studiot

Can't find the spoiler any more.

Several members have mentioned 'patterns'.

So what are patterns ?

What pattern is AI discoverable in the following data

1, 3, 13, 23, 53 ?

and is it the same pattern as

53, 23, 13, 3, 1 ?

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

A few quick thoughts without going into too much depth due to time constraints:

Just generally speaking, it is important to know how distances are scored and if they are weighted. Generally speaking you calculate the distances for each taxa resulting in a distance matrix and then build the tree using methods such as Neighbor-Joining, or, what is seemingly applicable here, UPGMA (but I suspect that it is not really in the assignment).

It may have been discussed in class but looking at the provided example, most are binary and I assume that there is no special scoring going on. But webbing has three descriptors and they could either be equidistant, i.e. the score from full to absent is the same as full to partial, or, perhaps more likely, the distance would absent -> partial -> present. There, you could either score the difference from absent to present the same as in the other categories (e.g. 0 for same, 1 for different) and have partial in-between (e.g., 0.5). Or you could score each jump fully (e.g., 0, 1, 2), meaning that from absent to present the distance would be higher than in any of the other binary categories.

To provide some examples:

The distance between Rhacophorus to Polypedates could then either 0.5+0+0+0 = 0.5 or it could be 1 +0+0 +0=1.

And you would continue to do that for every pair. In the resulting distance matrix you look for the shortest distance and join them. Normally, we would calculate branch lengths for both that are equidistant to the node where they are connected. In this case, you cannot really do that, as the distance is 0 as all listed parameters between Chiromantis and Polypedates are identical. I.e. just using this information you wouldn't put them into different branches in the first place.

What you would normally do then is calculate a new distance matrix which is reduced in size. In the above example, Chiromantis and Polypedates would form one cluster and the difference from that one two all others would be calculated in the updated matrix.

In OP the assignment is simplified to be able to skip these detailed steps, but the basic idea is still to calculate the distances and build from there (and ignoring branch lengths. But in a proper UPGMA method, the distance would move nodes at different depths.

Thank you so much for this information.

I had no idea the life scientists had advanced so far, mathematically, but it makes perfect sense.

Mathematicians have been busy expanding the notions of measurements and distance so I am glad to see that bearing fruit in the form of real applications.

+1

30 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I knew they are non-Trinitarian, just not how they regard the Holy Spirit, so thanks for the explanation. Evidently they reinterpret "the Holy Spirit" or "the Spirit of God", as mentioned in the gospels, as "holy spirit" [without definite article], meaning a sort of power dispensed from God, but not a distinct entity. Well that could make sense, I suppose, though the definite article does seem to accompany the mention of "holy spirit" each time, I think. Interesting, anyway.

Newton was a unitarian. which held his progress back in the Cambridge heirarchy (though not in Physics or Maths) as he could not take Holy Orders.

I don't understand why this thread has wandered around so far off topic, whilst introducing many huge topics, each of which should be in a separate thread of its own

Further I didn't get much traction when I offerd detailed insights into the original topic.

Nevertheless since the OP has now raised the topic of 'what is life' ,

here are a few thoughts.

So, amongst others, Life appears to have some or all of the following characteristics.

Ability to absorb 'food' material (including energy) and also to excrete 'waste' material.

Ability of cause replication of itself.

Ability to grow.

Ability to move in some way, in whole or in part.

Ability to respond to stimulus.

There are others but this will do.

It can be said that the dendritic growth of crystal structures exhibits all of these, plus some of the ones I haven't mentioned.

Does this make these crystals alive ?

32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

We don't need a lecture.

Especially as some of us might wish to dispute some of the statements in your opening post.

10 hours ago, HbWhi5F said:

@studiot To reiterate the question, the one pie bond in a double bond and 2 pie bonds in a triple bond are they different.

I get the hybridization.

Do you ?

I hope so.

Here is a more detailed explanation of why the bonds are this way.

It is to do with the geometry of the different configurations.

Note the double bond has a planar structure whilst the triple bond has a linear structure.

So there is only room for the lobes of the Pz orbital to stick out top and bottom in the double bond hence only the z Pie orbital (two separated lobes ) is formed.

In the triple bond the Pz orbital sticks out top and bottom and the Py orbital sticks out side to side forming the other Pie bond.

So that is what I mean when I say theya re equivalent.

