Ghideon

ChatGPT, go-to model for private tasks and for some work. (using paid version; see official price on their web) Some examples: -General exploring of LLM and what their capabilities and limitations are -Getting a second opinion when helping my kids with homework; taking a picture of a problem and asking for different approaches. -Using plugins, for instance "@Wolfram" for mathematical results by using Wolfram alpha -Loading a few (public) papers and asking for comparisons, differences or if a statement is supported by the papers or not -Building GPTs to explore what kind of ecosystems that may or may not emerge in the world of GenAI. Copilot (licensed by employer) -Work, especially any work that needs access to corporate data or that is intended for use in a commercial context Local installation of Stable Diffusion or Flux.1 (free, not counting local hardware) -Image generation Local installation of Llama 3.1 (free, not counting local hardware) -Experiments with text; comparing to larger models, testing the limits of smaller local models For some tasks, such as organising a workshop or preparing a seminar I may use combinations of the above models depending on the context and the points I want to illustrate.

Maybe you can do an experiment? Like dropping a small round object in front of the camera and see what the resulting video looks like? You could try different things so that air resistance affects the velocity, for instance a small metal ball, a piece of paper, a tiny feather or similar.

Is it from a night vision camera? Is the shutter speed slow? My guess is flight tracks of an insect, like small moth, over several wing beats. I assume you mean the bright things moving, as seen in this screen shot from 2s into first video:

Not true. The complexity of a problem doesn't stem from failure. Successful and unsuccessful researchers alike can appreciate that some problems are inherently complex due to gaps in current knowledge, not because of their inability to resolve them. Note that "complex" is not the same as "complicated" (edit: Noting that the member is banned; I will not spend time to sort out their misconceptions.)

I'm trying to understand the question. Is this a correct interpretation @Downlord4spaceflight? "When we cool a superconductor and place it above a magnet, it can float or hover because of special magnetic effects. If we start adding some non-magnetic weight to this floating superconductor, how much extra weight can it hold before it stops levitating? Essentially, what is the maximum additional mass the levitating superconductor can support while still staying afloat above the magnet?"

During my vacation I learned, among other things, that Minimum Description Length (MDL) principle can be seen as a formalization of Occam's Razor in the context of statistical modelling and data analysis. Thanks @joigus for sharing this that triggered my curiosity: I had some practical experience from related areas such as data compression and communication. But I did not know much about the science that formalize and quantify intuitive but vague concepts (for instance complexity, simplicity, randomness of individual objects) and hence allows one to talk about them in a rigorous way.

Yes. I need glasses.

What scientists and what experiment are you referring to? Is the above part of your alternative history plot? There was an observational test of general relativity in 1919*. Widespread newspaper coverage of the results from the solar ecplise experiment led to worldwide fame for Einstein and his theories. The Second World War was between 1939-1945. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment

Unexpected that these beaches look the same at a distance, yet they are different on closer inspection: Top: A beach in northern France covered by pebbles. All* of them are egg shaped. Bottom: A beach in northern Sweden; all* of the stones are flat like "coins". Why are the stones on the Swedish beach flat? Educated guess: *) The vast majority at least; during a short walk no family member observed any flat stone on the French beach or egg shaped stone on the Swedish beach.

Your reply indicates fundamental confusion regarding factors, integers, prime numbers*. Here is an online source that may be suitable: "Gain familiarity with factors and multiples". There are chapters for factors, prime numbers, composite numbers and quiz to test your skills: https://www.khanacademy.org/standards/CCSS.Math/4.OA#4.OA.B *) amongst many other things indicated in the posts; too many to list.

Time is up. The task was: Show, in at least two individual and different ways, why the following statement is false: Answers: 1: Factors of RSA numbers are prime numbers. Prime numbers are integers. The proposed number is not an integer and hence it can't possibly be a factor of any RSA number. 2: An RSA number is a product of two large primes of the same size. Quick head count gives that the primes used in RSA-2048 have approximately 300 decimal digits. The suggested number is tiny and therefore not a factor of RSA-2048.

1: Use the hints already provided: And then new hints: 2: Look at the RSA numbers that have been factored at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_numbers and compare to page 1 in the paper https://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/papers/RSA-survey.pdf * 3: "Your equations" are just a distraction, they provide no information and can't be used. 4: Unsupported claims are not part of the solutions I think of. *) Basic RSA knowledge

No. Let's express it as a small task intended to approve your critical thinking. Task: Show, in at least two individual and different ways, why the following statement is false: Hint: More hints can be added upon request.

