Your submission was removed for the following reason:
Rule 6: Your post is a commonly used format, and you haven't used it in an original way. As a reminder, [You can find our list of common formats here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/wiki/commonposts).
If you disagree with this removal, you can appeal by [sending us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FProgrammerHumor&subject=Any%20common%20post%20will%20be%20removed%20if%20it's%20not%20novel&message=Include%20a%20link%20to%20the%20removed%20content%20and%20the%20reason%20for%20your%20appeal%20here.).
It doesn’t make any sense to talk about adding temperature. Temperature is the measure of average kinetic energy of particles. You’d be adding 50 particles of x at 50 degrees with 100 particles of y at 100 degrees and that’ll differ if the number of particles were flipped
If you had one liter of water at 40°C and another liter at 70°C and poured them both in the same container, assuming no loss of heat to the environment, couldn't you make the case that the temperatures would average out to 55°C? I'm not a physicist so if I'm wrong I'd appreciate a correction.
Yes, you can and the answer would be 55 degrees, since you specified *one liter of water* for both cases. But the original question still remains: is this considered “adding temperature”?
I guess you're right, the scenario I gave is a physical quantity, not an abstract "0°C +0°C". It doesn't make a lot of sense to think of something like temperature in that way.
Yeah, for anyone else reading this, a good analogy is to think of two high school classes.
Class A of 30 people scored an average of 82 points. Class B of 30 people scored an average of 60 points. The average overall is 71 points, but adding the 2 averages to get 142 points doesn’t exactly make any sense
Sort of but not always because you could have phase changes, so you have to take latent heat into account then
Edit: also the heat capacity could change but that is only significant at very large differences
Yeah, exactly. And that's why it trips the AI up, because there aren't examples of people talking about it in that way, and it's a language simulator using training data to form responses.
Yes, but no. Yes as in that's functionally what would happen with water at the specified temperature but no because in general this depends upon the heat capcity of the thing your mixing. Heat capacity is more or less the amount of energy required to change the temperature of a substance and its not constant with temperature (though it often is functionally). That means it can take more energy to go from 1-2 C then 2-3 C for the same material. So techincally the answer is no, you would need to calculate the amount of energy stored in both litres of water and then do some calculus to determine the temperature that two litres of water would have with that much energy and you'd probably get pretty close to 55C if I had to guess since heat capcity tends to be almost constant at these temps.
If you have M1 kg of water at temperature T1 and M2 kg of water at temperature T2, then you mix them, the final temperature is the weighted average, given by T = (M1 \* T1 + M2 \* T2) / (M1 + M2).
The thermal energy (strictly speaking, enthalpy) contained in each water is C \* M \* T where C is a constant specific to the water (heat capacity).
The quantity M \* T is proportional to energy so we are just adding thermal energies together, not temperatures.
Thought this at first. realized, tho, it's mathematically the same calculating a final temperature after addition of a specified amount of heat. Like, the standard equation Q=mCdelT.
If adding two temperatures, the first would be temperature in terms of state. the other would be temperature in terms of temperature change, or delT from the equation above.
There’s really no such thing as adding one temperature to another.
Heating something so that the final temperature is 20 degrees higher than the starting temperature means that you’re adding a quantifiable amount of **heat** to the thing, not adding some amount of **temperature**.
Physically, it makes no sense. Mathematically, however, you can add temperatures. And it works with Kelvin, Farenheit and Celsius, since all three are Interval scales (Kelvin is even a Ratio scale). Have you ever said something like "Today it's 5°F/°C warmer than yesterday"? That's you adding two temperatures.
With Kelvin, you can even say 200K is twice as much as 100K. That does not work with Farenheit and Celsius, since they are only Interval scales. Again, obviously physically it makes no sense. It is, however, mathematically sound.
“Today is 5 degrees warmer than yesterday” is **comparing** two temperatures. And yes, you use subtraction, which is technically addition, to compare them.
But you’re not adding temperatures in the sense that you’re **combining** the temperatures of two things and getting a **new temperature**. You took two different things and subtracted their temperatures, and the result was the **difference** in temperature between the two things. The five degree difference is not a temperature in and of itself.