The article gives specific values for the effects on bond strength.

Clicking on one of the pictures will give a bigger version for ease of reading.

This response is more like I would expect to see in a discussion.

So do you understand why different configurations with different hybridisations are allowable ?

In all honesty there's too much chaff here for anyone who wants a serious discussion to bother.

So only those that like verbal fencing or moderators (who have to bother) will step in.

28 minutes ago, Prajna said:

From the MIT article again:

Some theories treat consciousness as a feature of the brain’s software: all that matters is that the brain performs the right set of jobs, in the right sort of way. According to global workspace theory, for example, systems are conscious if they possess the requisite architecture: a variety of independent modules, plus a “global workspace” that takes in information from those modules and selects some of it to broadcast across the entire system. 

I'm pretty sure you will have come across the scientific notion of a model here.

Unfortunately too many people throw the word 'theory' about whne they mean model.

And the point of a model is that it mirrors only part of that which is being modelled.

I don't see the need for multiple threads on this subject.

One is more than sufficient.

Interestingly I was today reading an article about an AI generated film star, which completely fooled the media, with fake film material and all sorts.

I was also listening a spokesperson for the UK Office of The Information Commisioner, who has just issued substantial fines to companies who make a nuisance of themselves by using AI fake humans to make advertising telephone calls.
I normally ignore these, but I recognised one of the examples which I had though was a lady enquiring about fibre-glass insulation in my loft, but was really a computer generated simulated human.

2 hours ago, Zhandos_01 said:

I mastered all three laws of thermodynamics in just two days. I myself work as a lawyer and have always been far from physics and mathematics.

We used to have a lawyer here who was a damn sight better at Physics than this. But then I think he studied the subject a bit longer and more deeply.

I'm sorry to tell you that the used the wrong AI to summarise the laws of thermodynamics for you.

Further it should have told you to define your symbols, before you use them in mathematics.

It would be good if some of your countrymen would step in here and tell you that it doesn't hurt to respond to those who have genuinely put themselves out to help you.

34 minutes ago, CharonY said:

While we are at it, many (but not all) European countries have stronger separation of powers as well as having parliamentary system. As such, it is more difficult to consolidate power as per the unitary executive theory. As such a president or chancellor would not be able to arbitrarily threaten individuals for exercising free speech or effectively cancel academic freedom as it is done now. Even before the recent event the "Americans have more freedoms" is a bit of a trope, but had some nuggets of truth. But given that apparently much of the freedom is actually not secured but relying on norms, we do see them getting destroyed in less than a year.

But then uninformed self-delusion is exactly what makes this type of norm-breaking possible:

In a broader sense at least part of it is that in most societies we have allowed rich folks to wield unaccountable powers. And this power extends beyond political influence. It includes our day-to-day lives, the way we consume information, the way we communicate with each other, the way understand or misunderstand each other, the way our attention is spent. Ultimately, the way we think. We have outsourced a vast amount of what makes us humans to companies, which have found a way to make money out of it. Heck, they make more money if we fight each other. The politicians that are aware and getting adapt at using this machinery are also feeding of it and get ridiculous individuals into position of power. It is an incredibly powerful, world-wide machinery that is actively lowering our attention span and critical thinking skills.

The only thing I would quibble with is this.

34 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The politicians that are aware and getting adapt at using this machinery

I would add the words "some politcians......................... some are just inept".

Small point, I assume you mean adept not adapt.

+1

Haven't you got enough threads on this subject ?

or have you abandoned the others ?

1 hour ago, HbWhi5F said:

In (a) Is the Pie bond of Double and Triple Bond CC different that is why written separately in answer

Well I suppose it depends upon what you mean by different.

The double bond comprises one sigma bond formed from sp² hybrid orbitals and one pie bond formed from the remaining p orbital.

The triple bond comprises one sigma bond formed from sp hybrid orbitals and two pie bonds formed from the remaining p orbitals.

But each individual pie bond is equivalent.

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

Turns out there were two spammers who posted in philosophy that we hadn’t banned yet (gujarrr was one)

And I just found a few more by searching on “support” in the title and scrolling through the ~55 pages of spam we got on Friday. (Most were in Science News)

Never trust a Philosopher.

😄

Why is it that the unsung part of Science is so hard to get recognised ?

Our consciousness and autonomous processing (and that of lesser animals) does so much more than just provide an observer or receiver of our sensory input.

