[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you know what "ad hominem" means?
Do you not realise that AIs are not people?

(And do you realise that quoting them is an argument from authority- without any authority?)

You are refuting your own arguments.
One fallacy is rejecting information based on information source, while the other is accepting information based on information source. Both disregard information content itself.

Quoting an AI in your post as if it somehow confirms your position is an argument from authority.
Because AIs are noted for getting things wrong, it is not just a logical fallacy, it is just silly.


An artificial intelligence is not a "hominem" that any attack can be "ad".
Dismissing their claptrap without wasting time reading it is perfectly legitimate.

In what way do you perceive that as grounds to tell me "You are refuting your own arguments. "?

It does not matter how many times you post some AI agreeing with you.
You are not presenting a new argument or new data.
You are just repeating the same assertion "The AI agrees with me".
Well, maybe it does, but it's known to be too stupid to bother with

We all know that you can not trust the o/p of an AI.

I'm sure I can speak for the other contributors here when I say that I accept that you can get an AI to agree with you.

We just don't think that is relevant.
Pleases stop wasting time repeating the point which is already conceded.
The AI agrees with you.


Now show that it is correct rather than miscounting the Rs in "strawberry".

You can be free from being accused of committing logical fallacy if you address the assertions by pointing out their internal contradictions or incompatibility with experimental results with no possible explanation.

I can persuade all of those AI to change their choice to option #4.
I can leave them choose option #3 without doing anything, because it was their default position.
I can't persuade any of those AI to change their choice to option #2, no matter how hard I try.
I can't persuade any of those AI to change their choice to option #1 either, no matter how hard I try.
There must be something in option #4 that doesn't exist in the other options.

If you can persuade them to accept option #1 or #2, please let me know how you do it.

All of the AI models I asked to discuss can correctly count the number of letter r in strawberry. Meta AI from Whatsapp did fail, so I don't use it anymore. Furthermore, it refuse to pick an option from the polling.

[Bored chemist]

Re "I can persuade all of those AI to change their choice to option #4."
If you can persuade it to change then it's not reliable, is it?

"There must be something in option #4 that doesn't exist in the other options."
Your determination to get the AIs to accept it.

So, once again, you have restated the obvious fact that some AIs agree with you.
And you have failed to recognise the danger in trusting them, even though you have personally proved that they get things wrong

Why don't you stop doing that?
It's not as if we don't all know that you can get an AI to agree with you.
Repeating that experiment is redundant.

[Bored chemist]

...Furthermore, it refuse to pick an option from the polling.

There's an old puzzle. Most kids under 5 give the right answer, many university graduates do not.

What animal has 2 legs, three arms two backs and 19 teeth?

The answer is , of course "I don't know".

And you seem to have chosen to rule out the only AI that would ( presumably) given the correct answer to that question.
Is that wise?

[alancalverd]

If we might return to the plot for a while, what possible use does Hamdani foresee for confusing radius with arc length?

Most people think it a good idea to have two different words for these very different things.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Re "I can persuade all of those AI to change their choice to option #4."
If you can persuade it to change then it's not reliable, is it?

"There must be something in option #4 that doesn't exist in the other options."
Your determination to get the AIs to accept it.

So, once again, you have restated the obvious fact that some AIs agree with you.
And you have failed to recognise the danger in trusting them, even though you have personally proved that they get things wrong

Why don't you stop doing that?
It's not as if we don't all know that you can get an AI to agree with you.
Repeating that experiment is redundant.

Since you can't convince them to change their choice to option #1, the possibility is that option #1 is not good enough, or you are not good enough in convincing them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

...Furthermore, it refuse to pick an option from the polling.

There's an old puzzle. Most kids under 5 give the right answer, many university graduates do not.

What animal has 2 legs, three arms two backs and 19 teeth?

The answer is , of course "I don't know".

And you seem to have chosen to rule out the only AI that would ( presumably) given the correct answer to that question.
Is that wise?

It didn't say that it didn't know. It said that it cannot have an opinion.
We ruled out all other members that didn't participate to the polling. We can't just assume what their answers would be.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If we might return to the plot for a while, what possible use does Hamdani foresee for confusing radius with arc length?