Maybe the "immune system" is a more fitting analogy? The forum can be seen as an organism. When disruptive behavior occurs, the community’s response acts like an immune system, identifying and neutralizing the perceived threat. This protects the forum from the “contagion” of negativity and aims to preserve its overall health, purpose, and constructive spirit.

You are correct. (In my attempt to post something helpful to OP I missed and/or misinterpreted the provided context.)

1: What is your own answer to the question? That could indicate your level of understanding of the answers provided so far; allowing members to provide some clarifications. 2: As an exercise for you: what assumptions have @MigL made about your hardware configuration?

Idea: Use floor*? [math]10^{-\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \rfloor }[/math] So that the pairs of numbers are expressed as [math](n, 10^{-\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \rfloor }), n \in \mathbb{N}[/math] *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_and_ceiling_functions#:~:text=In mathematics%2C the floor function,⌋ or floor(x). edit: x-post with @joigus

In your opening post, and in your replies; how much of the content is machine generated? Your newest reference seems older than the cut off point for some well known large language models. Is this a coincidence?

Just got curious; my interpretation; combining explanations already given with some hints in videos. and Assuming there are no hidden pumps or other devices. And the contraptions in the videos need only to work for a short while; just long enough to create a video clip. First video, in opening post: fill the large and wide container with lots of water (in other words, perform work) add a small diameter inlet (I checked one more video and they also seem to have a larger outlet than inlet. In the OP video a hose with smaller diameter seems to be attached to the inlet) open a larger diameter outlet at the bottom While the container is being emptied a smaller amount of water will be flowing in from the inlet due to the lower pressure inside. The large diameter of the tank (compared to the small outlet and even smaller inlet) means it is tricky to see, in a short clip, that the water level is sinking. Guess: By manually filling a tank with lots of water, you can pump up a small amount of water with the help of the potential energy. If the ratios of diameters of inlet, outlet and tank are off then the tank will drain in "bursts", allowing air to flow through the outlet. Similar to a filled water bottle being turned upside down If the device is left for a while tho flow of water into the container will stop and air will enter through the outlet, in "bursts", also similar to a filled water bottle being turned upside down. So, it is just a trick to create a YouTube video. (Or my assumption is wrong and there is a hidden pump )

In traditional propositional logic, truth cannot contradict itself, as a proposition cannot be both true and false simultaneously. Maybe paraconsistent logic* is what you are interested in? In paraconsistent logic it is possible to handle contradictions without rendering the entire logical system meaningless. Managing something that is both true and false in a controlled and meaningful way, allowing for the coexistence of contradictory truths within a logical framework, can have applications in for instance software systems. Disclaimer: I have no deeper knowledge in these matters, and especially not in philosophy; possibly my connection to software does not apply. *)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

Just curious following the discussion from the sidelines; What is the connection between cosmos, scientific revolution and the linked article? I can't find such a quote in the arXiv paper.

That is, as far as I know, correct. There are some indirect applications in for instance ECC (Elliptic Curve Cryptography) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA). This may be of interest to OP since it is used, maybe on a daily basis, when browsing the internet; Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) is of interest because it offers the same level of security with (much) smaller key sizes than for instance RSA. I did not find an open paper at this time** The following section is an attempt of a summary but it is outside my area of expertise and understanding, maybe @joigus or other experts can contribute: While Wiles' proof itself is not directly related to cryptographic applications, the deeper understanding and advanced techniques developed through his work have influenced fields that use elliptic curves. Without Wiles' Proof the theoretical framework supporting ECC would be less robust. The lack of proof of the Modularity Theorem* could leave gaps in understanding the deep properties of elliptic curves, potentially undermining confidence in their security properties and/or making them more vulnerable to sophisticated mathematical attacks. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_theorem **) This seems interesting but I could only get the abstract: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-3758-5_5

If that really is a concern that bother you: the ability to catch fish without lead weight seems documented, and we're not likely to run out of rocks and stones: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0257710 (bold by me)

You refer to robotics in different places; is this the same idea as in those other threads?

The experiment in the video you shared demonstrates electromagnetic induction with a moving bar magnet. The video does not show an induction motor (see @Sensei's response for details that may help). (When I studied electromagnetic fields at university we used text books; Google search was not yet invented.)