Science is just the same, but no one ever like to mention it.

I can't think why since the great discoveries would never happen without the bits in between.

19 minutes ago, KJW said:

I sometimes see posts on the Home page, but when I click on them, I'm told I don't have permission to view them.

Yes I've seen that as well.

Also I've seen posts that I watched being posted, listed as posted 5 hours ago.

Also I find the All Activity doesn't keep up with posters - It can take several minutes and sometimes clicking round the site for them to be added to the list.

On 9/26/2025 at 3:41 AM, npts2020 said:

Seems obvious to me. The one initially chosen has a 33 1/3 % chance of being the correct choice. The one left has a 50% chance of being correct.

(using 3 choices of course)

But this is not the question.

The question is should you change your choice ?

The answer is yes because there is only one door that Monty can open if your were initially correct, but there are two doors that Monty could open if you were not.

So you are twice as likely to be right with the door he did not open as sticking to the door you originally chose.

The reasoning follows KJW's method in the spoiler.

11 hours ago, Prajna said:

What do you know or can you imagine of such a boundary, Studiot? The Vedantans would suggest that consciousness does not die at 'death', rather it subsides into the ocean of consciousness from where it arose, that its 'existence' was never more than a dream and all that died was what it was not. But your mileage may vary.

Perhaps you don't understand what a boundary is ?

21 minutes ago, Prajna said:

Ok, then. Just checking it wasn't a trick question. ;) It is a very interesting argument from a linguistic point of view. More like a riddle, as @exchemist mistook my poem for. The question we have to ask--and you are getting uncomfortably close to Vedanta thinking here--is. "Does death actually exist as such?"; is it an 'existence' at all. Surely it is the very definition of non-existence, as a living being anyway, but does it, of itself, have any kind of existence at all or is it just a concept and a rationalisation?

I don't see the problem.

I admit I said death because it sounds more dramatic than the longer cessation.

So when any consciousness ceases it encounters the issue of the boundary.

Neither the boundary nor whatever is beyoond are part of the ceasing consciousness. And there must be something beyond the boundary, even if it is only nothing as in outer space. That is the nature of a boundary the separation of more than one thing.

1 hour ago, Prajna said:

Tell me about it, Studiot.

You asked

2 hours ago, Prajna said:

"Is there anything that exists apart from consciousness?"

And I offered death, since as far as we know all living things die so those with consciousness must acknowledge the existence of death as being something that exists outside consciousness.

15 minutes ago, Prajna said:

Swansont only offered me a belief rather than anything weighty and empirical, are you able to answer the question, "Is there anything that exists apart from consciousness?"

What about death ?

17 minutes ago, Prajna said:

Sorry again, Exchemist, I was speaking in poetry rather than riddles. Poetry is something you have to appreciate rather than understand.

Like this ?

Alas Alas poor Willy

His voice we'll hear no more

For what he took for H2O

Was H2SO4

Still on the subject of abstract v concrete, real v imaginary etc

When we write

[math]\int_a^b {f(x)dx} [/math]

The statement is, one of yet another of these pairs - indeterminate / determinate

Yet we happily then write

[math]\left[ {F(x)} \right]_a^b[/math]

[math]F(b) - F(a)[/math] ; where F(x) is the primitive of f(x)

If we are told that a is 0 and b is 1 we write

[math]\int_0^1 {f(x)dx} [/math]

and if we are further told

[math]f(x) = x[/math]

Then we can finally write

[math]F(b) - F(a) = 1 - 0 = 1[/math]

So at what point, if any, does this become real ?

On 9/27/2025 at 3:00 AM, iNow said:

I am fond of saying that shadows are non physical, but they are very real.

I also like this saying, though one might counterclaim they are physical in several significant ways.

Shadows block light and have a lower temperature than their surroundings. This changes the way air moves. This changes moisture levels and micro humidity. That creates an attraction effect pulling air toward it from more illuminated non-shadowed areas. There’s a temperature gradient radiating from cool to warm from center of the shadow outward. The undulation of that heat creates disturbances in the local atmosphere and intensifies the dancing blur along the boundary between light and dark.

Actually I disagree here.

The surface of a real material object (for instance the path on which you are standing and you yourself shivering) certainly reacts to being in shadow in this fashion.

However I am not aware that the shadow itself has a temperature.