studiot

Although it is not my name for the AI process, I think it is quite a good simple general one so I use it. Consider the following situation. A Turing Machine has a small defect. It does not have a symbol for the character 9 in its set of allowable characters. So it can calculate 2 + 3, 2 + 4, 2 + 5, 2 + 6 but not 2 + 7 but again it can calculate 2 + 8. Now the question arises "Is an AI capable of coming up with the deduction that 2 + 7 exists so it needs a symbol for the result, when asked to calculate 2 + 8 " ?

Thanks to all for offering some discussion points rather than taking up stances. Good information listing many extensions to a basic TM (all including a qualifying adjective) +1 However these are extensions, rather than restrictions as I don't think it is possible to simplify a TM further. It is sometimes difficult to follow your oblique thinking, but if you mean 'potential' as in the Greek's used potential in relation to infinity, then no that would not be a TM. Note that Turing did not predict his machine he specified it and finiteness is a very important part of that specification. Probability itself is philosophically problematic since TMs cannot directly handle the infinite. And the probability function has an infinite (though bounded) range. I'm not sure hot sure how many appreciate the implications of finiteness. Part of the specification includes a finite character set that can be input or output by a TM. The same applies to the instruction set and the set of operations that may be carried out. Finally there is the 'one character at a time' requirement. This is why a TM cannot fully compass a multicharacter 'message'. This in turn, leads to the probability pattern matching in use by current 'AIs'.

Practicality as mechanical engineering developed probably played a large part in this. Early machines were generally reciprocating, curiously with the exception of the first steam engine by Hero. Not only that but they were simple in that they only used one or at the most two cylinders. As machines developed, particularly the internal combustion engine, more was required than a simple machine output shaft to drive auxiliary equipment such as pumps, fans, generators, camshafts compressors and so on. All this has to work against that other mechanical beast - friction. Furthermore as engines became more sophisticated the Carnot 'hot' and 'cold' reservoirs only exist for a small part of the machine's cycle. Does this help ?

Really ? The Bureau International des Poids et Measures is not French, though its official language is? And what's this ? really ? So what is all the fuss about the difference between 273.15 and 273.16 and why did they need to redefine the value of Boltzmann's constant ?

Nice answers. +1 I would just like to add that much equipment has succumbed to the mania for chrome plating (often poorly made plating). Acids readily attach chrome plating on taps etc. An alternative you might try is steam cleaning.

I had to laugh when I saw this so +1 to John. As far as I can tell you are both a bit right and a bit wrong. The relevant body here is the French Authority responsible for Systeme Internationale, whose unit the kelvin is. They redefined the kelvin in 2017/2018 so the first trap is "which elvin are you using ?" As far as the French are concerned, the unit is spelled with a lower case k, but the symbol is an upper case K, because the lower case k is already allocated to the Boltzmann Constant, to which the kelvin is related. Perversely the English speaking world as represented by the UK and US National Physical Laboratories use upper case for both Kelvin and K. @Genady A perfect example of a camel (which in an English saying is aa horse designed by a committee.

I wasn't going to recommend any books without further discussion at this stage, but I will second Arfgen as a good choice. +1

The switch on routine in a current computer is meant to place the machine in a 'standard' state. This could be further strengthened by hard wiring to include the AI routine as part of that standard state.

Yes a Batchelors in Mathematics will certainly give you better grounding than one in Astronomy, so long as you are careful with your choice of syllabus. This should include a modern foundations of maths course, followed by lots of applied maths. But even then you would have a long way to add to that to get up to advanced theoretical Physics level. Good luck and I hope others will add useful comments.

I know the official line is that so called AI programs are nothing more than glorified TMs But is that really true ? One of the characteristics of a TM is reproducibility. That is a given input always results in an identical (and predictable in theory) output. Yet we have noted that repeating a question to, say CHATGPT, sometimes results in several quite different answers. A true TM should not exhibit this behaviour. I wonder if what is happening is that when the AI program does its data search and subsequent statistical 'pattern matching' this happens because the dataset for comparison varies each time the search is conducted or that the same dataset is invoked each time but there are additional limiting or cutoff instructions in the program to mean that each time a different dataset is actually compared.

