studiot

+1 +1 Sorry I still find both you and your AI are missing the point. Your AI failed to offer the most important points concerning age and made a big bobo about Dartmoor. The pluton was intruded into the country rock at the time and ended up with 1 - 2 kilometres of sedimentary deposit above it. I.E. it was buried. The covering of sedimentary rock subsequently eroded away; much of the detritus was deposited elsewhere as new sedimentary rock, leaving the granite exposed and itself eroding. Dartmoor itself is basically the granite intrusion. Other processes created nearby basins and troughs which accepted some of the resultant sediment. But they are not part of Dartmoor As Inow said - you have to be careful accpting answers from AI and I would add you should not receive inconsistent answers by putting in modifications of the question. The last is a devil's incentive to go on changing the question slightly until you receive an answer you like and can then claim it is the 'correct' one.

Well I know what 2pi is and I know what G is and I assume c is the conventional speed of light. But what is t please in your strict UBD ?

I would be most interested to learn how angular momentum connects relativity and quantum mechanics.

It is sometimes forgotton that the first industrial revolution was hydro powered. I have long advocated rethinking and returning to the many smaller schemes that prexisted the steam age. So I was glad to read this article below. For those who are from further away about 1/3 of Somerset, the county is famous for 'The Levels' - a low lying area similar to the dutch polderland, that once protected King Alfred from the Vikings. Hence the newspaper title.

Well this is the first post you have made that I can actually understand. I am not very interested in matters long ago or long into the future or far away or inaccessibly large or small as I do not think we have anywhere near enough information to gain access to these extremes. Further I have seen hypotheses come and go so many times that I have lost interest. I can however appreciate a rational sequence of presentation. If we are going to postulate a big bang, cmb, inflation and later processes certain things follow. For cmb to arise, moving charged particles are necessary. For motion to exist, both space and time are necessary. For plasma to arise charged particles are again necessary. But an explanation of why and how they combine to form primitive atoms is necessary. and so on.

If the interior of the loaf is not being fully cooked by the time the exterior is sifficiently crisp try various methods to improve the heat flow to the interior. 1) Smaller loaves. 2) Long loaves of smaller cross section. 3) Perhaps you are just adding too much water. I like to start with a dough slightly too dry and add a little extra moisture when forming it into dollops to go into the baking vessels by dipping the dollop in a small amount of water. This can be repeated as necessary.

Of course it's gibberish, which is why the OP can't or won't put forward any relationship between Physics and Geometry to explain the thread title.

Is it not possible for all six horses to be disqualified for some reason? Then there would be no winner. Or what if there was a dead heat ? This is of course different from the die which must come down on one of its six faces. But what about my two dice version ? Are the probabilities of getting a spot sum of 10, 11, 12 equal or equal to 1 in 6 ? There are six possibilities here namely 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. I think you will find that is why @joigus introduced the idea of a frequency distribution.

Sorry to inform you that this is a wholly inadequate definition. It is correct for a fair die, but not if the die is loaded. It is not even correct for the sum of the dots on two fair dice rolled together. Further consider a horse race of six novice horses. (novice indicate that the horse has never won) So how do you assign probabilities before the race ? Worse the total outcomes must now be greater than six to account for events such as not finishing, disqualification etc. Paradoxically, only Bayesian methods offer the one in six equal probabilities as a starting point.

It is difficult for me to understand why you think Physics has any sway over (Geometry) that is basically a part of Mathematics, which is a theoretical subject in its own right and would still contain all the discovered maths and the yet undiscovered maths whether or not the universe we inhabit conforms to current Physics doctrine or to any other doctrine. Physics makes great use of some mathematics, but no use at all of other mathematics. Further other physical sciences employ non mathematical reasoning in addition to mathematical reasoning.

Never seen that, is the page that appears pretty ? I do find however that Google often offers a list of similar queries and It can be quite productive to try (in a new tab) some or all of these.

No I was referring to your original post#1, and asking if (any) of the events had ever occurred, hence the reference to F = 0 as I don't see how any of them can have occurred, given their imprecise specification. No apology needed, I need to try and make myself clearer. Try this. If an event has never occurred how does a frequentist define its probability and what does he mean ?

