studiot

This is not a thread I feel I can usefully contribute to, so I feel honoured to be involved by reference. I suppose this is because of my propensity to respond to questions where members demand binary, black or white, answers by suggesting that when I look at nature I find many more than 50 shades of grey.

How so ? You made a very specific statement with a subject a verb, an object and a conclusion. Like Windows 10 does already ? Yes I picked this out of your post because of its specifity and made the totally correct observation that Windows 10 already does both the stashing and the initiating/refusing of tasks. So it would not be a new phenomenon to watch for it is already happening. The question mark at the end was in invitation to discuss further if you wished. Your response was to quote a totally different part of your post To which I had not responded and then claim that There can be no mockery in my totally true statement about Windows10, which was the only one I made in that post you took unwarranted exception to. I am sorry if you misconstrued those simple words, had I actually been rude I would apologise.

No the distance increase very slightly as you are further from the centre of the earth. But this is the physical or actual distance your would measure with a tape measure. For this reason all map distances are calculated at a standard ditance from the centre of the Earth - Sea level is normally used. So if you were 50 yards above sea level and measured 100 yards to another object, also 50 yards above sea level you would say that your reduced distance (reduced to sea level) is just under 100yards. The difference is not significant below an elevation of about 1000 feet above sea level, unless you are doing some very advanced surveying.

For the benefit of overseas members, B & Q are a large DIY chain that have been running a heavy advertising campaign under the slogan You can do it.

Was there anything you wished to discuss here ? You were not interested in discussion in your last thread on the same subject.

In order that a quadric through 9 given points may be determinate:- 1) No four of the nine points may lie on one straight line 2) No more than six may lie in one plane 3) No more than 5 may lie on one conic.

You done that and obtained a conclusive response from Windows 10? I believe that you just mocked me and/or my input. Please don't do that again. The problem of AI/internet awareness and the dangers related to AI (aware or not) are very serious. If you simply react to what others write and do not read it carefully enough you are likely to knee jerk to the worng conclusions. I did not say this. I did say Like Windows 10 does already ? Windows 10 does both of these things. If you don't know this just ask. But no I do not consider W10 to be self aware, just a bloody nuisance.

Let us suppose that we have declared the probability of some event E to be exactly 1, the question arises what do we mean. So P(E) = 1 Interpretation 1. (a priori interpretation) E must always occur. Interpretation 2. (empirical interpretation) E has always occurred. This does not imply that E will occur in the future Interpretation 3 (subjective interpretation) We think E will occur But does not imply that it must occur. As regards the Monsoon, the example refers to the discovery of one Gilbert Walker, Statistician and Director of meteorological observatories in India. At that time the Monsoon was widely regarded as being related to solar activieies, in particular the cycle of sunspots. Walker collected vast amounts of data in India and also had access to data from across the British Empire. Walker offered a discovery of amazing scope. Not only was the Monsoon unrelated to the sunspot cycle, it was related to the pressure and temperature halfway around the world. He could not explain how pressure and temperature in the Western Pacific affected rainfall in the Indian Ocean. But his calculations showed that it did. He named this connection the Southern Oscillation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Walker

No it is an initiation rite for newcomers. 🙂 Oh and did I say welcome ?

It's very complicated because of the cross products (xy, xz, yz) in the general equation. Surfaces have a general equation f(x,y,z) = 0 The equation you refer to is called a quadric and the surfaces are called quadric surfaces. Obtaining a parameterisation means obtaining three equations x = f1 (u,v) y = f2(u,v) z = f3(u,v) So that each RHS only contains the parameters u and v and each LHS only contains one of the coordinates. For 3 dimensions there are many more possibilities than for 2 so the surfaces are often split into further sub categories, each with its own parametrisation. As with 2D to eliminate the efects of the cross products you would normally perform a coordinate transformation first. These are purely analytical methods, I was preparing a detailed explanation, but this often takes me some time so here are five references to be going on with. Sensei mentioned computer methods which work on a different plan and the last reference is about that. https://opentextbc.ca/calculusv3openstax/chapter/quadric-surfaces/ https://www.win.tue.nl/~sterk/Bouwkunde/hoofdstuk3.pdf https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/classes/calciii/parametricsurfaces.aspx https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241165348_A_Simple_Method_for_the_Parameterization_of_Quadric_Surfaces http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~dengjs/files/papers/47 mu23.pdf What sort of college course has this stuff as a pre requisite ?

I make such a distinction, in fact I distinguish 3 types of probability.

Whilst I agree that there are vested interests in every branch of History, and none more so than in Political History, I see you are missing the notion that a historian in an uninvolved country, or from an uninvolved time, can dispassionately examine the availbale data and present balanced conclusions. IOW you seem to be suggesting that say a modern South American could have no valid opinion on the Celtic expansion in Europe 4,000 years ago ? I would also point out that the thread is entitled Military History/History and you made a sweeping statement about all forms of History. As to the data, many nations have something like the UK 40 year rule where top secret papers are not released until 40 years after the events. So anything inside that time frame must include a goodly measure of speculation. So I repeat my observation that The more remote (in time and place) the chronicler is from the events the more objective she can be.

