Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ Avant Brown
You still never answered the question. Instead, you continue proselytizing your new god.
Additionally, you never read the entire post. I started my studies into computer science 40 years ago. 15 years before you itched your daddy's loins. And I have kept up with computer science ever since. You still have yet to provide evidence to back up your preposterous claims. The simulated intelligence you keep trying to pawn off is still nothing more than computer programs executing code written by humans. No learning. No thinking. And we may never get there.
======================================================================
Now answer the question. Quit proselytizing.
However, if we were to take a poll of ALL persons who have read your threads, who do you think would win? You, with your STEM PhD candidacy, and Wikipedia as your primary source; or Me, with nothing more than the knowledge I have learned over the last 40 years. Yes I have kept up with computer science. There just ain't much new to learn. Not overall.
Want to start a poll? Want to see who would win? And I would specifically ask everyone to keep any bias out of their vote. If you win, I shut up and let you proselytize all you want and I STFU!. If I win, you simply admit you are a New Age Religious Absolutist Apologist and YOU STFU!
You game?
rmfr
Arakish, he will not stop. A few days ago I predicted that his tactic is to attempt to force his views by sheer weight of posts.
1. There's a difference between "keeping up" with the research, and actually doing the research. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
2. As I mentioned before, you have a quite naive view of the pace of research generated rapidly, and your words "There just ain't much new to learn. Not overall", show just how obsolete your expertise in the field is. [Smart researchers have reported how difficult it is to keepup, yet you, who haven't done anything outside of schoolwork in ai, in several years, claim there's not much to learn.]
3. Crucially, algorithms start out quite stupid/"blank-like" like state. Even if they solve a task specified by humans, this does not mean they don't learn how to solve said task. [Wikipedia/machine learning]
Since algorithms start off terrible at doing tasks in a "blank" like state, how is it that they achieve super-human performance sometimes in solving tasks, while not being programmed again after the initial blank like base code? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
4. I predict that you'll dodge the question in 3, with some nonsensical, irrelevant sequence, perhaps including distractive/false accusations of supposed proselytization. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Stop evading, just give a simple answer to the question.
Yes, Arakish should aim to answer my question, rather than offering unevidenced red-herrings.
AGREE/ And his leaps of logic to the inane would likely have him laughed out of any PhD program. They certainly would not suffice as information for a dissertation.
Is this programming god Jordan again?
BTW, the answer to the question is just 0.
Can be calculated with some simple first semester calculus.
Or it can be gotten in an even easier way with high-school trigonometry: by just realizing the answer contains (ĵ · î) which is just cos(π/2) which is 0.
I knew that and so did Tin Man and Old Man. We were talking about it over drug induced stupors just the other day, unfortunately we were all too blitzed to use the computer. And we all applaud Nyarlathotep for the extremely simple steps taken to out this fraud. While it was obvious from the concluding comments being made, it was nice to see the fraud pointed out from beginning to end.!
Even stranger... Avant Brown made a sockpuppet, posted here that he was right and I was wrong (of course).
But then went on to claim to be a user from another forum. Just so happens I used to be active on those forums, and I'm vaguely familiar with the user in question. They are more than 50 years old (Avant Brown claimed he was 25) and lives on the opposite side of the world from Avant Brown. Furthermore the user in question is a critic of the "technology singularity" Avant Brown was endorsing. Even stranger: apparently ProgrammingGodJordan posted some garbage over there as well (and was banned), and one of his primary critics was the user Avant Brown claimed to be!
To be honest, I don't know what the fuck is happening. It's like the plot to a bad detective movie.
I didn't think he would make it and actually said so earlier. I don't get the math or the science as well as you or arakish, it's just not my area of study, but I can follow the videos and arguments and see the conclusions being drawn. The evidence just isn't there for anything this guy asserted. Unfounded assertion after unfounded assertion, and his citations actually negated the very position he was taking. Happy to say Bon Voyage.
Wellz this is freaky.
I just listened to some music yesterday featuring "Avant Brown":
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RyPC7k5ild0
I don't think the singer knows any Ai stuff though
Challenge accepted.
"Nyarlatothep" you seem like a smart fellow. I get the feeling you know a lot of physics.
My sister taught me how to do basic differentiation, so I thought I'd take a try. (I eventual abandoned her lessons though.)
And by try it out, I meant google it. I copied it word for word, and the 1st search result is an enotes website:
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/position-vector-particle-given-by-r...
I tried to follow the enotes website. How do I calculate your problem, without a number given for t, like the example in the website above?
Also, the example in the enotes website has the i you asked for in your question on the R.H.S. of the r(t) term on the enotes example. Can I calculate answer without the i symbol in your problem?
Ps: You don't have to answer if you feel it's not worth your time. I am just curious about the problem. I might take physics because I am impressed by people like Brian Greene or Brian Cox or Michio Kaku, with his 1 inch equation for everything. My mother and father are not in academia, but my grandpa was an "amateur physicist".