I have already agreed that the term random can be problematic even to the point of producing paradoxes. One consideration is this. What do you mean by the frequentist definition:- the probability of an event E, p(E) = F/ N , where N is the total number of trials and F is the number where the outcome is E. Has any outcome ever occurred for the scenario you originally described or is F = 0 ?

All of them. None have considered the issue of lattice defects I mentioned.

But the answer, deep or shallow, is stil wrong.

I think you are missing the point. My example reinforces the point that AI hasn't the first clue about what you are asking. All it returns is a probability based on human writings on the subject. The dating examples I gave will return a range of values since humans themselves do not agree on the exact figures. But consider Now you and I know this is not correct as there is no exact formula, due to the inevitable presence of lattice defects, but we use it and do not bother to mention the lattice defects. And since humans know this but never bother to mention it, the probability of AI picking it up is vanishingly small.

Thank you yes I've seen the search results and it strikes me that this is an example of yet another person (not you) too lazy to create proper terminology for their new idea, so they pinch an older term and try to redefine it. Nevertheless you have provided the forum with a fruitful source of discussion so +1. You concentrate on 'sesquation', but what about quotation ? I would say this provides a far more controvertial redefinition of a word, wouldn't you ?

I originally had Here is one big big probem with AI You may get a different answer every time you ask. Would you be happy if the AI answered anything other than 360 to the question "How many deci inches in a yard ?" I used to use Goof-gle as a quick way to get reasonably reliable numeric data instead of looking it up properly when I wanted say the radius of the earth for a calculation, or perhaps the speed of sound in air at 0oC. But it seems I can't rely on consistent answers any more.

If swansont is just 'not sure' - +1 I am still completely flummoxed as to your meanings on the same points.

Yes the one and a half centenary. My Oxford English has sesquicentennial Also sesquialtera (music) sesquioxide (chemistry) sesquiplane (aero engineering) sesquiterpene (chemistry) sesquitertia (maths) sesquipedal (organ music) Being a musical dunce I have no idea what a hemiola is.

Simply asking Google three questions. Intelligent No ?

Just to finish of our Dorset discussion. When looking back into the past it is common to draw outlines of present day land masses such as the British Isles onto the map of a previous time. Indeed the ones I have post feature these. There are a few things to remember about this. Continental drift, faulting and other modes of earth movement means that the land that is there now ( at a given location) will not have been there is the past. Parts of the land that is demarcated as containing the British Isles may have been land at the time on the presented map, but later submerged under water (fresh or salt) in part or in whole. This is the case with Dorset and Somerset. That is how the present sedimetary rocks were formed. The difference between them is the timing of the formation, at least 200 million years, Somerset being the earlier formation. The following pictures show this clearly. The first one is around 100 million years ago and shows the parts of the British Isles that were actually land at the time. The island of Cornubia is Mercator's original name for the SW peninsula (Cornwall, Devon and West Somerset) and is formed from earlier sediments, and intruded granite. The second is after 35 million years of sedimentary deposition first the lias and limestone followed by the chalk in East Somerset and Dorset. 45, so about 65 million years go when there was also some uplift due to the start of the Alpine orogony.

Perhaps @exchemist or @sethoflagos will tell us about the use of sesqui in music ( I have just discovered it is important there) or Chemistry.

All of us ? Please speak for yourself not for others. I read this when you first posted it but didn't understand what you were trying to say, and still don't. A couple of days ago I watched an interesting PBS America broadcast which arts the rise if America, China and Russia in 3 sessions. They go right back to the beginning in each ase and end bang up to date. In Russia's case they start when there was a unkranian state but Moscow didn't exist. Interesting the origin of the Rus.

Hi, Paul, thanks for the info. I was not familiar with that book, but I have downloaded a pdf of what is probably the first edition. It seems very similar to the approach in the Schaum's Outline Series, are you familiar with these ? Definitely exam driven, each chapter consists of a few basic statements / governing principles / governing equations , without explanation. Followed by plenty of specific worked examples using those statements. Followed by some practise questions. So designed to be used in conjunction with a teacher/ tutor / lecturer who explains the statements in the first place. It is these explanations I am trying to provide for you, slanted to the fact that you have only basic maths. The book gaily assumes you are happy with the resolution of forces into components and the combination of components, which is what I am working towards. How did you get on with my catapault analogy ?