exchemist

Interesting piece today in the FT magazine by Tim Harford. He relays an anecdote about encountering a fellow runner on his way to the start of the London marathon in Greenwich. This other guy had used Chat GPT to advise him how to get to the start. He'd been told to use the Elizabeth Line to go to Liverpool St and thence to Greenwich. But there is no train from Liverpool St to Greenwich. The point of the article was why this guy had elected to use Chat GPT rather than Google Maps, which would have given him the correct information. The reason is that Chat GPT wrapped up the wrong advice in a nice, chatty package in perfect English, complete with a rationale for avoiding the Circle Line as it would be busy, and so forth. So this guy was suckered by the slick presentation and the human-seeming style of communication into trusting it, when it was actually talking crap.

Rather an informative series on bee-keeping. Here is one I have watched:

More waffly evasion. You owe us answers to a number of specific questions. I'm not a mathematician either but I can read what a formula says. If you post a mathematical formula you need to be able to explain what it is and how it is to be used. It is idiotic to claim you have defined a mathematical operator, yet be unable to say how one would use it, i.e. what it operates on.

So, just more waffly bullshit instead of answering the questions raised. You really are wasting our time, aren't you?

If your "h", which is just a number increasing with the square of time, is an "operator" , what does it operate upon? Give an example of how to use it.

Lt. Pigeon would be proud.

Don't make up nonsense maths then. It makes you look at best a fool or at worst a charlatan. I'm as happy as anyone to be supportive of people who can articulate an idea sufficiently clearly that readers can understand it. But at the moment you are nowhere close to meeting that standard. So the best service I can do you is to point that out, so that you can get your act together and learn to communicate well enough to be taken seriously.

Yes indeed, "whether gibberish or not". And this, I'm sorry to say, is gibberish. It is certainly not novel physics, nor does it contain any identifiable "mind leading" postulate. It is just a jumble of words. I've tried to give you a chance to clarify what you are saying, recognising English is not your first language (at least, I fervently hope that it is not!), but I have had to give up. It is useless for you to waffle pompously about "ontology" if you cannot express an idea clearly. It is also inexcusable to post a mathematical formula without being able to define the quantities it purports to relate to one another. Mathematics is used to describe quantitative relationships between entities that can take mathematical values. Familiar examples would include things like energy, momentum, mass, electric charge, mechanical force, etc. If you are not describing entities of this kind you have no business posting mathematical formulae.

So this is all gibberish, then. None of the quantities in your equation have any defined physical meaning at all.

What is f? And what is E?

What source are you quoting from?

You have not answered my question, which is what quantities do u, g, and f represent? They must each stand for some quantitative property if your expression is to make any sense.

You need to say what these quantities u, g, f are. I am also a bit dubious about the value of an expression that contains an infinity symbol multiplied by a quantity and equates that to what looks like a sum of energies. You seem to have copy-pasted this from somewhere. What is the source you are quoting?

Ah, I see, fantasy-adventure-comedy. No wonder I haven't heard of it. 😁

Is this some kind of mash-up of HMS Pinafore and The Pirates of Penzance?🤔

I have Percy Scholes, who only provides a few lines on hemiola and if you look up sesquialtera he refers you to hemiola. There seems to be some difference of opinion in the literature about whether the terms are synonymous or not. It may be a transatlantic distinction, as with some other musical terminology, the names of grape varieties, the spelling of the chemical element Al (Americans use the original name), the numbering of seats in a rowing VIII and so much else.

But note that the LLM opted to disguise its blunder by wrapping that up with reference to both geology and “human history”, whatever that means. This is what is so creepy and dangerous. If it had simply referred to national parks that would have been OK.

Hemiolas are quite common in Baroque music. Händel uses one in bars 9 and 10 of the introduction to this well-known chorus from the Messiah: It's in 3/4, i.e. 3 crochets in a bar, so 1 2 3, 1 2 3. However in bars 9 and 10, as you approach the cadence at the end of the opening theme, the rhythmic "feel" of the music changes, like this :...... 1 2 3, 1 2, 1 2, 1 2, 1 2 3. The time signature remains 3/4 but the pattern of notes superimposes a rhythm that feels like 2-in-a-bar over the underlying 3-in-a-bar. In my score this is marked by 3 square brackets along the top and bottom of the stave, grouping the 3 pairs of the hemiola, spread across 2 bars of the music. If you listen out for it, this happens at the 10 sec mark.

I gather in music the Latin for hemiola is sequialtera, both meaning 3:2. But I'm only familiar with hemiola.

Well yes, I don't see why this remark is the least bit shocking, as it is obvious. The ambassador said he disliked references to this outmoded phrase, which is due to Churchill and was said 70 odd years ago. A lot has clearly changed and it has become both absurd, and in my view demeaning, for the Brits to keep harping on about it in the hope of special favours. The King I thought put the relationship in the right context by reminding everyone of the shared history and the fact that so many of the legal and constitutional principles of the USA are due to that history, right back to the Bill of Rights and even Magna Carta. If there is a special link, that is what it is. One perspective that being a hereditary monarch provides is a view of the broad, long, sweep of history. I think it was useful for the King to remind US politicians of history, their place in it and their concomitant responsibilities. Easy to lose track of that in the heat of the day to day pressures. One favour Trump has done the British is to strip away the cosy assumption that the USA will always protect us. It is clear that it won't, or rather may not, depending on the government of the day. We and the other Europeans need to be able to defend ourselves, possibly even from the USA. So let's junk this worn-out and subservient term and stand once more on our own feet.

What a lousy cartoon. As for @Linkey 's use of it to suggest that Navalny was somehow in the pay of Putin, to boost Putin's popularity, that seems (durrh!) to overlook Putin's repeated attempts to poison Navalny and his eventual killing. I can only presume @Linkey is a Russian troll.

No, I was very much a family man at that stage, being married to a Frenchwoman who didn’t like beer and with a small son at the Lycee Vincent van Gogh in Scheveningen. So no pubs for me then. But quite a lot of singing, in an English choral soc and also in a small a cappella group that sang Renaissance polyphony (early music being a speciality at the Hague Conservatorium). I learned a lot about music while I was there.

Yes I agree, on both points.

Hmm, Scheveningen, or St. Andrew's or Helensburgh for that matter, are hardly "safari parks", though.

Bit much though when they pinch your fush n chups out of your hand.