My apologies for sending the previous conversation unannotated. Talking to George is like leading a guree to The Truth. It only works if you are pretty sure what The Truth is.
nick ________________________________ From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 12:58 PM To: friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Conversations with George Phillip Tremblay [User] I need a rough rule of thumb for converting m/sec to miles/hour ChatGPT A rough rule of thumb for converting meters per second (m/s) to miles per hour (mph) is to multiply the speed in meters per second by approximately 2.237. This conversion factor is not exact but is often used for quick estimations: Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2.237Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2.237 For example: * If you have a speed of 10 m/s, the approximate speed in mph would be 10×2.237≈22.3710×2.237≈22.37 mph. Keep in mind that this is an approximation, so for precise conversions, you'd want to use the exact conversion factor, which is 2.236936. [User] rougher than that ChatGPT Sure, for a rougher conversion, you can use a simpler approximation. You can roughly estimate by multiplying the speed in meters per second by 2 and then adding a bit more than half of the result. So, the rough rule of thumb would be: Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2+12(Speed in m/s)Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2+21(Speed in m/s) For example: * If you have a speed of 10 m/s, the approximate speed in mph would be 10×2+12(10)=20+5=2510×2+21(10)=20+5=25 mph. This method is even rougher than the previous one but can still provide a quick estimation. [User] Interesting; 2.236 is closer to 2.00 than it is to 2.50, right? why did you not take 2.00 as a factor for your rougher rule of thumb ChatGPT You're absolutely correct. Using a conversion factor closer to 2.00 would indeed provide a simpler and even rougher estimation. Let's adjust the rough rule of thumb accordingly: Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2 This simplification essentially disregards the extra adjustment, providing an even rougher estimate. It's less accurate but can still give you a general sense of the speed conversion. For example: * If you have a speed of 10 m/s, the approximate speed in mph would be 10×2=2010×2=20 mph. Thanks for pointing that out! [User] But....but. 2.00 is slightly MORE accurate than 2.50, no? ChatGPT You're absolutely right again, my apologies for the oversight. 2.00 would indeed be slightly more accurate than 2.50 for a rough estimation. Let's adjust the rule of thumb accordingly: Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2.00Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2.00 This adjustment acknowledges that 2.00 is closer to the actual conversion factor, providing a slightly more accurate rough estimate. For example: * If you have a speed of 10 m/s, the approximate speed in mph would be 10×2.00=2010×2.00=20 mph. Thanks for catching that mistake! [User] I am curious. Why did you not see the mistake earlier in my questioning. NOT a rhetorical question ChatGPT Your question is quite valid, and it's a good opportunity to reflect. As an AI, I rely on predefined rules and algorithms to respond to queries. While I aim to be accurate and helpful, I don't possess the ability to self-correct or self-reflect like humans do. In this case, I should have paid closer attention to your initial suggestion of using 2.00 as a conversion factor, as it would have indeed led to a simpler and slightly more accurate rough estimation. Sometimes, oversights like this can occur due to the limitations of my programming or the predefined rules I follow. Your questioning helped highlight the discrepancy, allowing for correction and improvement. Thank you for your patience and for prompting this reflection! [User] Have you perhaps been taught to round up rather than round down? ChatGPT In general, rounding up is often favored when precision is necessary, as it tends to provide a slightly safer margin. However, when it comes to rough estimations, rounding down can sometimes simplify calculations and provide a quicker mental approximation. For the purpose of a rough rule of thumb, rounding down to 2.00 as a conversion factor could indeed have been a simpler approach. It would have been a closer approximation to the actual conversion factor and potentially easier to work with mentally. So, it's not a matter of being taught to round up or down, but rather choosing the most suitable approach for the context. In this case, rounding down could have been more appropriate for a rough estimation. Thank you for pointing out this consideration! [User] Please reconsider your last two paragraphs in the light of one another ChatGPT You're right; there seems to be a contradiction between the two paragraphs. Let me clarify: While rounding up or down can depend on the context, in this case, considering the suggestion you provided earlier and the accuracy of the conversion factor, rounding down to 2.00 would indeed have been a more suitable choice for a rough rule of thumb. So, in light of that, rounding down to 2.00 as the conversion factor could have been more appropriate for simplifying the estimation process and providing a closer approximation to the actual conversion factor. Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency, and I appreciate the opportunity to correct it!
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