Most people think it a good idea to have two different words for these very different things.

I identified rotational radius is equal to arc length of tangential displacement divided by angular displacement thus its unit should be meter per radian. You are confused by geometric radius with unit meter without involving radian.

[Bored chemist]

It didn't say that it didn't know. It said that it cannot have an opinion.

Practically speaking, what's the difference?

[Bored chemist]

I identified rotational radius is equal to arc length of tangential displacement divided by angular displacement

Why did you bother redefining something we all understand?

[alancalverd]

arc length of tangential displacement divided by angular displacement

Tangential to what?

For an arbitrary curve, the tangent at any point is perpendicular to the local (geometric) radius of curvature.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It didn't say that it didn't know. It said that it cannot have an opinion.

Practically speaking, what's the difference?

The practical importance is that it doesn't answer the question. That's precisely why it was ruled out.
But somehow you seemed to have an objection to that.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I identified rotational radius is equal to arc length of tangential displacement divided by angular displacement

Why did you bother redefining something we all understand?

Because you kept forgetting about that fact and its implications.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

arc length of tangential displacement divided by angular displacement

Tangential to what?

For an arbitrary curve, the tangent at any point is perpendicular to the local (geometric) radius of curvature.

Tangential speed - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangential_speed

Tangential speed is the speed of an object undergoing circular motion, i.e., moving along a circular path.[1] A point on the outside edge of a merry-go-round or turntable travels a greater distance in one complete rotation than a point nearer the center. Travelling a greater distance in the same time means a greater speed, and so linear speed is greater on the outer edge of a rotating object than it is closer to the axis. This speed along a circular path is known as tangential speed because the direction of motion is tangent to the circumference of the circle. For circular motion, the terms linear speed and tangential speed are used interchangeably, and is measured in SI units as meters per second (m/s).

Tangential speed (v) and angular speed (ω) on a spinning disc of radius r.

I thought you already knew it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This video shows how units for rotational quantities can be derived with uncompromising consistency according to all definitions and related equations. It also compare the derivation with current SI system which is less consistent.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=87006.msg745974#msg745974

In physics, a unit can be removed from the calculation without changing the numerical value of the results if the physical setup is arranged to keep its value to be 1 numerically. So, if the mass is kept at 1 kg through out an experiment, the numerical value for velocity is the same as momentum, and the numerical value for acceleration is the same as force.
In the seesaw case, the rotational radius (which is the rate of change of tangential displacement per angular displacement) in meter per radian is kept to be the same as geometric radius in meter, which is the distance between the applied force and the fulcrum. It relies on the assumption that the lever is completely rigid and isn't deformed while force is applied. But this is not generally the case. When the lever is deformed by applied force, its effective rotational radius will change.
Another way rotational radius can be different from geometric radius in seesaw case is where applied force changes the position of the fulcrum.

This argument explains why ghostly appearance and disappearance of the radian in the dimensional analysis of physical equations don't cause numerical discrepancies. AI chatbots that I discussed with highly appreciated it, and no counter argument has been offered yet.

[alancalverd]

 

an object undergoing circular motion,

another weakness is that your "radius of rotation" only has meaning for circular motion so you can't use it to describe, e.g., the torque on a camshaft. Or even, come to think of it, a toothed gear.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

an object undergoing circular motion,

another weakness is that your "radius of rotation" only has meaning for circular motion so you can't use it to describe, e.g., the torque on a camshaft. Or even, come to think of it, a toothed gear.

Why not?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This video shows how units for rotational quantities can be derived with uncompromising consistency according to all definitions and related equations. It also compare the derivation with current SI system which is less consistent.

I'm on progress of making two consecutive follow up videos. The first one describes the causes of problems with current standard. The other one will describe rotation with non-circular motion, where the rotational radius is not constant. It demonstrate the scalability of the proposed new system, and emphasize its generality compared to current system. To do that, I had to introduce radial quantities and orthogonal quantities, which are comparable to tangential and angular quantities which have been described in previous video.

If you think that my derivation video is still hard to follow, or you find any typing error, please let me know so I can address it in the description or comment section, or even as an additional information in my next videos.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I just found a question and answer in Quora related to this topic.

