Feynmate

What do you think? :P

@TobiasFünke I think that this is more akin to "geniuses can do many things" rather than correlation

Like when Hilbert stole GR (JK y'all)

Then the story is played upon paradoxes. The setting is that of a society endangered by ever-looming monsters, which are antagonized by the heroes of the Hero association. Even if the protagonist is by far the strongest, he is considered a second class hero because of unlucky coincidences, causing more famous heroes to be considered responsible for his heroic acts

Pretty much like ST people claiming to have the final theory of the universe :P

@ACuriousMind In my opinion, yes. It's a comedic story. Hardcore fans might want to read too deep into it and claim otherwise, though

@ACuriousMind I think it's quite intentional to have such irony. An average guy does a tough but normal training (with some funny details like the air conditioning) for three years and he gets so strong that a punch of his blows away a storm

@ACuriousMind This one is actually WebComic--->Manga--->Anime just FYI

I only wanna see Saitama punching people

Honestly, it got boring when they started talking about the other fodders

That's when you drop it :P

@TobiasFünke does the salary fluctuate?

TL;DR: This average guy gets bored of normal life and starts training. His training consists of 100 push-ups, 100 sit-ups, 100 squats and a 6.2 Mile (10km) run, a banana and no air conditioning for three years. So he becomes bald, but also so strong that he can one-shot everything with a punch

One Punch Man

(you both)

Good point

Whenever I read "LLM" I can't help but think of TTM (Tank Top Master) from OPM

Okie dokie, I will ask again tomorrow. Thanks

It's nothing big, just the background field method

@ACuriousMind do you have Weinberg II at hand for a question, if you're available?

And as of today, I panic whenever I meet someone who is good at those D.

I always sucked at those problems. People say that it takes a lot of practice, but I could never be interested enough in such problems to actually do that practice

I greatly fear those who are proficient at those things (olympiads&co.), by the way. I had some trauma back in the day :P

Also, I wouldn't take that 85% thing as a big deal. First, being good at standardized tests doesn't imply proficiency in real research, where even in "standard" things something new may come up. But most importantly, whenever there is work that can be given to machine, we already do. It's not like PhD students are forced to do long calculations by hand (oh, wait... :P)

@ACuriousMind As my programming professor used to say: your computer is like a very stupid child (he was not so politically correct) who does whatever you tell it*

The great thing about giving detailed instructions to computers is that they're also unequivocal

@RyderRude Which makes it more easy to fuck it up.

@ACuriousMind Finally there is another problem (although I'm not sure about this, so I may be wrong about how this works): if you have some given computational power - of course finite - you want to use it for the actual calculations, not sacrifice part of it to have an AI (?)

I think that AI can play a significant role in bibliography stuff for example. If you are able to ask the right questions and it has access to all knowledge on the internet, you could use it to ask "has anyone ever written a paper about quantum coherent spinning cats?"

Maybe with some more - uhm - ad hoc model that could make sense, but... As far as I know, everywhere in research where we need computers, it's just about giving computers the instructions and let them "crunch the numbers". We already have the computational power and the brain part is left to actual humans, which are currently superior to AI model in sheer logic

That's a great path towards the mass extinction of the physicist kind :P

I think that RR is saying (and I care to say I disagree) that we should leave to AI stuff that has already been explored by somebody (?)

I'm not so acquainted with the different models. Are o1 and o3 newer models or old models that were restricted?

For me the dealbreaker is that even when a correct answer is given, it takes one message to convince it that it's wrong

GPT may even mess up the urn problem...

It should be easy to derive via induction but I'm lazy about combinatorics factors in there, if any

Do you know any place writing down explicitly the relation between the $n-$point GF and the connected $n-$point GF?

And even those that are established within the realm of physics as trivial consequences of thermodynamics, are labelled with some guy's name

@ACuriousMind I think it's acceptable for equations to have names, it's more of a historical homage, if I may say so. Well, so long as people don't get upset over names and prioritize concepts. The real curse is that in Chemistry they have a name for every phenomelogical little relation :P

@SirCumference All those cursed $\pi$ and $2$ factors :P

@RyanUnger I commented even older answers... :P

@ACuriousMind I don't think Slereah believes that :P

@User198 np mate

Written using the Poisson brackets

It's just the EoM for $f$

@TobiasFünke I liked the part in which you said "quantum"

@imbAF I'm afraid I don't. Maybe someone else can help you

@imbAF here

Damn it