Ghideon

Thanks! (I incorrectly assumed a connection to the fact that immersion and the emergence cannot be observed for the same eclipse of Io)

I think your description of light and of Ole Rømer’s observations deviates significantly from the established sources. Could you explain what personal idea or hypothesis you are pursuing that leads you to this different interpretation?

Not sure if this is a cause of your misunderstandings but different observers, at different distances would see a celestial object disappear and reappear at different times? Example: Observer A near Jupiter and observer B at earth would observe IO disappear at different times due to viewing angles. Here is a sketch:

Are they all of the same length? Long bits may be referred to as "aircraft" drill bits.

I reviewed your earlier thread on primes and this thread is a repetition; the proposals lack a coherent description and the few interpretable parts contradict established mathematics. These issues were already explained, in multiple ways, in the previous discussion but have not been incorporated into your reasoning. Your replies also continue indicate fundamental confusion regarding factors, integers, and prime numbers; as mentioned in the earlier thread, you may find this resource helpful: Khan Academy – Factors and multiples

Idea: somebody ≠ Somebody. @Somebody is a member, no longer active (upper case) "somebody" (lower case) is a tag used by the software to denote an anonymous member. A moderator would (likely) see the user name.

The ones cancel out.

The frequent use of quotation marks seems to weaken the precision and, ironically, introduce more "semantic inflation" rader than reduce it.

The expression collapses to zero.

Hello! What are the units of the things in your equation?

Just a quick note @Nia20855; the quotes seems messed up; your answers are posted as quotes from studiot.

What is the mathematical expression* of this error? Given the mathematical expression for the error, provide an expression for the range. *) Not a numerical or visual example in a graph

Integer factorisation is defined within the integers (Z) and depends on integer divisibility. A relation that yields non-integers cannot represent or detect factors. Your formula (((pnp^2/ x ) + x^2) / pnp) yields non-integers (except for some trivial case). Hence your equation is algebraically invalid as a method for finding primes or factors.

Can answer the question I asked above? How? Please show mathematically step by step what you mean. Use the symbols and derive the result. (Do not use any numerical example) Note the bold part

From the paper you linked "the rise of AI systems that can convincingly imitate human conversation will likely cause many people to believe that the systems they interact with are conscious." That is one aspect of the illusion I pointed out above. The paper also does not mention "Vedanta" so I do not see the connection to your ideas

Then you understand how interaction with an LLM works: the model itself has no memory or state across calls? The illusion of dialogue comes from sending the full context with each request.

Is it a surprise that the LLM hallucinated and failed to follow the prompt? Also the prompt example I posted is intended as input to an LLM; not an LLM wrapped in some software where additional information is inserted (except for system prompt(s) )

Give me a definition of consciousness in a Turing machine and I'll create a test for it. When you discuss AI you do not talk about human intelligence so I guess "consciousness" to you means some kind of artificial variant, a simulation or a model implemented in software ad running on contemporary hardware. Note that there are several tests available for humans and definitions such as Glasgow Coma Scale. But that has of course nothing to do with Artificial Intelligence.

Here is a simple prompt I used, inspired by the auto-complete comment from @TheVat

Ok. But what is the point? Any LLM prompted to simulate consciousness will generate text consistent with the prompt but this is only probabilistic token prediction; not actual consciousness.

Yes I tested. The quotes are output from ChatGPT. DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B locally installed gives similar results with temperature 0.7.

Thats a good way to say it. Two examples to illustrate the autocomplete in this context @Prajna: Assume we ask an LLM to complete the sentence "As we all know it is proven beyond doubt that the most advanced LLMs today are conscious, as shown in" then the LLM could output the following incorrect output: Of course, in reality, this is not proven at all it’s just the model echoing the framing of the question. Second example; a work of fiction: Only difference is the context; the prompts before input asking the LLM to autocomplete.

What you describe is an interpretation of the model’s text that aligns with your view of consciousness, not evidence that the LLM itself has subjective awareness.

How? Please show mathematically step by step what you mean. Use the symbols and derive the result. (Do not use any numerical example)

I know of Euclid's method and its use in cryptography; I got curious since I don't see an obvious connection to trurl's approach ("multiplying by 5"). Can you elaborate on the relation to Euclid's method?