Strange

What does "arc of definition" mean? Do you mean "definition of [an] arc" ?

And they do (whichever definition you use). So what is your question, or the point you are trying to make? Well, obviously you do need the definition otherwise you could not calculate the value. So what is your question, or the point you are trying to make?

The first one is the exact value. The second is, obviously, an approximation. But I thought your question was about the definition of trig functions, not the value for a specific angle. So what do you actually want to know? (Your first post was rambling and incomprehensible; try splitting it up into a series of short simple statements, followed by a single question. And maybe a diagram.) There are many ways of defining the sine function. Some are given here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine (That is probably also available in your favourite language.)

After the thread was closed, someone suggested this discussion on StackExchange, if anyone is interested: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/33105/can-a-pendulum-stabilizer-for-airplanes-really-work?rq=1 Some of the same points there as made here: And, perhaps not surprisingly, our dear departed member has the last word

How then are they transmitted from one generation to another. Yep. That sounds like a good summary. Very few things that are transmitted by genes are absolutely determined. A few traits and a small number of diseases. But anything more complex requires both genetics and the appropriate environment and experiences (I have alluded to this before, but only briefly because it is pretty much off topic). You could, of course, design a system that learns its instinctive behaviour in the same way (if that was useful). Who knows. But I fail to see the relevance. You seem to be just throwing around random things that you think are difficult or time consuming. I cant see that most of these have any particular relevance to AI. And even if they do, they are just arguments from incredulity.

From what I remember (I don’t have the book with me) wheat is one of the main sources of dietary aluminium. Tea has the largest amount.

There has been quite a lot of discussion of the pros and cons of the use of a pendulum in a plane.

Please define exactly what "building up of time" means. Also please provide some evidence that (a) this happens and (b) that it causes the observed effects. Please show your calculations.

Only if based on the same underlying technology. Other implementation methods could be faster (or slower). Or the learning process could be guided to be more efficient. Please provide a citation to support the claim that instincts are not transmitted genetically. It sounds like you are looking for "the gene for web-building" (in spiders) or "the gene for language learning" (in humans). That is obviously not going to happen. Of course not.

You provided a link to the book. That is enough. Of course there is. Someone wrote a book. They own the copyright.

Sounds familiar, but I don't know where it is!

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

For me it was working in test and maintenance. If I was on call, I would spend the journey to work working through possible causes and matching them up against the symptoms described. Sometimes I would be able to narrow it down to two hypotheses and a test to distinguish them. It felt good to walk in and say, "what happens when you press the 'pause' button? ... OK, in that case this module needs to be replaced" and then be on my way home again in 10 minutes.

Indeed. I think threads that start out with a poorly posed question can go one of two ways: with a bit of prompting, the OP might say, "yes, that is exactly what I am trying to say" and then it leads on to a productive discussion. Or they might respond to any requests for clarification with further vague questions or assertions with no obvious connection between them. I think (and hope) that the former are far more common.

The quoted sentence seems to e from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy Although I don't see how that is relevant to the proposed use of an actual pendulum in a plane.

Exactly.

Also, note that the headline writer (who is probably not the same person who wrote the article) is engaging in hyperbole: it may be the largest explosion observed, but not necessarily the largest ever. Also, the explosion was not observed, just the effects resulting from it.

That is tru for systems that are called "AI" today. How do you know it will always be true? Do they have to be? What if we encounter aliens who do not have neurotransmitters, hormones and other chemicals like su? Would you argue that they couldn't have "real emotions"? This is just yet another version of the empty "humans are special so AI is impossible" argument. It is purely based on belief. I am quite sceptical, myself, about the possibility of true AI (for exactly these "faith based" reasons). But I have never heard any good, rational arguments why it is not possible. On the other hand, I have heard lots of very convincing arguments why it might be. So I know my scepticism is pretty baseless. And, if that were true (and I see no reason why it should be) then we would just add those components to an attempt to build an AI. But this seems to be confusing the implementation with the resulting behaviour. More than one way to skin a cat, as they say.

Feels like it might be overkill for something that is only a problem with a small proportion of posters.

I have a life. Unfortunately, a large part of it is concerned with the protection of intellectual property rights. I will ask a moderator to remove the copy of the book from the first post, now you have provided a link to it. That is why I think a system like this would need to be damped. I think the pendulum could provide a useful indication of flight angle (if that is the intended purpose) but only if not allowed to swing in an uncontrolled way. So more of a plumb line, than a pendulum. I assume the intention is that this is then used to control the attitude of the plane, either by just giving an indication to the pilot or by being directly connected to the control surfaces.

To avoid the charge leakage issue that studiot mentions, you could try building a pair of basic electroscopes and transferring the charge between them. (From https://www.school-for-champions.com/experiments/static_electricity_electroscope.htm#.Xlj045NKiu4)

I can think of a couple of ideas: 1. ask them to provide a clearer question and provide any missing detail 2. if that doesn't produce anything clearer, then report the post and ask a moderator to make that request (with the threat/promise that the thread will be closed down if a useful question is not forthcoming) If someone persists in asking vague, even evasive, questions and appears to shifts the topic with every response, then that seem to be exactly the sort of thing the "good faith" rules is intended to cover. (The same applies to people who have a habit of replying with answers like "Do you know there are two ways of solving this?" but don't explain any further what those "two ways" are.)

It is still copyright and you do not have permission to copy it.

! Moderator Note Moved to chemistry as most likely relevant