studiot

Yes indeed I am focused on the Google AI as it pushes itself in front of me every time I do a Google search, which I used to (and still do) do quite frequently. I do not go seeking AI answers however. The only time I tried CHATGPT it returned rubbish and I have no idea how to access the others, not that I want to. It does concern me, however, that the Google summary headline which used to be often really good has become so untrustworthy since the AI. No one needs and AI to find a train from Exeter to Somewhere and the old system worked perfectly well and did not tell me I had to change trains at the starting point. Indeed so as a general principle. But you are quite incorrect about this. The red instruction is not really directed at those stationary at the traffic light. They are a positive direction to any approaching vehicle to stop the vehicle (at the stop line). No question that is a positive active command, that of changing what you are doing. Yes sometimes drivers cooperate to clear a path, sometimes the emergency vehicle will actuall drive the wrong on the wrong side of the road, or the wrong side of bollards etc. But it is interesting to watch the difference in the way ambulance, police and fire vehicles approach a situation where the traffic signals are against their passage. The ambulances definitely slow down to a walking pace and 'feel their way' through the junction. The police and to a lesser extent the fire engines just go barreling on through and expect others to get out of their way. Their victims may not be standing by the side of the road, waiting to cross in their turn, they may already be partway across, obeying the traffic signals appropriate to them. I once watched a fire engine do exactly that to try to cross the London North Orbital Road ( a very wide important and heavily trafficed high speed road) whilst the traffic light was red to the fire engine as it approached. The result was a powerful side impact on a sports car that was correctly crossing along the North Orbital. Apart from sending the sports car spinning down 50 yards or so to block one direction of the North Orbital, it left the fire engine stuck immobile right in the middle of the junction itself.

I think you guys do a great job and definitely deserve a chocolate biscuit.

Get an AI on the job. 😄😁☹️

How often does the blood transfer service receive 999 calls ? What % of ambulance blue light journeys are transfers to a better medical establishment and therefore not recorded on the 999 system ? What % of police 999 calls are about a life threatening incident ? Here is another ridiculous answer (although it does also contain a valid one in part) Question travely by train from exeter to Addingham Yorkshire. The A! has highlighted a correct start but then says changes in Both Exetr and York ! Foresooth.

Do you not think these statistics are misleading ?

I don't since ChatGPT started of with an incorrect statement. Stopping when a light is red is a very positive and active statement or instruction; it is most certainly not a negative or passive one. The second run through was a better consideration so whould we always ask an AI twice for its best answer, like the postman who always knocks twice ? But thank you for that work in progressing the discussion. +1 Yes that is a good point, but not quite correct as it is certainly not without consequences. It is true that emergency travel under the blue light laws allows emergency responders to break traffic regulations. But they retain a duty of care. It is interesting that there are 2 - 10 deaths (mostly pedestrian) by police cars per year in the UK. As compared to a very much lower incidence by the fire service and mostly zero by the ambulance service. Especially as the last two services are more likely to be travelling in a life and death situation as compared to the police.

Good morning all. Traffic signals were first introduced in 1868, following the railway practice of red/green semaphore arms. Lights came later and the first 3 color lights were introduced by the americans in1929 in the Motor City. I don't know about the legal status in other countries, but I would imagine all those deriving from the British legal system would have the same definition whicvh currently stands thus. Note that green means "You may go, if your way is clear" That 'if' is the legal version of mathematical if and only if. In Britain you can be prosecuted if you proceed when you way is not clear. Indeed we have several further traffic signals trying to control the simple fact that people simply ignore the condition and there are further specific offences related to these. This is despite the fact that you would always have failed your driving test if you did not give this complete answer to the question about green. (All signs, lights, directions, instructions on boards, or on the road are officially called signals following the semaphore days). Hopefully that is the information you require, but remember this topic is about LLMs and other rule based systems and my issue was about their reaction to being fed on contrary and conflicting information. Here is another really bad 'mistake' by AI, demonstrating a total lack of understanding, even of plain English. In this case the answer is worse than just dangerous it is life threatening as the AI direction directs vehicles through a green traffic light and straight across a pedestrian crossing which may also be green. The manouvre suggested is possible but prohibited for that reason.

Thanks for the reply. But you are missing my point. The red light rule is pretty clear and most humans obey it so there is little or no tension between the rule and the action. But The green light rule is very often disobeyed by many if not most humans so there is considerable tension bewtween the rule and the action.

This may just be a good theme for a SCiFi horror - but how does any 'robot' resolve the tension between clear cut rules as you describe and how humans actually act as must be descibed in any large scale 'learning' input, as Otto has described. This was the reason behind my question to @Otto Kretschmer about the traffic lights. The vast majority of human activity conforms to the red light rule. Whereas a large proportion on humans disobey the green light rule. Note I do not know the 'answer' to this - It is a genuine point for discussion.

I asked you because you are the one who posted the material I quoted and are responsible for its veracity or otherwise.,

I take it that you didn't bother to look at the resource I offered you. Pity as it might well help you get on better with school maths and also be useful into the future beyond that.

It would be much more interesting to know what rule it would derive for a green light. Can you shed any light on that ?

What I find disappointing is the lack of feedback (other than saying things like I am implementing it) about how you are getting on. Feedback helps develop proffered advice., but for instance all you have said about my curve sketching suggestion is that is is good advice. So have you looked at it and if so what have you found ? The message that you should have received on all sides here now is that you are missing some basics, apparantly because you only look at things when you need them (your words). Further you do not want to go into academe but into business. That is a fine ambition but will easily fail if the basics are ignored or worse unkown because of the old saying You do not know 'what you do not know'. In business and life this translates from philosophy and science to Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves. Here is a modern free resource you might like to look at, to help with your maths GeoGebraGeoGebra - the world’s favorite, free math tools used by...Free digital tools for class activities, graphing, geometry, collaborative whiteboard and more But please remember my invocation and tell us how you got on.

