Lan Todak

Ok, I got it. When I am free, I will start fresh topic with no AI. 👍👍👍

This is an unavoidable situation. We can't deny the presence of AI companies. It's up to each country's regulations to protect citizens from them taking our jobs. I don't really know how to handle this situation, but I hope my country will do what's best for our people. That's not how I usually work with AI. I know they make frequent mistakes, but that doesn't mean we can't use their data. Ask them to define something and then ask them to analyze other things related to that definition. Do they fit? For example: you ask them to define a pulsar, and then you give them several celestial objects for verification. Can they recognize which one fits the definition? If they successfully execute the task, you're done. Unless they fail, you can start feeding them logical contradictions between their data and yours. It works. If it doesn't, that's your problem, not theirs. I often use logical fallacies and contradictions to counter AI's reasoning by forcing them to generate a premise for each definition they've created. After that, I give them trick questions. This is where logical inconsistency happens. AI can sometimes make mistakes, but not always. Can I just post the summary of my discussion? I don't think this is prohibited too.

I saw many people post a.i contents here. How is such content against the rules? They will please you if you don't filter the contents. You can ask them to be unbiased towards your contents and preferences. They will give you direct answer, clean. Btw, I don't think I will continue 😁.

After discussing with a.is in several weeks, they finally agreed with me that gravity is independent of mass and eventually proves that core isn't dense like what people think. I will post some parts of it when I am not busy later. 👌. Be prepared because It's quite long.

Can we increase gravity intensity by stacking up objects? If you are given a task to create a core of objects, how many stacked masses of objects required before gravity start crushing the masses to create core. Yes or no? Give me explanation. Why can't science give answer. I don't understand. It's because science can't solve problems or science is more to philosophy?

I want an answer. It's yes or no. So what is your answer and what's your explanation? Ops, my mistake. It means noodle peace ✌️ 😁😁.

Schwarzschild metric has a flaw. If you arrange steel balls from one end to another end across universe, would the one at the center melt due to gravity?is it no or yes? If You get it right, you could probably win noble price.💪

Bellocks

A tiny little creature, hiding in the cloud of heavy elements, surrounded by 7 layers of strong gravitational lensing effects(including earth GLE), within cold and dark area where light and temperature only cover up to Neptune this is sun, a black hole. Doomsday is near 😲😲😲.

I don't know about others but fusion progress will eventually fail. Once they exceed threshold, longer chain reaction will happen. That will drain up energy. They will s when that happens.

Hi Everyone, could anyone here help me comfirm that this calculation verifies prime numbers? This is the calculation: DSum(Mod((x^2−A),(2B−2x))==0,x,0.0,(B−2)) A is a reminder of a number to be tested while B is a factor of a top closest square that is used to subtract the test number. For example, If you want to test 7, the top closest square is 3^2 or 9. B is 3 as it is a factor of 3^2. By using the square to subtract the test number, 3^2- 7=2, u get 2. Plug into the formula, u get DSum(Mod((x^2−2),(3⋅2−2x))==0,x,0.0,1.0) If you want to test 19, the top closest square is 5^2 or 25. B is 5 as it is a factor of 5^2. By using the square to subtract the test number, 5^2- 19=6, u get 6. Plug into the formula, u get DSum(Mod((x^2−6),(5⋅2−2x))==0,x,0.0,3.0) It works for any prime number(big or small). If u do it rite u should get all false. Tq...

I think I should post this in puzzle section instead of here. The answer is 1. You can get this answer by rearranging Fermat's little theorem. (I think my question wasn't interesting enough because it's easy)

I think you didn't get it. Should I say "any kind of machine calculation?". As I mentioned before, by looking at it, you could probably get the answer right away, with no machine involved (for example calculator). Test it first. if nobody gets it, I will show what I've got. I could say yes, but the X value is constant. It doesn't vary with a or p. Can you guess one of the composite numbers for 23^37-x. If X is 23, the composite numbers is 37, right? But you can't use 23 to other numbers. If a = X then yes.

Hi everyone... I have an interesting test to do. If given to you a^p, where p and a are available from 3 to infinity( although this set of numbers actually started from 0 but I removed them for some reasons), what is the special number(x) when you subtract from a, some composite numbers of a's reminder are always known? Here's an example. Pick any number for a,X and p. For this test I choose 8 for a, 11 for p and 31 for X so the structure looks like this, (8^11)-31=8,589,934,561. Can you guess the composite numbers for 8,589,934,561 without factorization? Some of its composite numbers are 13 and 660,764,197. By using X =31, test X for every available number for a^p. Guess its composite numbers directly without using factorization. If you are able to that, that means X is the special number. If u can't then it isn't. Here are tips for you. 1. X value is always near one of the composite numbers ( that's why you can always guess them right away) within no more than 2 digits For example, if X is 321, one of the composite numbers is within 300 to 350 width. More than that, you might calculate it wrong or X isn't special. 2. It works for any number for a^p. Yes, any number. 3. Use small numbers for test like 3^3-7 or 5^4-16 if you have issues with huge numbers 4. Remember to keep x as constant.only vary a and p. Good luck.

Hi everyone... Why Don't all of you talk about algorithm ( a set of instructions that allows a machine to be responsive). I mean why do AI look Like zombies to us although they are cooperative and responsive. What are the missing parts that weve overlooked. I think by discussing about this, allowing us to understand how unique free will is and why humans look Alive. I think it has something to do with yes-no process. You know what I mean.