?How do I convert 3600 rev/min to SI units??

Here we have a bit of a wart in SI?not really because of SI itself but more because of confusion in terminology and concepts in the world of physics and engineering.

Are you intending to refer to the rate at which a periodic event occurs, or are you more interested in the rate at which some angle is changing. The former is usually called frequency while the latter is usually called angular frequency or angular speed (or, when the direction of the axis of rotation is taken into account along with the angular speed, angular velocity).

The hertz [symbol Hz] is the coherent SI unit of frequency, while the radian per second [symbol rad/s] is the coherent SI unit of angular frequency, angular speed, and angular velocity. The latter is based on the radian [symbol rad] being the coherent SI unit of plane angle and the second being the coherent SI unit of time. Plane angle is what is often called a dimensionless quantity but is more accurately described as being of dimension 1?just a number. Being a coherent unit of measurement of a quantity of dimension 1 means that the unit actually has a numeric value, with coherence requiring that value to be 1. This means that the milliradian is just a number with value 0.001 in the context of plane angles; similarly, the degree of plane angle has numeric value of π/180, and a complete rotation of angle has a numeric value of 2π, which corresponds to one complete cycle of a periodic event involving plane angle. This means that completing one complete cycle of a periodic event each second corresponds to 1 Hz = 1/s in terms of frequency but 2π rad/s = 2π ? 1/s = 2π/s in terms of angular frequency. However, now we have an issue if we wish to say that these two are equal, because 1/s and 2π/s cannot be equal. Expressing the derived units Hz for frequency and rad/s for angular rate in terms of SI base units yields s⁻? for both. We have a contradiction claiming on the one hand that 1 Hz = 2π rad/s based on periodicity but, on the other hand, that 1 Hz = 1 s⁻? = 1 rad/s based on the definitions of the coherent derived units in terms of base units. In such a scenario, we cannot validly claim that all three of second, hertz, and radian are coherent units. The only way around this is to say that a value of frequency is not compatible for declaring equality with a value of angular rate. We can validly say that one corresponds to the other but not that they are equal (nor any other comparison, such as less than, greater than or equal, not equal): 1 Hz ≙ 2π rad/s but not 1 Hz = 2π rad/s?contrary to common practice. There has been some ongoing debate in the CIPM regarding how to address this issue.

Sometimes ?revolution? is used to indicate a count of periodic events and other times to indicate a change in plane angle. Which do you want? It makes a difference for SI units as we have seen. Both cases do have in common that 1 min = 60 s, so 3600 r/min = 3600 r/(60 s) = 60 r/s.

When intended as an ordinary frequency, r/s is equivalent to Hz, so the answer is 60 Hz.

When intended as an angular speed, r/s is equivalent to 2π rad/s, so the answer is 60 ? 2π rad/s = 377 rad/s, where ?=? here refers to matching within the measurement uncertainty of the indicated values, not exact mathematical equality.

It shows that defining 1 radian as dimensionless number with value of 1 is problematic.

https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41483022/SI-Brochure-9-EN.pdf#page=37
5.4.7 Quantities with the unit one
As discussed in Section 2.3.3, values of quantities with the unit one can be expressed simply
as numbers. The unit symbol 1 or unit name ?one? are rarely explicitly written. SI prefix
symbols can neither be attached to the symbol 1 nor to the name ?one?, therefore powers of
10 are used to express particularly large or small values.

[alancalverd]

It shows that defining 1 radian as dimensionless number with value of 1 is problematic.

Not at all. As the initial figure is 3600 revolutions per minute, the angular speed is (3600/60) x 2π = 377 rad/sec. If you want to know the appropriate strobe frequency for a single mark on a rotating cylinder, it's obviously 3600/60 = 60 Hz.  Where's the problem?

It happens that dividing a circle into 2π radians is more convenient for physics than any other measure of angle, but you could propose a "coherent" standard where a circle has a value of 1. Then the angular speed would be 60 c/sec, the strobe frequency would be 60 Hz, and, for instance, the angle we call π/4 would be 0.125c. So what?