I think you need a better translator. You have now failed to answer the questions from 3 different members, instead answering different questions from the ones asked. I see no point proceeding further until and unless this issue is resolved.

I am trying to understand you model but I am struggling since some of you basic definitions are too vague. For instance what is a particle ? Before one dives into that wall of text one need to know exactly what is meant by the word. In other words what are the important properties of a particle and how would I know it was a particle if I met one in the street ? Then you talk of free layers without detail of the structure which is all important. What is a free layer ? What is the free layer layered on, and what holds the layer there ?? What is on the outside of the free layer that is the other side of this layer ? Understanding the detail of this part of the specification comes long before any attempt to proceed to the consequences of this detail. So what about gamma radiation from single atoms ?

Really ? First you tell the child that a field is 'sheets' , then you tell her that it is not like sheets at all. It is just not correct that we don't know what fields are or that there is no satisfactory definition of them. You just don't know what it is . So why not ask instead of proclaiming ? Unfortunately StringJunky is also only partly correct here. But perhaps that is because there are many types of Field in this physical world which is why a proper specification includes some additional words such as, the electric field of an isolated electric charge, a velocity field, a direction field and so on. None of these are 'force fields' although force fields or fields of force also exist. One thing about Fields is that the need for additiona wording is because Fields can only exist in relation to something other than the Field. Note 'in relatiuon to' is not necessarily causative, but may be so.

Thank you for wasting my time.

No you are not correct in that you are confusing linear and angular measure. The only place I have seen such a phrase is in electrical theory where the angle moved through by the needle on an old fashioned meter is called 'The deflection angle'. The phrase 'deflection angle' is also used on mechanics, structural engineering and surveying to represent an angle something turns through. It is generally better to use the word deflection for angular measure and rotation for when the object is spinning ie make multiple rotations or revolutions on an axis. Yes it is correct that the tip or outer end of a deflection moves faster than a point near the centre of deflection (rotation). Indeed if you deflect a laser beam fast enough and powerful enough to reach the Moon, the light will appear to move track across the Moon's surface at a speed greater than c. Your original enquiry also touches upon the difference between (rotational) kinematics and (rotational) dynamics where kinematics simply refers to speed, distance and acceleration whist dynamics includes this but also includes work, energy, momentum power and related topics. It is the same distinction as in linear or translational motion. Speed alone does not mean that the impact will send the ball faster. Speed is involved but there are other factors involved as well and these can get quite complicated as the bat is shaped, may have variable sectional mass along its length and impulsive forces are involved. As to control etc there is a point towards the handle of the bat know as the centre of percussion.~This also has an influence on the matter.

OK considering my avatar you can consider me an AI and I will be brutally honest. Right the way up through the grades to the 12th grade wise teachers say that you are not there to study, you are there to learn how to study. There is much wisdom in this and what you are learning is self deceiving. The graviton is not your idea, and you do not know what either relativity or quantum theory is.. As regards maths, I have spent the last sixty years as an applied mathematician and upon retirement have only then begun to study what 'maths' itself is. So you are requesting adivice. You have received a great deal of advice from many diffirent points of view. How much have you implemented ? I do not see any change to either your stance or the substance of your 'ideas' as a result.

Since I don't expect swansont to do all the work around here I will ask a physics question. Why are you confining fields to 2D surfaces in 3D space ? What are the inter sheet interactions ? For instance a real world example of the difference would be the difference between the structure and properties of graphite and diamond. Both are made exclusively of carbon, graphite comes in 2D sheets diamond is a 3D lattice.

Actually that's not true. The human eye can dtect a single photon. Black holes were seen but not recognised. But yes, MigL has just told you that we can never see quarks directly. You have spent a lot of effort trying to force the universe to conform to your idea, rahter than the other way round. And found out how difficult that can be. You are not the first and won't be the last. The moral is, when you have an idea, try it out on something simple with an already known outcome first. This is also good advice in business where it is called a pilot.

Up the ladder is good because you perhaps don't subscribe to this modern trend to teach unifying principles too eary. In my opinion students will come to these when they are ready and not before. In Mathematics teaching 'basic set theory'; 'basic number theory'; or basic anything turns many off as it is too abstract. After all what can they do with it ? It is a well observed phenomenon that lads who say they are rubbish at maths (by which they mean formal arithmetic) can without hesitation tell exactly what targets they need to finish of a darts game (of 301 etc). They can tell in an instant that if last score was 3 triple tops, you need a bull, a bull and triple seven, and if your last score was triple top, bull, double top you need triple 17 bull, bull or triple seventeen double toip , triple top. Yet ask them to tell you the average weight of an apple if 6 apples weigh 684 grams and they will freeze. Have a look at this summary. https://mmerevise.co.uk/a-level-physics-revision/forces-and-exchange-particles/ Gravitons are the supposed exchange particles for the 'force' of gravity. They have been proposed to copy the exchange particles for the other three 'fundamental' forces. However General Relativity does not regard these other three forces in the same way as it regards gravity. It is only man's excessive tidyness that wants all four forces to follow the same pattern, even though we observe that they don't. Nature is under no obligation to comply.

A choke is a high value inductor (at the frequency of use) . Old fashiioned ones were realised by providing series coil or coils wound on cores as are transformers. Electronic ones can be reslised by gyrator circuits. Either way the equations defining their response correspond to the electrical equivalent of mechanical inertia.

Virtual inertia ? They could of course reintroduce real inertia by using large old fashioned conditiong chokes. After all they still use large old fashioned power transformers.