As I said multiple times, physically, it makes no sense. Mathematically, however, are you telling me that 5°C isn't a valid value? It's mathematically sound.
Celsius and Kelvin uses the same intervals and scale in a way, so you can say that 200k is twice as much as 100k with that too. Its 273,15 °C lower than kelvin all the time. They are paralells
Yes, but on the Celsius scale, 200 is not twice as much as 100, whereas on Kelvin, it is. What makes a scale a Ratio scale is a true negative, which Kelvin has. Celsius doesn't, that's why you can't multiply or divide in Celsius.
In the immortal words of Feynman (different context, but same principles apply):
>There's no purpose whatsoever in adding the temperature of two stars. Nobody *ever* does that except, maybe, to then take the *average* temperature of the stars, but *not* to find out the *total* temperature of all the stars! It was awful! All it was was a game to get you to add, and they didn't understand what they were talking about. It was like reading sentences with a few typographical errors, and then suddenly a whole sentence is written backwards.
Feynman was helping choose new Math textbooks in California in the 60s(?), and wrote an article entitled "Judging Books by Their Covers" describing his experience. It's very "illuminating".
If you said "the temperature outside is 0°C but it will be 10° warmer tomorrow" then obviously you are saying it will be 0 + 10 = 10°C (50°F) tomorrow. but that same math doesn't work if you convert each figure individually to Fahrenheit first - 32°F + 50°F != 50°F.
I don't think it matters what unit you do it in, however you need to recognize that you're adding two different kinds of values: 0°C (temperature) + 0°C (temperature delta).
If you wanted to convert a temperature delta to a different unit, it should *not* have the offset applied. So, a delta of 0°C == 0°F == 0K. And a delta of 1°C == 1.8°F == 1K, etc.
Temperature isn't a quantity that can be summed in that way, unfortunately. You can add energy to a system, which may then be expressed by an increase in temperature. Basically, there's an extra variable "how much energy this takes to change temperature," also known as "specific heat" to consider.
The basic equation is q = mcΔT, where q is the thermal energy, m is the mass of the sample, c is the specific heat, and ΔT is the temperature change.
Ice, steam, and water are all H2O in different states and must either release or consume energy to change phases, which they do without changing temperature. So you need to add an extra part to the equation if you're interested in knowing how much your coffee will cool down if you add ice to it, for example.
Assuming the ice is 0°C, this would be expressed as:
m_ice L_v + m_ice c ΔT_ice = m_coffee c ΔT_coffee
m_ice L_v + m_ice c (T_final-0) = m_coffee c (T_final- T_hot)
T_final = (m_coffee c T_hot - m_ice L_v)/ c(m_ice + m_coffee)
Other coffee cooling methids can be found here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/coocof2.html
I took thermodynamics so hopefully I’m qualified for this. Short answer is that you can’t add temperature in its own.
In order for any of this to mean anything, you would need to specify a medium. For instance, water. Given a certain mass of water and a certain kinetic energy, I can tell you the temperature of the water.
Based on this, we can define a quality called the specific heat of our medium, which is essentially how much energy you would need to add per unit mass of the medium you have.
In our example, with water, if you have a lot of water and add a little energy, not much happens. If you have a lot of energy and only a little water, you may end up with steam.
And yes, you would convert to Kelvin (or if you’re insane you can convert to the Fahrenheit equivalent, Rankine) before doing any of these calculations.
Nope it is exactly how it works. To heat up a brick from absolute zero to 273,15 C° will take twice as much energy as heating it up to 0 C°. Assuming 100 effectiveness of your heater, brick doesn't dissipate energy(not cooling down in the process(let's say, it is suspended in the vacuum and shiny)), brick doesn't melt (no aggregation state change) and no endo/exo thermic reactions happen.
Edit: Yeah you have to consider a mass. Because it is indeed energy per unit of mass and it thermal capacitance or what it was called. But point is still valid it is indeed measure of the stored energy. And for the same object you can compare/add/subtract... etc
You’re talking about heat and energy, not temperature.
