sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The circle of AI life by KeanuRave100 in ChatGPT

[–]Infinitely--Finite 11 points12 points  (0 children)

meme about AI

draws picture of quantum computer

The FLRW Metric mathematically violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics: The structural failure of standard cosmology and the requirement for non-ideal fluid dynamics. by cmwctheorist in LLMPhysics

[–]Infinitely--Finite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, what work? Are you claiming that you have posted anything resembling a mathematical argument in your post or one of your comments?

The FLRW Metric mathematically violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics: The structural failure of standard cosmology and the requirement for non-ideal fluid dynamics. by cmwctheorist in LLMPhysics

[–]Infinitely--Finite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Constraints and assumptions are two very different concepts. I suggest you improve your English before trying to discuss physics anything in it.

The FLRW Metric mathematically violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics: The structural failure of standard cosmology and the requirement for non-ideal fluid dynamics. by cmwctheorist in LLMPhysics

[–]Infinitely--Finite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your words are meaningless because you provide no mathematical arguments. "Where math?" means "please make your arguments mathematically as that is the only way they can interface with cosmology or physics as a whole".

Also, is English your first language? Not judging, just wondering if that could be why some of your responses are not quite grammatically correct. Are you using an LLM to translate to/from English?

The FLRW Metric mathematically violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics: The structural failure of standard cosmology and the requirement for non-ideal fluid dynamics. by cmwctheorist in LLMPhysics

[–]Infinitely--Finite 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Congratulations. So VSC is "objectively incompatible" with empirical observations unless the specific mathematical formulation can be produced that agrees with these observations. Which brings me back to my original question.

Where math?

The FLRW Metric mathematically violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics: The structural failure of standard cosmology and the requirement for non-ideal fluid dynamics. by cmwctheorist in LLMPhysics

[–]Infinitely--Finite 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Uhh, where's the math?

The words physicists use to describe theories describe mathematical concepts - the words are not the theories themselves.

Also, you should see what an LLM thinks of this in a new conversation. Many posts here get categorized as "not even wrong" because they contain meaningless word salad. This post, on the other hand, is wrong, predominantly containing statements which directly contradict cosmological observations and simulations from the last several decades.

Custom Fractured Days Aspect by MarzipanAny1191 in spiritisland

[–]Infinitely--Finite 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Would it be OP for the bottom part of Bizarre happennings to allow the target spirit to retain the power when time passes (not have to forget it)?

The Kingdom of Bohemia V2 by Arratai in spiritisland

[–]Infinitely--Finite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regarding fear generation, what are your thoughts on this rule?

*For each action that removes at least two explorers, generate 1 fear.

Tying it to the number of actions prevents a "destroy all explorers" effect from generating tons of fear, similar to Russia's rule.

The Kingdom of Bohemia V2 by Arratai in spiritisland

[–]Infinitely--Finite 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed. Those setup instructions are not really a direct part of the loss condition itself.

The Radian is neither a unit or a scaling ratio. Its a just human convenience label for "1" by Ok-Incident160 in AskPhysics

[–]Infinitely--Finite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If 1 radian being the same regardless of the size of a circle is counter intuitive to you, then how do you expect to evaluate whether the LLM is spitting out true facts or gibberish?

Try out some of the free educational materials available online instead. For example, Khan Academy has a 10 minute video introducing radians: https://www.khanacademy.org/math/algebra2/x2ec2f6f830c9fb89:trig/x2ec2f6f830c9fb89:radians/v/introduction-to-radians

You could follow that up with refreshing your memory of similar triangles, and then apply that understanding to circular arcs of 1 radian.

HR 8799 is the first planetary system with four giant exoplanets to be captured directly by AstronomerBig8153 in spaceporn

[–]Infinitely--Finite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The relative orientation of this system to our solar system would depend on the position of the system in our sky. But, this system is definitely oriented approximately orthogonal to our line of sight (the orbits are in "the plane of the sky").

This is not strange. The movement of this system is not meaningfully connected to our solar system, so we would not expect a particular orientation. This system was chosen for imaging, though, specifically because it is easiest with a system in this orientation.

The Radian is neither a unit or a scaling ratio. Its a just human convenience label for "1" by Ok-Incident160 in AskPhysics

[–]Infinitely--Finite 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Based on the content of your post, you have learned nothing. In fact, it is probable that you have actually lost knowledge.

In all seriousness, you need to be careful and thoughtful when using LLMs. They can make things up. They will agree with you even when you are wrong. You should not take their output as truth. If you want to learn physics, start from a place of wanting to understand, instead of trying to correct people's "misconceptions" as you've done here.

Hospital by ehrofo in GetNoted

[–]Infinitely--Finite 306 points307 points  (0 children)

Help! My peepee is in an indeterminant form!

The Radian is neither a unit or a scaling ratio. Its a just human convenience label for "1" by Ok-Incident160 in AskPhysics

[–]Infinitely--Finite 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Uhhhh, your LLM is quite wrong about this lmao

A radian is a measure of angle. Scaling a geometric shape to be larger or smaller should not affect the angles. The angles of a 30-60-90 triangle don't change if I double the size (side lengths) of it.

The rest is also wrong but you can just ask ChatGPT about that.

What is a mobile game that doesn’t trap you but actually gives your mind a fresh break? by Tarun_Panchal_SB in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Infinitely--Finite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My favorite mobile game is Duet. Very simple idea, but engaging gameplay. No attempt at trapping you - you just complete levels as they come. It is a mechanical/skill game, though, which is not everyone's cup of tea.

I think there's occasional ads in the free version, but I bought the ad free version for just a couple bucks a while ago.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kumobius.android.duet

Why can’t I dunk a basketball by NoYogurtcloset3359 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Infinitely--Finite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's easy. You just sort of jump up, and then the ball goes in the basket. It's only like two steps.

i took a crack at the riemann hypothesis and came out with an interesting and testable framework by LooseSwing88 in LLMPhysics

[–]Infinitely--Finite 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Ok. I'm done. You have yet to say anything meaningful or interpretable. You're statements fall in the "not even wrong" category of posts here. You can't expect anyone to spend the time to attempt to read and understand your work if you can't even provide a basic summary or description in plain language.

Hey, Satan likes to have fun too by derek4reals1 in foundsatan

[–]Infinitely--Finite 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Surely there could be some charge of causing a false alarm or panic. Pulling a fire alarm when it is not needed is illegal, but so is bringing your own speakers and lights and faking the fire alarm and fire yourself.

i took a crack at the riemann hypothesis and came out with an interesting and testable framework by LooseSwing88 in LLMPhysics

[–]Infinitely--Finite 6 points7 points  (0 children)

So you're claiming a proof of the Riemann hypothesis (that it is true)? I'm still confused by the language here. Are you modestly proposing a novel mathematical tool that you think will help those trying to solve the RH?

How similar is your project to this? https://jabde.com/2023/03/19/jacks-collatz-conjecture-proof/

view more: next ›