Favorite Brian Cox video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajO5MvL9pVE
Good question! In this problem the acceleration is a function of time, so loosely speaking it will have a different acceleration at each point in time. That means the acceleration function will have time in it (the variable "t" will appear in the acceleration function).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Another good quesiton! The fact that î is missing in the function allows you to take the shortcut I outlined earlier. It means that the particle never changes its coordinate associated with î, which means its acceleration and velocity (in the î direction) is 0 (which is the answer to the problem). But if you want to get some practice, try calculating just the acceleration function (by taking two time derivatives).
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
And some advise: do not confuse the acceleration function (that will have "t" and "ĵ" in it), with the actual question I originally asked (for the component of acceleration in the î direction).
Hold on, I have a huge huge problem.
Sorry for the questions again. Thanks for taking the time to give your previous answer.
Why did you choose "î" to be zero? If "î" is "missing", now that I think about it from a basic math perspective, shouldn't î be undefined? Shouldn't i be 1 other dimension by default? Another dimension that's not in the problem?
In other words, wouldn't you be asking to solve a different problem, namely: "(2t^3 + t^2 + 5t +8)ĵ without any i?
And also, what did you mean by a value of t would "show up" in the acceleration function? In the enotes I saw t=2 being given before any solving was attempted. Can you tell me how, and why t would emerge in the equation? As far as I can see by watching a bunch of videos, the only things that can emerge from being "undefined" is virtual particles prior to the big bang, that can pop in an out of existence. What I mean is, how would the position know a time, without us supplying a time? (Please explain to me as simple as possible. I haven't took physics yet, but I know algebra, so I'm using my basic algebra knowledge above, and I understand that physics work with algebra)
At no point did I choose î to be zero; it fact it can't be 0. î is an orthonormal vector. Ortho means it is orthogonal (English: perpendicular, or at 90 degrees to ĵ). Normal means it is of length 1.
---------------------------------------------------------
No, as I pointed about above, it is a vector, not a scalar. The number 1 is a scalar. Vectors do not equal scalars; if they did, we wouldn't need vectors! Or to put it in English: î has a direction and a magnitude (length); the number 1 only has a magnitude. Assigning a vector a value of 1 would put us firmly in apples and oranges territory.
Perhaps an easier way to think about it is that î and ĵ describe directions (and a length), not variables! If you read a treasure map that said go 50 meters north then 30 meters east, you might represent that motion as 50î + 30ĵ. So it makes no sense to start assigning numeric values to î and ĵ. If you want to go a different distance north, you change the "50" to something else.
---------------------------------------------------------
In the position function given, there is a term with time to the 3rd power (2t^3). Each time you take a time derivative you will lose a power of t. The acceleration function is two time derivatives of the position function so you will lose 2 powers of t; leaving one 1 power of t remaining in the acceleration function.
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't completely understand this question, but I'll try my best:
Of course, no part of the question asks for the position, velocity, or acceleration at any specific point in time, so there is no need to plug in values for t.
I'm not so sure about that Nyarlatothep. Shouldn't the answerbe "undefined" instead of "0"? Please read my response after my quote of you below.
Thanks again for answers, but I think I found another issue, maybe I'm paranoid?
Okay, so next, I knew the position would encompass virtually an infinite amount of time, which is precisely why I was confused when you didn't give any value of t to solve!!!!
However, I will check for myself if orthonormal vectors to some other vectors, necessarily equate to 0, but since I didn't know about that property of orthonormalness, I presumed since no time t was given, I couldn't solve the problem. Again, I will look up the orthonormal stuff. Sorry for the questions.
Anyways, if what you say above is clicking to me, wouldn't the answer be undefined instead of zero?
I'm looking at the site below, and it says zero times infinity, is not 0, but an undefined value:
https://www.philforhumanity.com/Zero_Times_Infinity.html
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Wouldn't the answer be undefined, instead of 0 as you gave several times above ?
You seem to be missing the purpose of these functions (position, velocity, acceleration). I've explained it already, but I'll try from a different approach:
The position function is a formula to tell you the position of the particle at any given time. This was handed to us on a silver platter in the question.
The velocity function is a formula you can use to calculate the velocity at any point in time (and same for acceleration). The power of calculus/physics is it allows us to calculate these customized formulas (velocity and acceleration) for our customized problem. That is a good thing because you will never find the velocity or acceleration functions associated with this particle by looking in a book. That is because there are so many different possible position functions, that book would have to be millions of pages long to have any hope of containing it. So instead we must craft them ourselves by taking time derivatives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
No, because 0 * ∞ does not appear anywhere in the calculation.
Concentrate on calculating the acceleration function. The rest will become more obvious once you have that.
What did you mean when you said the answer "contained" (ĵ · î) which is 0? Any simple answer here too? Also please see my last question below.
I've scoured the internet, for about 20 minutes or so, and one is typically given time t, and i is normally included in the position, i.e. to find the acceleration typically requires finding the derivative of the position.
