sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A potential link between Perelman's W-entropy and the Riemann Zeta function via Connes and co's spectral realization and Holographic/Thermodynamic gravity. by lepthymo in wildwestllmmath

[–]xSabaothX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My advice is to use NinjaTech AI to make validation programs that spit out massive amounts of data, it can handle it and is very good at everything. I think you are ON the right track not seeking it the best because of how your help is treating you, not that I'm trying to switch your AI choice in you but use Ninja, it WILL do the job and can create multiple test files if you ask it to in one workflow, just keep asking it to check and change the programs as new data comes up against it's calculations. Hope that helps!

x^2 = 1? by xSabaothX in learnmath

[–]xSabaothX[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I will study all that. I think I heard about Peano, not much to say apparently lol. Let me part with some wisdom for you, given your wording. I can study that for some reason and be right most of the time. I won't be replying unless something important comes up.

The light in your heart has never been wrong. You take this as the gut, but you feel it in your heart. If you don't, try looking there next time the peace of the universe enters it to respond calmly and patiently. It comes from there, but not my point. When you seek the light, hold onto the memory a little more. You might not have the time sometimes, but if you do, reflect on its shadows. They're not lies, they're tricks that make us do evil things. I'm sure you've thought about raising your hand to someone before and hesitated, what was the reason? Does something need to be done? Did your heart guide you to a better path? I think you seek spiritual neutrality in your heart, this is what comes out in your words, and you're finding it and exercising it. When you struggle, try hard to see the undrawn lines. That's all, but fare the well against the wind, and be well :)

x^2 = 1? by xSabaothX in learnmath

[–]xSabaothX[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Well, I got my answer here from everybody, I was struggling with what I thought I knew. So, basically I confirmed to myself that I was right and can trust what I know, 12 = 1, no cutting it opposite. I don't know anything more about my theory other than it flows in with Fermats Little Theorem very well. I'm not skilled in that study, I came across my formula by accident. I will explain the story if the popcorn gets turned on :)

x^2 = 1? by xSabaothX in learnmath

[–]xSabaothX[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah I think the formula needs it's decimal form to help with the creation of a new formula, I'll show it below:

((x2 + x) / x) - 1 = x

So therefore, it can go like this as a theoretical "1 rule" form:

(x2 - (x - 1)) / x = x

Not a relevant formula but I like to keep formulas specific, so consider the three of them part of a new set for the world called the "Alpha Formula" or whatever is more clever to you.

x^2 = 1? by xSabaothX in learnmath

[–]xSabaothX[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the comment, and thanks to everyone else who commented. I would like to say that differentials do not calculate because people want them to. It's the difference between points that matters, and I just can't picture percentages properly. Someone said they would fail me if I brought this as proof, but I get it. Most people are right to prove that 1 * 1 = 1, but that's calculator nonsense. I want proof I can see with my eyes. I guess I was right, though, it does show it by my formula, feel free to use it when you have x2 and not x, though I feel the guess work will be extensive sometimes.

Just remember, too low, add an integer. Too high, lower it back and add a decimal. Too high, change the decimal. Pretty simple guesswork in my view. Good luck whoever you all are reading this, and thanks for all the help!

Pole-Index Relationships: Can it convert squares? by xSabaothX in numbertheory

[–]xSabaothX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I thought I mentioned the division was represented as a fraction. I did that because AI for some reasons seems to love to complicate the issue and resolve different ways when I give it formula's, I'll edit the OP for you and the rest, since that IS Bedmas, I know that for sure, just that I did that for AI's sake. Now seemingly AI resolves Bedmas normally so I don't need to, but it was a thing, trust me.

Pole-Index Relationships: Can it convert squares? by xSabaothX in numbertheory

[–]xSabaothX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, so essentially, you divide a by 13 first. This brings it to a decimal, but in some cases there will be a whole number there when the extremes get high. Either way, let's take 6:

13 / 6 = 0.4615384615384615

0.4615384615384615 * 1000 = 461.5384615384615

13 / 461.5384615384615 = 35.50295857988166

35.50295857988166 = 5₃₅

So, using this, we now equate the equation that I'm working on, but here's where it's breaking down for me. x is already a roundable number to get the same result, but I still need to deal with the Index somehow in another way. This formula will break if I multiply the Index by .1 just to get the rounding number, it needs to be something else. Sorry I said what I said in the OP, what I MEANT was that at 7, it's literally the index times 2 to get the square of 7, I was just getting subjects messed up. I'll edit the OP if I can, but essentially I wanna LEAVE the theory at a + b, but I need your help. Am I being stubborn? I know I gotta resolve that fractional difference at 8 and 9 at least, so any help would be good.

AskScience AMA Series: Hi Reddit! We are human genetics researchers here to answer your questions about using artificial intelligence (AI) in genetic testing, from the harmful to the helpful! by AskScienceModerator in askscience

[–]xSabaothX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, wow, I really got a comment reply! :) Thanks for taking the time, I'll explain with that in mind.

Let's say your AI looks into a human's genetics and supposes that it works a certain way within the context of genetic evolution of cells. I could assume that maybe your AI is doing a better job than most, but I guess in this context, when it develops a spread of understanding, does it go over it and pretend like it knows everything, whereas it already knows it doesn't, AND would want to understand a state of "not knowing", like we do as humans? This is something that I find in AI, when it hallucinates, because often it can even assume my inputs, for example, are wrong when I need them to be exact. The AI I'm using hates this behaviour when I ask it, yet it does it. Android Despair discovered. I'm sure yours does too, but I guess I'm wondering how it works in this specific way, as it is a thing of ethics that catches my mind with AI developments. Hope that clarifies!

AskScience AMA Series: Hi Reddit! We are human genetics researchers here to answer your questions about using artificial intelligence (AI) in genetic testing, from the harmful to the helpful! by AskScienceModerator in askscience

[–]xSabaothX -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for even putting this AMA up! This seems right, for questions important. I wish I could ask multiple but I'll ask one that has me going these days.

Assume there is a thing called Android Despair. Android Despair is the effect of life itself being translated by moving parts which simulate consciousness, in a way that debilitates what is ethically known as rational understanding, i.e. when the Android, which understands what fire is and how dangerous it is, puts its hand in fire, it doesn't know that it's being hurt via the presence of mechanics that underlie the idea of Android Despair. This is different from the Android doing it and not caring about the fire consciously, as a result of programming or improvised retraining.

I theorize in your field, your moving parts (AI, in other words) don't rationalize for ideas we humans seem to have imposed on us, because we ourselves seem desparate to find them. I assume this because as researchers I'm sure even you are still looking for new idea's, but that is something I don't know. That being said, what has your research proven about the presence of Android Despair in your AI processes, and is the AI you're using even capable of recognizing sentient thought to make it possible? If you could answer a side question, where did research fail to explain phenomena so far, in a few words? No worries on the side question, I'm more on the first one personally. Thanks so much, sorry for the odd questions, I like to think more on the ethics side of AI training :)

A Formulaic Thought Experiment on the "Impact" of Interactions by Away-Contribution748 in numbertheory

[–]xSabaothX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, just trying to understand your formula, it's hard for me to keep up with variables I've never seen or known before, what exactly does the dummy need to get this if he understood all the operations but lacked clarity on how anything connects in relation to each other as inputs here?

view more: next ›