Hello newcomer and welcome. It would be better to have started your own thread concentrating on what you want get out of the discussion, rather than reviving a short question from many years ago. Yes there is a big difference between practical engineering and thermodynamics, just as there is a big difference between practical applications and theoretical considerations and simplifications in almost any subject you care to imagine.

Good morning and welcome. Thank you for your polite enquiry +1 for encouragement. Going from your handle and use of a teaspoon for measurement you are not a scientist so I will try to put my answers in non scientific context for you. I have therefore numbered your question as above. There are about 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules in 18 grammes of water so the each one has a very small weight. No one molecule is very small - about 0.000000000002 metres across. This is way to small to see with the naked eye. It is even about 100000 times too small to see with the most powerful optical microscope. You may have guessed that one molecule is too small to measure out by teaspoon. In fact there are about 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules in a one eighth teaspoon so you wouldn't notice just one on the spoon. Water can exist i9s solid (ice), liquid or gas (water vapour or dry steam). In the solid or liquid states you would not find isolated molecules, but in the gaseous state there are generally isolated from each other in a body of water vapour. They would not be isolated in any water droplets contained in that vapour (or wet steam). It is good to see someone enquiring about things around them so keep the questions coming.

This is a case of the inappropriate conclusions being drawn from inaccurate (insufficient) data. Antarctica is neither circular in shape nor is it centered on the pole. Compare the maps from 1962 and 2022. The left hand peninsula - Graham Land - is in approximately the same orientation as the long island in the 2022 on the 1962 map Map 1 Stanford's Whitehall Atlas 1962 Map 2 from Higgins Wild Maps 2022

Well this is really rather distressing. Dallaswin is a bunch of physics teachers trying to develop some physics tutorials and works just fine on my old Windows XP using fox. But windows10 doesn't seem to like it, although I can find the page, it tell me it is not secure, which is not surprising since is is just http not https. Here is a screenshot of part of their explanation on W10.

It is not necessary for the action - reaction pair to touch. Note carefully the use of the word 'pair' - that is two forces between two objects or bodies. You should never introduce a third body directly into this as this complicates matters. If the forces are due to touching, they are called contact forces but here is an example of a non contact action - reaction pair. Coulomb's Law (dallaswinwin.com)

Whilst I agree that the terms data, information, meaning, message, context, source , random, true, false, neither true nor false, form, and many more, all have applicability and are interrelated. I stand firmly by my claim that statements such as these constitute data with a definite truth value. From such data and other data I have drawn a conclusion which itself constitutes new data. Please read my conclusion more carefully. By themselves the statements 8% and 10 % do not constitute data.

It is important to specify the condition that the bugs always move directly towards their target, not just at the starting gun. This leads to the spiral path you mentioned. It also leads to an easy solution without adevanced maths.

First thing to remember is that correlation does not imply causation. Taking that on board look for some factor or factors common to both say the years 1970 to 2020, a convenient half century. You could also try geographic classification by state or region. You could look at age. I expect others will offer more choices.

Was this for me ? No the data is by definition correct. But yes I thought it to be a particularly good example of incorrect/inappropriate conclusions drawn from correct data. It is statistically true that the appropriate candidate is most likely to be a man. So what? Why is that a big surprise ? It is statistically true that Usain Bolt is most likely to beat me in a sprint race - yet I am not in the least bit surprised by that piece of data. In the interview Professor Christiani states that (in his view) there are many forms of 'intelligence' and some have been around for a very long time, longer in fact than humans. This is one of the key points he wishes to make. Another is that machines do not 'think' like us. However I suggest that statistical 'pattern matching' as another member here has called it has been thoroughly incorporated into the human modus operandi, for instance in limit state theory in Engineering. The interesting thing would be if the Machine AI were to come up with a conclusion that does not copy/reflect any existing pattern to be found in its input data.

