Given your handle, I would hope you remember Cover Oregon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Should read "harebrained" instead of "hairbrained". Hares are probably more intelligent than hairs, but what do I know, I'm just chimp++.

Do we infer causality from phenomena that, at their core, are stochastic ? What is the nature of this "time" thing that we refer to ? Are these macro notions just a helpful mirage ? In "Word and Object", from W.V.O. Quine, it was a startling revelation to me that scientific method does not arrive at truth like a mathematical limit, but is rather a way at truth. Which fits with the saying that "all models are wrong, but some are more useful than others."

you can have a baby in one month" -- quotation from chairman Musk

"This is just an ad homonym argument."

Perfect. Made my day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

A 747 needs a hangar, not a nightstand.

I believe you meant "inspectors general" rather than "attorneys general". But "corruption" and "criminal" are always apposite w/r/t current administration.

Conviction requires a vote of two-thirds of Senators present on any article of impeachment.

Jack Welch.

known as ? Vanguard -1 and Vanguard 0 ? And after the Navy could not deliver, we went to the tried-and-true ex-Nazi and his V-2, excuse me, Redstone to launch Explorer 1.

Yes, I'd like to see QwQ's proof. My understanding is that QwQ is a NeuroSymbolic AI. I have my doubts that a straight-up neural-network LLM could provide one, but I'd sure be interested in what QwQ can do. Does it use Coherence-Driven Inference? If it can give me the first 10 digits of Chaitin's constant, all the better. I agree that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity might be within reach soon, but general relativity would probably take longer.

Proof is straight-forward. Assume a candidate irrational A. Any irrational divided by a rational is irrational. So A/2 is irrational,and less than the candidate. Say hello to Mr. Zeno while you're at it.

It was too hard for Gemini, but not for yours. Excellent explanation. Does it know the difference between computable and non-computable irrationals, and if so, does it know the cardinality (computable => Aleph 0, non-computable => Aleph 1) ? Because it's the Aleph 1 cardinality that defines a continuum in this instance. Thanks for running the example, must admit I'm impressed.

Percentage of people that can predict the first irrational number > 37: 0. Percentage of people that know, and can demonstrate why, they cannot predict the first irrational number > 37: > 0. What says the LLM of your choice ?