This is all I'm finding on the web to find acceleration: 1:Differentiate 1st time gives velocity. 2:Differentiate 2nd time will give acceleration, and plugging in a value of t will typically yield a precise answer, including a unit vector i. So for eg, given a problem we typically end up with something like 43i + 17j, which is the acceleration answer, as seen here: https://www.varsitytutors.com/calculus_1-help/how-to-find-acceleration
I think I have a final question. Can you show me any examples elsewhere, like in a text book or so, where I can find a problem, which requires one to solve something basically something the same as the problem you proposed? namely something asking to solve the "î component of acceleration" given a position without î term visible?
Also, you said the answer was zero, but what is zero precisely, is î = 0, since you asked for the " î component of acceleration " in your problem, or is acceleration = 0? If so why ask for the " î component of acceleration " instead of just acceleration?
I think looking at these directly, may help me to visualize the picture better, in addition to your advice above. Thanks again.
One way to express the answer is (d²[(2t^3 + t^2 + 5t +8)ĵ]/dt²) · î; but I'm betting that is really isn't helpful to you. The point is, once you expand all that mess you will find something like (blah blah blah) * (ĵ · î). And we know (or any freshman studying in this or any even remotely related field knows) that (ĵ · î) is 0; this is the shortcut I discussed earlier.
--------------------------------------
Since î is not "visible" in the position function what does that tell us? It tells us the coefficient on î in the position function is 0. You also might notice there is no t^4 visible either. That tells us the coefficient on that term is 0. I could have written the position function as:
P(t) = (0t^8 + 0t^7 + 0t^6 + 0t^5 + 0^t^4 + 2t^3 + t^2 + 5t +8)ĵ + (0t^8 + 0t^7 + 0t^6 + 0t^5 + 0^t^4 + 0t^3 + 0t^2 + 0t + 0)î + (0t^8 + 0t^7 + 0t^6 + 0t^5 + 0^t^4 + 0t^3 + 0t^2 + 0t + 0)k̂
But then you could have just complained there was no t^9 visible. We remove the terms with 0 as their coefficient as they are unnecessary, otherwise it would be impossible to write down any formula; because you can always add more higher order terms with a 0 coefficient. You might as well complain I didn't put denominators of 1 on all the terms.
This is what I am concerned about.
If the answer concerns (blah blah blah) * 0, where (blah blah blah) includes infinite amount of time, that is why i said the answer was undefined rather than 0. Or are you saying the answer is not (blah blah blah) * 0?
From what I get so far, it would't be impossible to write out the formulae, because every text book I've come across manage to include or exclude terms, without writing an infinitely long equation. For eg, given the acceleration, they could pose a problem whereby a part of the position is unknown. You have a known to work with concerning the acceleration given, and an unknown to solve for given some partial position.
Right, they omit any terms with a coefficient of 0; which is exactly what I did, and everyone else does in the field. If we didn't do that, we could never finish writing any formula, since every formula contains an infinite number of terms with coefficient 0.
The other sources did however keep the unit vector i. I was saying I got confused because you didn't have one in your problem, while they did. I'd say you designed a good problem, because while I could easily solve other problems posed elsewhere, I could not solve yours easily, and I still have issues processing your design even now.
You should try actually doing that. Post your attempt(s) and I'll help you if you get stuck. The method you described is the long way, but it will lead to the answer of 0.
I don't know how to try it to this day, without the tangential unit vector supplied in the position. I'm still trying to grasp your design, but I admit I can't get it yet. I am trying to use other examples offered in physics books and calculus books, but they always include the unit vector i or something similar.
I'm saying I'm stuck at step 1, because the position doesn't look like something I can easily derive twice to get velocity then acceleration, and I wouldn't know what time to plug in. You say that i is not included implies i's coefficient is 0, and I don't know any physics or calculus or algebra rule which assigns value of zero to coefficient, without any operation at all. Then again I am amateur at algebra as well, so my ignorance there may be the cause.
OK: you were given the position function as (2t^3 + t^2 + 5t +8)ĵ
Step 1: get velocity function by taking 1 time derivative
what is the velocity function?
Is it possible to differentiate that to get velocity, without the unit vector i in place? It looks like a position, but I don't think it is based on the text books.
That's my worry here.
use the product rule on it, gives:
d/dt{2t^3 + t^2 + 5t +8} * ĵ + d/dt{ĵ} * (2t^3 + t^2 + 5t +8)
If you don't know, d/dt{ĵ} = 0.
Now work that out.
It is no accident that you had trouble googling the answer/method of solving the problem. That was by design.
And to be even more honest: I'd bet money you are Avant Brown for many reasons:
But of course I'm not sure. If I'm right, maybe a fresh start here will do you some good. If I'm wrong, well I'm sorry.
If you google the problem you gave, the first link that pops up is the enotes example. The enotes example includes the unit vector i in the position, and gives a value for t. Everywhere else I search, I see the same types of example. I am not even an amateur physicist, so the only questions I could think of, were questions that asked about the absence of things that I saw everywhere else I had checked.
But, since you say you designed the methodology for the problem, I now see why I was unable to find any examples. I think I could learn something from your answers, but with no other example any where to go on so far as I've searched, it's hard for me to visualize a solution, even with your guidance. Thanks regardless.
Pages