exchemist

This seems on the face of it to be a silly question. Numerology is quite obviously not science.

Why, then, did you say, on Sunday at 0825, "OK, I took this as an hobby project for to "investigate" this "double" extreme small hazard risk. Nowadays I'm 100% convinced over such powerful physics projects, to be non-hazardous." ? Are you just wasting our time, or have you some kind of short-term memory problem?

I don’t think anyone has said “well executed”. But it certainly is being hyped like crazy by its providers, which is one reason it is so much talked about. And I am reading more and more scepticism, at least about LLMs, in the media. In business it appears corporations feel the need to claim they are introducing AI, because of FOMO, but almost none of them can yet point to tangible benefits. A lot of the US stock market boom is apparently due to the promises of AI, but there are many voices that suspect a bubble, due for a correction. That is what I am reading in the Financial Times, at any rate. I wonder if LLMs, the main “retail” application of AI, as it were, are getting too much attention and distracting from AI’s more significant achievements in other fields. In much of the popular talk about AI, it seems to be treated as if LLMs and AI are one and the same thing.

You may be right. I think those specialising in developing scientific theory would generally be described as theoreticians.

“Some theorists”? Anyone apart from nutters?

What are you talking about? These are particle colliders for science experiments, not bombs.

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.