You can add heat to a system to raise its temperature since temperature is the measure of average heat/energy. But that’s not adding temperature, that’s adding “an amount of energy equivalent to making the new temperature y degrees higher”
Think of it this way. You have Class A of 20 students and Class B of 20 students. Average score of class A is 90 points and average score of Class B is 70 points. The average class score is analogous to temperature. You can give extra credit to raise Class B’s average to 80, this is analogous to adding heat. But “adding temperature” is taking Class As average and Class Bs average and getting 160 points. It’s a number that really makes no sense
“an amount of energy equivalent to making the new temperature y degrees higher” - It doesn't matter. You can measure temperature as an average for whole body. Or in the spot(or even solve thermal conductivity equation to find how it change between spots). In both cases it is measure of energy stored in the system or it the spot nothing else.T = Q/C where Q - amount of stored energy, C - capacitance of the body or point you measure temperature in.
As I said before. If I have two bricks with T1 = 0C and T2 = 273,15C, Q2/Q1 = 2 or second brick will store *exactly* twice as much energy
It absolutely matters. “I have a brick that is 20 degrees kelvin. I add another identical brick that is 40 degrees kelvin. What is the total temperature of the bricks?”
This question makes no sense. If I ask what is the total energy/heat of the two bricks, THAT makes sense. Point is, you can’t sum up temperature
The thing is absolute temperature is nothing but the energy amount multiplied by linear coefficient. And everythin you can do with the energy you can do with the absolute temperature. If you need to add two temperatures for the same body or find what temperature Nx bigger than another one for some specific body. You can do it in Kelvins. Nothing brakes.
Then explain why my example works for total energy but not total temperature. I have x calories of energy in brick A. 2x calories of energy in brick B. Now total energy is 3x calories. I can’t do this with temperature.
The problem is absolute temperature and energy are not related by linear *coefficient*. It is related by a *variable* that depends on the system.
This variable - is a linear coefficient. Call it as you like but for given body or closed system it is const.
In your example system not closed your added second brick.
The difference is you've added another body of equal mass so you need to divide by two. If you have one brick at 10K and double it's temperature, you have added 10K to it's temperature.
Temperature of those two bricks 30K. 1) Because it is describe total energy amount in them. 2) It is a temperature of the equlibrium eg temperature you would be measure in any point of this two bricks after they exchange energy between them. 3) If you will add another body to the system they will effect on it in infinite amount of time(waiting for equlibrium yet again) as the body with 2xMass and 30K Temperature.
Yeah your answer is right, and the logic too. But then the conclusion here is by adding 20 degrees and 40 degrees I get 30 degrees.
I hope you can understand why I’m saying adding temperature doesn’t make sense now. You can add heat and energy and express the result as temperature, you can mix temperatures to get a new overall average temperature at equilibrium.
But it doesn’t make sense to add temperature
But it does. In your example you added another body not temperature. If I have the brick 20K and increased it temperature by 20K (added 20K), it gonna be 40K brick and energy stored in it double up.
No he’s right.
Mass isn’t being added. Only energy.
Regardless of the size of the mass, as long as the size of the mass stays consistent, then you can technically add (and subtract) temperatures as if they’re a direct measurement of energy and the logical output of the math will make sense.
If a block of tungsten went from 20°K to 40°K, then it will have double the kinetic energy that it started with. The additional 20°K that got added makes sense here.
Hmm maybe the issue is interpreting “adding temperature” differently. When I heard adding two temperatures in the original context it read like “there are two rooms full of air that are 0 degrees Celsius what happens if I add the temperatures of the two rooms together”
Not “if I raise the temperature by 0 degrees Celsius”. Actually even in this case 0 degrees Celsius would imply a delta of temperature so the answer should be 0 degrees.
It does indeed depend on the interpretation of the problem.
We’re just saying that there is in fact an interpretation where the addition of temperature makes sense.
And you are correct, thinking about it as a delta instead of an amount if energy would result in 0°C. And funny enough, even in that interpretation, the addition of temperature still makes sense.
In the interpretation where you are directly adding energy, converting to kelvin makes sense.
An object at 0°C has energy, 273.15°K worth.
0°C of energy is 273.15°K of energy.
In the first interpretation the concept of adding temperature doesn’t make any sense in the first place. In the second interpretation converting to kelvin makes no sense either
Apologies if my explanation wasn’t clear. Here’s a simplification of it:
Temperature (in K) is a measurement of kinetic energy. You can add kinetic energy, therefore you can add temperature (in K).
