Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #566929 > unrolled thread

Confirm that you are not a robot...

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Confirm that you are not a robot... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-16 14:09 -0800
    Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-16 14:32 -0800
      Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-16 22:19 -0800
        Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-17 07:31 -0800
          Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-17 08:41 -0800
            Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-17 08:52 -0800
      Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-11-17 23:18 +0100
    Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-11-17 18:24 +1100
      Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-17 10:39 -0800
        Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-17 10:55 -0800
          Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-11-18 07:22 +0100
            Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-18 09:00 -0800
              Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-18 11:00 -0800
                Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-18 11:09 -0800
      Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2021-11-18 14:21 +0100
    Re: Confirm that you are not a robot... "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-11-17 12:44 -0800

#566929 — Confirm that you are not a robot...

Confirm that you are not a robot...

9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#566934

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Confirm that you are not a robot...
> 
> 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ?

Who the hell are you asking this 3rd grade math problem?

Let me guess, you don't understand the rules for the order of
operations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566955

Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Confirm that you are not a robot...
> >
> > 9 - 3  ÷  1/3 + 1 = ?
> 
> Who the hell are you asking this 3rd grade math problem?
> 
> Let me guess, you don't understand the rules for the order of
> operations.


i guess you don't know the answer

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566977

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>> 
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > Confirm that you are not a robot...
>> >
>> > 9 - 3  ÷  1/3 + 1 = ?
>> 
>> Who the hell are you asking this 3rd grade math problem?
>> 
>> Let me guess, you don't understand the rules for the order of
>> operations.
> 
> 
> i guess you don't know the answer

Guess all you want, dim wit.

This is not a grade school math class.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566987

Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Jim Pennino wrote:
> >>
> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> > Confirm that you are not a robot...
> >> >
> >> > 9 - 3  ÷  1/3 + 1 = ?
> >>
> >> Who the hell are you asking this 3rd grade math problem?
> >>
> >> Let me guess, you don't understand the rules for the order of
> >> operations.
> >
> >
> > i guess you don't know the answer
> 
> Guess all you want, dim wit.
> 
> This is not a grade school math class.


wrong answer...try again.






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566988

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>> 
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > Jim Pennino wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> > Confirm that you are not a robot...
>> >> >
>> >> > 9 - 3  ÷  1/3 + 1 = ?
>> >>
>> >> Who the hell are you asking this 3rd grade math problem?
>> >>
>> >> Let me guess, you don't understand the rules for the order of
>> >> operations.
>> >
>> >
>> > i guess you don't know the answer
>> 
>> Guess all you want, dim wit.
>> 
>> This is not a grade school math class.
> 
> 
> wrong answer...try again.
 
Correct answer, sorry dim wit.

And as others have pointed out, the question is useless as a robot wall.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567030

Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Confirm that you are not a robot...
>> 
>> 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ?
> 
> Who the hell are you asking this 3rd grade math problem?

Do not feed the troll. *facepalm*


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#566963

On 17-Nov-21 9:09 am, The Starmaker wrote:
> 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1

Putting

calculate 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1

into Google gives the answer as 1. There is an ambiguity as to whether 
1/3 should be construed as 1 divided by 3, or as the quantity one third. 
Google calculate takes the latter view.

However, what this shows clearly is that as a test for being a robot, 
it's useless.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567007

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 17-Nov-21 9:09 am, The Starmaker wrote:
> > 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
> 
> Putting
> 
> calculate 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
> 
> into Google gives the answer as 1. There is an ambiguity as to whether
> 1/3 should be construed as 1 divided by 3, or as the quantity one third.
> Google calculate takes the latter view.
> 
> However, what this shows clearly is that as a test for being a robot,
> it's useless.
> 
> Sylvia.

wow, you googled the answer..dats 3rd grade cheating..shame on you miss
elseee.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567009

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> 
>> On 17-Nov-21 9:09 am, The Starmaker wrote:
>> > 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
>> 
>> Putting
>> 
>> calculate 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
>> 
>> into Google gives the answer as 1. There is an ambiguity as to whether
>> 1/3 should be construed as 1 divided by 3, or as the quantity one third.
>> Google calculate takes the latter view.
>> 
>> However, what this shows clearly is that as a test for being a robot,
>> it's useless.
>> 
>> Sylvia.
> 
> wow, you googled the answer..dats 3rd grade cheating..shame on you miss
> elseee.

Nope, she ran it through google as a test for viablility as a robot wall
and it failed the test.

Did you not understand the sentence:

"However, what this shows clearly is that as a test for being a robot,
it's useless."




 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567055

Am 17.11.2021 um 19:55 schrieb Jim Pennino:
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17-Nov-21 9:09 am, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
>>>
>>> Putting
>>>
>>> calculate 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
>>>
>>> into Google gives the answer as 1. There is an ambiguity as to whether
>>> 1/3 should be construed as 1 divided by 3, or as the quantity one third.
>>> Google calculate takes the latter view.
>>>
>>> However, what this shows clearly is that as a test for being a robot,
>>> it's useless.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> wow, you googled the answer..dats 3rd grade cheating..shame on you miss
>> elseee.
>
> Nope, she ran it through google as a test for viablility as a robot wall
> and it failed the test.
>
> Did you not understand the sentence:
>
> "However, what this shows clearly is that as a test for being a robot,
> it's useless."
>


The term  9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
contains two different division operators.