I have been following this interesting discussion thread and would like to add the following. I have just listened to a most enlightening interview on our local radio with Nello Christiani, and Italian chap who has been working in AI for 30 years and is now at the University of Bath. His ( and the definition used by workers in the field) of 'intelligence' is much wider than has been used here, and quite different from the stuffy theoretical definition from abstract philosopher's camp. He has just published a book explaining much. Short Cut Why intelligent machines do not think like us published by CRC press I haven't yet had a chance to read it but hopefully it has far more solid detail than the interview. He did make some good points about ChatGPT etc. including a good example of how a false, possibly illegal, conclusion could arise from using an AI to select candidates for a job of Mechanical Engineer. ChatGPT is based on statistical data comparison so trawling the internet would soon reveal that the majority of MEs are male. This could lead to the rejection of an otherwise excellent female candidate.

OK Welcome, I see you have some hard work ahead of you. I suppose it kinda depends upon what you want to achieve and why? Most importantly you haven't identified the substrate material that you wish to strip paint off. Is is wood (if so what kind), plaster or what ? I would recommend against any form of chemical stripper. The results are disappointing, often needing many applications for stubborn bits and handling dangerous chemicals (they are all dangerous) up where I presume your trims are can but dicy, even if you are as you say, working outside. I thought 900 feet sounded a lot when I first read it but looking around my house but it soon adds up and it really is not such a large amount. 33 years ago when we moved to our present house I had a similar amount of old 1930s shellac (doors included) to strip from the inside woodwork. I took all the doors off and took them down to a commercial dip tank (caustic soda I think) and have regretted it ever since. Yes the chemicals stripped the stuff beautifully, but the panel doors warped and some of the glues were removed as well. So beware. Traditionally the paint would have been removed with a blowtorch. This also has the advantage of killing any spores etc in the substrate material and sterilising the substrate. But it is a fire hazard. Modern hot air strippers are much safer. This was the method we finally employed to strip all the paint from the architrave, picture rails, skirting etc, along with a lot of elbow grease. Some years later I came across, and used highly successfully removing materials from graffiti to chewing gum to bridge paint called Sponge Jet. It really is like magic. Basically small balls of sponge (some containing various grades of grit) are fired at the surface to be cleaned/stripped in an air stream. The sponge balls distort and flatten on impact with the surface and allowing any abrasive to work. The balls absorb removed dirt, paint rust etc and fall to the ground where they can be collected and put through a safe cleaning process for reuse. You mentioned Staten Island so may be interested to know that this method was used to clean NY road tunnel walls removing years of dirt and lead buildup safely. Sponge-Jet Clean, Dry, Low Dust, Reusable Abrasive Blasting (spongejet.com) More information about your project would be useful, anyway good working and let us know how you get on.

I would not hlike to solve this using 'russian multiplication or division. Incidentally this method goes back at least as far as the Babylonians. You assessment is correct call it ABC * 7EF = GHIJKL if you don't like the X 's If you work through the usual western division the position of the 7 is important and enables the logical deduction of all the digits. We can do this if you are interested.

Pick's Theorem Pick's theorem - Wikipedia

Since I stumbled badly over @Genady shape puzzle, I thought I would dig out this old Victorian number puzzle for him Some here will have seen this one before. Unfortunately I have lost all of the digits except one so I wonder if he can help ? It is a simple long division, presented the English way with the result (quotient) on top. That is a six digit dividend divided by a three digit divisor on the left. There is no remainder. (I believe that some Americans put the quotient on the right not above as I have done). The grid paper is simply there to correctly align the digits.

Thank you for clarifying that it must not be placeable. The nearest I have been able to come is to start with a 1 x 1 square, which obviously has area of 1 and is aligned to the grid blue points at its four corners. If we now reduce one side only by an infinitesimal amount δ then the area now becomes 1(1-δ), which is strictly less than 1, by an infinitesimal amount. This slants one side only away from its corner. Lifting the square off the base two corners and shifting it sideways by infinitesimal amounts leaves the square clear of all four blue grid points.