> The author declares the intensive and extensive use of Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3.0 Pro (Google) and sincerely thanks its unlimited interlocution capacity. The author declares as their own responsibility the abstract formulation of the research, the conceptual guidance, and the decision-making in case of intellectual dilemma. The AI performed the mathematical verification of the multiple hypotheses considered throughout the process, but the author is solely responsible for the final content of this article. The prompts are not declared because they number in the thousands, because they are not entirely preserved, and because they contain elements that are part of the author’s privacy.
i will take longer, because at each step the process of lateral association occurs, this will foster imaginative variation of schema, and result in inspiration, an internally generated drive to pursue a goal, and experience the results.
i will not only complete the task, but will understand the many outcomes of task corruption as they relate to the components of the task.
you will obtain a set of right answers, i will discover the rules that govern the process.
Fair enough. However, it is practically impossible to complete such a task in a human lifetime. But even if it were possible, the main point stands: using computers to perform calcualtions is standard scientific practice. Discrediting a proposal solely because it uses AI is retrograde per se. It contradicts the history of technological progress and excludes potentially valid results based on intellectual prejudice.
I am referring to other comments in this thread that dismissed the proposal purely based on the use of AI tools. My comment about prejudice was not directed at you.
consider the conceptual model of particle as a polyhedral structure.
consider further, the [pred] values are an average, or a centroid of sort, related to a dynamic process, as a result, the straight edges, and faces of the polyhedron dont exist, they are virtual. what is actual is the variation of "curvature" as the object oscillates, further consider that [diff] is a measure of deviation that is in line with [exp] values.
Because AI has been in the center of the debate so far, I ran your comment through my AI system, and it concluded that you captured the essence of the model perfectly: the polyhedra are topological standing waves, and the edges are nodal lines. So [Pred] is the geometric attractor, and [Diff] is the amplitude of the oscillation around that limit. As I understand it myself, the polyhedra don't exist as real solids, but as an optimized way to distribute the intensity of the oscillation. Does this perspective make the results physically plausible in your view?
attached is the question of what is "oscillating" ?
is matter, composed of "spacetime" possessed of disequilibrial state?
or is matter something different than the surrounding "substance"?
where does the phenomenal energy originate to drive a proton for the duration of its existance [decay rate]. is there some topologic ultrastructure that constrains geometry and drives the process of being a proton?
I don't get why people keep saying its style will start to become recognizable. You can have it write things in any number of styles and levels of verbosity.
Yes, and none of the styles are original or yours. This will become transparent and undesirable. There's no threat to humans who can do their own research and come up their own novel analyses and conclusions. Folks who can't do that? Well, it might help them churn out crap.
Like I've said previously but seemingly unheard, it's a tool for chat support agents. It's not a research or learning tool. It's not a writing or composition tool. People who use it that way will be disappointed.
They do, and some will absolutely do (to some it is important to "assess" language) - it really depends on what you mean with "people" (of course I meant a subset).
What happened there is, in the succession of editings I left that 'people' there in a way that happened to be ambiguous. I made a composition error out of inattention.
No. It is not a matter of being «native». It may be your mothertongue of not: it is an approach transversal to all (this class of) languages.
It is the set of those people who intend to speak English, though surely not the language in use among the English. "Currently typical" English does not mean "good" English.
Edit:
On the contrary, «native English speakers» are the one who will follow that: they are the ones supposed to have absorbed more English (and relevant) literature.
I have just checked and I see the terms employed correctly in Joyce, in Wilde, in Chandler, in Hammett, in Paul Johnson, in Niall Ferguson, in Woody Allen, in Spike Milligan.
As absolutely expected: there is the gathering of the Assessors.
