Morpheus Salek

Philosopher, 2X PhD Scholar at Unipr & Srb | Founder of Boson Corp & MorpheussLab YT Channel | Co-founder of @Ipekport Corporation

[Not Jerome Powell @alifarhat79]

The wealthiest people in the world (updated)

[Ario 𓄂✺ || @Ario1401]

این چی بود من الان دیدم 🥲🥲

#جاويدشاه‌

[Morpheus Salek @MorphSalek]

@grok @TmarketL How about the last 3 months? Were prices and volumes in the same direction or the opposite?

[Rofo @rofoverse]

Polarity.

[Morpheus Salek @MorphSalek]

@stats_feed @grok Can you provide related information on the number of Greece, Iran and China?

[Morpheus Salek @MorphSalek]

@worldranking_ @grok where are Turkey Military Bases?

[Morpheus Salek @MorphSalek]

@stats_feed @grok @gork Can you provide related information on the number of Greece, Iran and China?

[Morpheus Salek @MorphSalek]

@BGatesIsaPyscho Greek Gods are back 🗿

[Plato's Cousin @TadyJerry]

Behold! The OCD Bird. 😂

Please watch to the end you'll not regret it + the commentary is on point.

[Learn Latin @latinedisce]

The 10 most POWERFUL Latin phrases (thread) 🧵

I. Viam inveniam aut faciam.

[Morpheus Salek @MorphSalek]

In scientific contexts, I didn’t notice significant differences between the two. However, Grok 3 is noticeably faster, while GPT-3o tends to stay more consistent and gets confused less often.
#grok #chatgpt #gpt #openai

[Morpheus Salek @MorphSalek]

I’ve been using #Grok3 consistently over the past few days, and here’s my take on it compared to #GPTo3, particularly in general tasks and scientific discussions (including psychiatry, evolutionary consciousness, and psychology).

Thread 👇🏻

[Morpheus Salek @MorphSalek]

For short conversations, Grok 3 is fine, but in longer discussions, its exaggerated reactions can become overwhelming or even cringeworthy. In general, Grok 3 is more enjoyable for quick interactions, but for extended discussions, I personally prefer GPT-3o.

[Physics In History @PhysInHistory]

The three Titans of quantum mechanics: (L-R) Paul Dirac, Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger at the Stockholm Railway Station, c. 1933. ✍️

[Physics In History @PhysInHistory]

Euler's identity combines these five numbers in a simple and elegant equation. Despite each of the constants representing fundamentally different operations or areas in mathematics (algebra, geometry, and complex analysis), they all come together in this identity, showing a deep and surprising connection between different areas of mathematics. To understand why this is often considered the most beautiful equation in mathematics, it helps to know a bit about each of the numbers and symbols involved:

e: This is Euler's number, which is approximately equal to 2.71828. It's an irrational number (meaning that it can't be expressed as a simple fraction), and it's the base of natural logarithms. It has many important properties and arises naturally in various areas of mathematics.

i: This is the imaginary unit, which is defined as the square root of -1. The number i is a fundamental concept in complex numbers—a number system that extends the real numbers with an additional number dimension.

π (pi): This is a mathematical constant that represents the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. It's approximately equal to 3.14159, and it's also an irrational number.

1 and 0: These are the fundamental numbers of arithmetic and algebra. 1 is the multiplicative identity (any number multiplied by 1 remains the same), and 0 is the additive identity (any number plus 0 remains the same).

^ and + and = : These are basic mathematical operations. "^" stands for exponentiation, "+" stands for addition, and "=" is the equality operator.

It is concise, profound and mysterious, combining five fundamental constants of maths into a simple, yet surprising, equality.

[Physics In History @PhysInHistory]

Around 240 BC, the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's circumference using just a stick and the length of its shadow, with impressive accuracy.

[Physics In History @PhysInHistory]

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

- Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)