[2] 3.3.4 Date of Issuance. To determine the record date for ownership of Common Stock shares (whether issued as a book entry or certificate), ask: Were the Company's stock transfer books or the Warrant Agent's book entry system open when the Warrant was surrendered and the Warrant Price was paid? If yes, the record date is that same date of surrender and payment. If no, the record date is the close of business on the next day when either the books or systems are open.
How can one / should one combine the concepts of a dinosaur and monetary policy of the Ottoman Empire? What differentiates verbal reasoning from logic?
I don’t know that either of those can be solved well with formal languages or logic.
Follow up in this one… I asked an LLM to give me the funniest way to combine the concepts of a dinosaur and monetary policy of the Ottoman Empire. This was the answer.
Imagine a “Dinoflationosaurus”: a giant dinosaur who has the job of overseeing the monetary policy of the Ottoman Empire. However, this dinosaur is hopelessly behind the times, using outdated gold coins that are buried in random locations, like a prehistoric central bank.
Instead of regulating currency or adjusting interest rates, the Dinoflationosaurus spends its days stomping around, either hoarding or releasing massive piles of treasure based on whether it sees its shadow, causing huge economic fluctuations. Merchants and citizens scramble to predict where the dinosaur will dig next, turning the entire economy into a game of dinosaur-sized hide-and-seek with inflation spikes tied to the beast’s mood swings.
The Ottoman economists, dressed in traditional robes, nervously try to explain to the sultan that no one knows when the giant lizard will “stimulate the economy” by smashing a treasury vault open.
Yeah but the Cheryl's birthday problem doesn't have any ambiguity like that. It's all in very simple language, the only complexity is keeping track of states of mind, which is easy to abstract away from the language
That is exactly the point I was making in my comment above. This type of unambiguous problem is best solved using formal languages - something more like quantitative reasoning. But stuff like prolog or classical automated reasoning approaches are quite brittle. They break down quickly when you start to introduce ambiguity and noise. Statistical approaches like hidden markov models that people used in these instances were the precursor to the LLMs we have today.
But I was going down a rabbit hole there. My main point is that trying to use LLMs to solve logic puzzles - that can easily be solved in prolog - is a waste of time and a failure of the imagination. The applications that should be explored and would be most fruitful are those where there is ambiguity and contradiction.
It correlates, which could also explain a link in the opposite direction. Secondary sex characteristics sometimes have nothing to do with overall fitness. You can see this most clearly in animal species where the females value elaborate ornamentation, like peacocks.
It's just people coping with guilt about not giving to charity honestly. That, and ad hominem attacks on the people involved. You see people giving kidneys away and there are still articles talking about how its selfish or misguided.
I cannot think of a reason to prefer to help a neighbor over someone who is vastly more in need who is further away. I think that's the main thrust of the argument.
You have a better chance of knowing what would actually help the neighbor. That is, the odds of help actually helping are higher.
I am not saying "don't help those who are far away". But you can make a case for giving greater emphasis to helping those who are closer to you purely on effectiveness grounds.
In my mind the arguments for it are
- by helping your neighbor you strengthen your own community, hopefully benefitting yourself and your family
- you don’t have the same understanding of the needs of a community further away. You won’t be able to directly observe the impact of your actions (positive or negative)
Since you didn't specify under what system we need to prove that 0=1 doesn't exist, I vaguely remembered or figured there was a simpler version of arithmetic under which that concept makes sense, but which wouldn't be strong enough to fall into incompleteness territory (so it would have to be weaker than Peano arithmetic, like you said).
> The signature of Presburger arithmetic contains only the addition operation and equality, omitting the multiplication operation entirely. The theory is computably axiomatizable; the axioms include a schema of induction.
So a very dumbed-down version of arithmetic, but which does contain a notion like 0=1, and which is complete and consistent, so it can't contain a proof of 0=1.
Obviously, this is probably not the kind of thing you meant, hence my cheekily bringing it up :)