You can also add it in C and F, but only if you’re adding a delta of energy instead of an absolute amount of energy because the 0° points of C and F are not 0 energy.
If you’re adding an absolute amount of energy, you need to convert to K first, because only in K does 0° have 0 energy.
Hope that helps.
u/YARandomGuy777 is right.
If we treat it as the addition of kinetic energy directly, then as long as the mass (specifically the thermal capacity) of whatever hypothetical object we’re talking about stays consistent, then the math works out. (In Kelvin)
If a block of tungsten went from 20°K to 40°K, then it will have double the kinetic energy that it started with. The addition of 20°K of energy (relative to the block) makes sense.
So in this case (the OP), we’re adding 273.15°K to 273.15°K. This would be 546.3°K. Convert to Fahrenheit, and it’s 523.67°F.
And there’s your answer.
Really puts the energy of 0°C into perspective. lol
As other commenters here have said, adding temperatures doesn’t make sense directly (although you can add a temperature difference).
However, you can abstract this to not think of physical “sense”, but instead just mathematically. The error arose from treating temp conversion as a linear transformation, i.e. using the property f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y).
Conversion between relative temperature scale is an affine transformation, not purely linear.
hence, if f(x) = g(x) + b, then f(x+y) = g(x+y) + b
Where g is the scaler, and b is the offset
Using this, you’ll preserve 0°C + 0°C ~= 32°F
It's nonsense. You can't add temperature because temperature doesn't really exist. It's a representation of the kinetic energy of a substance. You can add energies but not temperatures though. It's like dividing by zero, it just doesn't work logically.
Temperature is like distance or speed. There's no negative. On the proper scale, at least. That would be Kelvin. 0 K is absolute zero. Approximately 273,15 K is 0°C.
Now, regardless what temperature values you add together, it will be the same as adding numbers. If you say 2°C + 25°C, you'll have 27°C which is roughly 300,15 Kelvin.
That's the logics behind the numbers. Now what exact meaning this has on a molecular level, like what difference there would be between 50 K and 100 K, I don't know.
It’s not. It’s a linear measurement of kinetic energy (which is logarithmic relative to velocity).
If you think of it as adding kinetic energy, it works out (in Kelvin).
What if, in the original question, we replace the ‘+’ with the words “increased by”.
“What is 0 degrees Celsius increased by 0 degrees Celsius in Fahrenheit”
I feel like this maintains the original intent of the question while removing ambiguity.
You shouldn't. Just like you shouldn't add dates or timestamps. You can subtract two dates to get a time interval or subtract temperatures to get a temperature difference. You can also add a time interval to a date, or a temperature difference to a temperature, in which case the temperature difference would be in either Kelvin or Rankine.
ChatGPT is essentially useless with math in general.
If it wasn't it would make all sorts of complex multi-field calculations & conversions super easy.
I wouldn’t say useless. It got a lot better. It passed most of the college algebra and statistics tests I fed it.
But yeah, I wouldn’t get anymore complex than that. It was averaging about 80-85%. Which is better than most humans would do but still not ideal.
I'm talking more than just straight formulas.
Think more of word problems, it consistently fails those for me.
I like to do nerdy calculations (Often for fictional scenarios or as a fan of some universe) that include mass, energy, material properties, forces, thermodynamics, material strengths...etc , and they are always painful to do. They are all fundamentally simple, the hard part is finding the "known properties" and formulas of things. It takes a lot of energy to do research on "*facts humanity knows about stuff*" .
An AI should have a strong, superior, knowledge of "*fundamental facts we know of the universe*".
It did pretty well on word problems for me, usually falling into that 80-85% range. But again, that’s just freshmen level Algebra and Statistics.
Pretty impressive for a language model, but not something you’d actually want to use when it matters.
Math isn’t really its intended purpose anyway though. A LLM is never going to be the ideal choice for complex mathematics.
Has someone asked it if 0.999... is equal to 1?
Its second response make me think of people that try to disprove that statement, and wrongly end up equating 1 to 1+1 in one of their algebraic conversions.