A robot could eventually treat them as equally valid, while a human 
would see the visual difference and would think, the difference might be 
intentional.

So a human would think about  9 - 3 ÷ (1/3) + 1, while a robot 'thinks' 
  9 - (3 ÷ 1)/3 + 1, because robots usually don't try to understand 
something.

Google is certainly not a good example, because their AI is too far 
developed.


TH
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567090

In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 17.11.2021 um 19:55 schrieb Jim Pennino:
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 17-Nov-21 9:09 am, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
>>>>
>>>> Putting
>>>>
>>>> calculate 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
>>>>
>>>> into Google gives the answer as 1. There is an ambiguity as to whether
>>>> 1/3 should be construed as 1 divided by 3, or as the quantity one third.
>>>> Google calculate takes the latter view.
>>>>
>>>> However, what this shows clearly is that as a test for being a robot,
>>>> it's useless.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> wow, you googled the answer..dats 3rd grade cheating..shame on you miss
>>> elseee.
>>
>> Nope, she ran it through google as a test for viablility as a robot wall
>> and it failed the test.
>>
>> Did you not understand the sentence:
>>
>> "However, what this shows clearly is that as a test for being a robot,
>> it's useless."
>>
> 
> 
> The term  9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
> contains two different division operators.
> 
> A robot could eventually treat them as equally valid, while a human 
> would see the visual difference and would think, the difference might be 
> intentional.
> 
> So a human would think about  9 - 3 ÷ (1/3) + 1, while a robot 'thinks' 
>  9 - (3 ÷ 1)/3 + 1, because robots usually don't try to understand 
> something.
> 
> Google is certainly not a good example, because their AI is too far 
> developed.
> 
> 
> TH

The order of operations rule is hardly a sophisticated challenge
requiring advanced AI.

A robot would have to be programmed first to recognize a string of
numbers and mathematical symbols as an expression to be evaluated.

Then it would be programmed with the order of operatons.

All that is pretty trivial.

Thus any entity that got the wrong answer is human as only a human would
forget the order of operations, which makes it fairly useless as a robot
test.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567111

Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
> In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> > Am 17.11.2021 um 19:55 schrieb Jim Pennino:
> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 17-Nov-21 9:09 am, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
> >>>>
> >>>> Putting
> >>>>
> >>>> calculate 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
> >>>>
> >>>> into Google gives the answer as 1. There is an ambiguity as to whether
> >>>> 1/3 should be construed as 1 divided by 3, or as the quantity one third.
> >>>> Google calculate takes the latter view.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, what this shows clearly is that as a test for being a robot,
> >>>> it's useless.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> wow, you googled the answer..dats 3rd grade cheating..shame on you miss
> >>> elseee.
> >>
> >> Nope, she ran it through google as a test for viablility as a robot wall
> >> and it failed the test.
> >>
> >> Did you not understand the sentence:
> >>
> >> "However, what this shows clearly is that as a test for being a robot,
> >> it's useless."
> >>
> >
> >
> > The term  9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
> > contains two different division operators.
> >
> > A robot could eventually treat them as equally valid, while a human
> > would see the visual difference and would think, the difference might be
> > intentional.
> >
> > So a human would think about  9 - 3 ÷ (1/3) + 1, while a robot 'thinks'
> >  9 - (3 ÷ 1)/3 + 1, because robots usually don't try to understand
> > something.
> >
> > Google is certainly not a good example, because their AI is too far
> > developed.
> >
> >
> > TH
> 
> The order of operations rule is hardly a sophisticated challenge
> requiring advanced AI.
> 
> A robot would have to be programmed first to recognize a string of
> numbers and mathematical symbols as an expression to be evaluated.
> 
> Then it would be programmed with the order of operatons.
> 
> All that is pretty trivial.
> 
> Thus any entity that got the wrong answer is human as only a human would
> forget the order of operations, which makes it fairly useless as a robot
> test.

I bet all you people have trouple with those Captcha codes...

probably banging on your computer screen...


Confirm that you are not a robot...



Confirm that you are not stupid...


should be what it reads.



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567113

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

<snip>


> I bet all you people have trouple with those Captcha codes...

I would imagine a retard like you has a LOT of trouble clicking the
picture that shows a traffic light or a crosswalk...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567066

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

> On 17-Nov-21 9:09 am, The Starmaker wrote:
> > 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
> 
> Putting
> 
> calculate 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1
> 
> into Google gives the answer as 1. There is an ambiguity as to whether
> 1/3 should be construed as 1 divided by 3, or as the quantity one third.
> Google calculate takes the latter view.
> 
> However, what this shows clearly is that as a test for being a robot,
> it's useless.
> 
> Sylvia.

Correct. -Conventions- on the order of arithmetical operations
differ by country, and even within some countries with time.
The only right way of doing it is to insert parenthesis
to make the expressions unambigeous.
Impossible of course, for doing so would rob school teachers
of an opportunity to use their red pencils,

Jan


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567018

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:09:22 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> Confirm that you are not a robot... 
> 
> 9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ?

You need to do that you starfaker...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web