I should have asked about this in my last post. What is your opinion then, on probability in the light of the general scientific requirement of reproducibility? IOW what do you think of a variable that might sometimes 'emerge' ? Secondly would you consider the Himalayan monsoon emergent from the Southern Oscillation (pressurein the West Pacific)?

Thank you for an interesting view, especially the first line. +1

Rule 25, subsection Z, paragraph 1025 of this forum states. The better you are as Science, the more the quote function handicaps you. 🙂

You often offer pithy relevent comments, but I am going to have to disagree with you on this one because it is too general and sweeping, although there is a grain of truth in it. Even for Military History, at least some historians try to be objective, and usually the further back in time they go the more objective they become. A marvellous example of this, in the History of Science would be the book by Millikan originally entitled Atomic Physics, but revised several times as new knowledge became available to end up as Electrons(+ and-) Protons, Photons, Neutrons, Mesotrons and Cosmic Rays. Another good example would be Waters of the World by Sarah Dry which is a developmental History of Climate Science.

Thank you for your interest. Did you read the whole thread, or just my introduction ? I think you need to look further back in time than you perhaps realise. Rome was founded on 21 April 753 BC under the name gens rumana, in that area of the italian peninsula coloured purple in my map, which came under Greek colonisation at that time. The name stems from the Etruscan, who were the principle inhabitants at that time. This was towards the end of the bronze age in this area and times were turbulent for several hundred years, partly due to the spreading of iron weapons by the Halstadt culture south into Mediterranean lands. Just as the British were initially more interested in India than the Americas, so the greeks were more interested in the eastern part of their developemnt and colonisation. This left the italian colonies to develop on their own and finally, just as you say, they invaded and conquered a failing Greek empire about 150 BC Neither the Greeks, nor the Romans used the word 'science'. It did not in fact enter the English language directly but through medieval French between 1400 and 1600 AD. But even then it had a different meaning. As late as 1830, AD Herschel was still writing papers and books on Natural Philosophy (meaning what we call Science). Finally I used the word 'greater' not better or more civilised or something implying a value judgement. Strictly greater means more extensive in some way, as I have already explained in a previous post. Thank you for your linkI will look it up.

Whomsoever it is for, is this homework or coursework ? Before trying to generate a parametrisation you need to confirm some things. 1) Why are there two coefficients of z (e and f) ? 2) Why is the coefficient of yz (u) and what is its relationship to uv? 3) What is v ?

Prometheus asked if the (present) internet could be engineered to become sentient. I responded that I don't know how to, and implied that no one else at the moment does either, but perhaps someone might in the future, within a reasoable guess of a few hundred years. But that would not preclude it happening tomorrow. Like Windows 10 does already ?

Because the Ancient Greeks didn't have leaders like Boris.

Nothing to be sorry for. However I'm sorry I am not clever enough to be able to answer your question. Perhaps come back in a few hundred years and someone will have got lucky enough to have cracked it. Assuming you are asociating sentience with self awareness, it must also depend upon whether you are allowing a scale of sentience or not, rather as I already pointed out about self awareness.

A fair question to which I would observe that time is the problem for the internet. If self awareness, intelligence etc is just simply a few particular patterns out of many possible I agree that there are many candidates sytems upon which such patterns could be impressed. If the pattern is achieved by making and changing connections over a large number of 'nodes' Nature has the big advantage over Man's constructs, such as the internet. Nature can operate over the entire lifetime of a Universe, efficiency is not a concern nor are false starts. Man has to be more efficient within his timescale. This is of course one reason why Man's constructs are more dedicated and do not rely on random making and breaking links until the right combination is found. However such dedicated constructs do not so readily lend themselves to evolutionary processes.

Err ? You made it here just as I quoted and I have only your word that you are 'appealing to authority' (isn't that one of those logical fallacies or something ?). But worse you seem unwilling to discuss that claim, whoever made it, because the source does not actually matter to the meaning or applicability or validity. I totally agree. The is a world of difference between electrical or electronic theory, which is a totally artifically constructed model, and a physicist's attempt to model 'reality'. Maxwell, for instance introduced non existent imaginary currents into circuit analysis for mathematical simplification. So IMHO electric circuit theory should not be discussed in terms of electrons or even Physics. I await your explanation of the claim that wires are scalars or admission that it is a claim that can't be supported.

You don't care, ? Well I would be grateful if you would direct your attention to the questions and comments I made about your claims, not some other matter. You claimed that a wire is a scalar. This is the third time I have asked you directly to substantiate this amazing claim.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57670006