infinity, they would create a black hole.

Well, he could use some therapy, because not pooping like that must be a serious case of constipation..

Cool to have Reosetta Stone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone

...but he talks in some kind of psychological gibberish... ...I like talking to intelligent people who write sensibly... if someone starts talking about psychology, then bye bye... ;) Can narcissism lead to greater reproductive success? Probably yes.. Such things are difficult or very difficult to investigate scientifically, which requires repeatability of results from hundreds or thousands of samples.

..you should be happy, like Putin, that Moscow wasn't bombed.. :) yet (for real) and draw conclusions from it, which I doubt you will. After all, people don't learn from other people's mistakes, as we can see.. ..your theory is clearly flawed because you claim that narcissism is linked to reproduction and physical strength.. A woman can have several children, and in extreme cases even ten, but a man can have thousands of children every year.. If someone is physically attractive, they don't have to force anyone to do anything, either by using force or deception. Where did this idea of linking narcissism with sexuality come from?

Narcissus has empathy by the kilo whenever he or she wants it.. And he/she doses it out to the clients when he/she needs to. ..on first reading, this offensive and sexist remark escaped my attention..

..tell us more about your partner, whom you have already mentioned so much.