I asked bing chat. This was it's answer:
Hello, this is Bing.😊
Adding two temperatures together is not a meaningful operation because temperature is not a quantity that can be added like mass or length[1](https://www.quora.com/If-I-add-0-degrees-Celsius-to-0-degrees-Celsius-does-that-make-it-64-degrees-Fahrenheit). However, if you want to convert 0 degrees Celsius to another temperature scale, I can help you with that.
For example, 0 degrees Celsius is equal to 32 degrees Fahrenheit[2](https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/temperature/celsius-to-fahrenheit.html)[3](https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/temperature/0-c-to-f.html), 273.15 degrees Kelvin[4](https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/temperature/celsius.html), or 491.67 degrees Rankine[4](https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/temperature/celsius.html).
It definitely took context into account.
Edit: when I asked to just answer it regardless of if it was meaningful or not, I got:
If you insist on adding 0 degrees Celsius to 0 degrees Celsius, you will get 0 degrees Celsius. This is because adding zero to anything does not change its value. However, this does not mean that the result is a valid temperature or that it makes sense in any physical context.🤷
Bing can be great.
Nah it just means your and new developers task, is to make AI so good it replaces administrative jobs like managers. Then once they too are out of a job. They will complain to congress who will proceed to ban AI. Boom everybody has lost and now been rehired for their jobs. Just gotta make it so good, it is a threat to the appropriate people so it gets banned and no body loses their job.
This is approximately the answer you would get if you posted this as a meme on Facebook.
Frankly, I'm impressed by how well AI can emulate the average person calling tech support for problems with their computer.
I've played with ChatGPT a bit. I think it can easily give us 80% good code, but it can't not give use the 20% of shit code.
I take a lot of solace knowing in knowing someone will have to excise that 20% and then fix it. Even if somehow they get some AI to 95.5% right, that's still a whole industry of fixing that .5% of bugs.
One bug can easily cost a business a million dollars. .5% buggy is unuseable crap, well except to me and the other devs who can now fit in another game of foozball.
It's worse. It will give us good code 80% of the time, crap code 10% of the time, but that last 10% of the time it will give us crap code that looks like good code.
> Even if somehow they get some AI to 95.5% right, that's still a whole industry of fixing that .5% of bugs.
Excuse me, but I think I just found a bug.
Adding temperatures can have different meanings depending on the context. Here are a few examples:
Adding temperatures can be used to calculate the total temperature of a system: If you have a system with multiple components or parts, each with its own temperature, you can add up the temperatures to find the overall temperature of the system. This can be useful in fields like thermodynamics, where the total energy of a system is related to its temperature.
Adding temperatures can be used to find the average temperature: If you have a set of temperatures, you can add them up and divide by the number of temperatures to find the average temperature. This is a common technique used in statistics and data analysis.
Adding temperatures can be used to perform calculations involving temperature differences: If you have two temperatures and you want to know the temperature difference between them, you can subtract one from the other. However, in some cases, you may need to add temperatures to perform a calculation. For example, the heat flow between two objects is proportional to the temperature difference between them, so you may need to add temperatures to find the average temperature of the two objects before calculating the heat flow.
In all cases, it's important to use the appropriate temperature scale and to make sure that the units are consistent.
It's not true in any sense.
Even if you were to be able to simply add temperatures like that, it would end up being 273.15K + 273.15K = 546.3K = 273.15°C = 523.67°F.
It makes no sense at all to get different absolute results based on which measurement scale you want to use. The above method is the only mathematically reasonable way to do it, even though it is still physically meaningless.
what i was meaning with my words is if the temperatures are a converted representation of a specific quantity of heat energy, then they can be added together, but otherwise it's a nonsense question. and yes it's a nonsense answer.
i understand that's not how quantities of energy are represented. i was just trying to give the robot a little benefit of the question being nonsense to begin with. to me it's more fun to try and see how the answer *could* make sense than just point and laugh at a language model that was never meant to do this type of thing in the first place.
the other point that i didn't even get into is that it's sort of silly to assume a math AI couldn't be trained just bc chatGPT isn't great at it.
I understand, and previously understood, exactly what you are saying here. I agree with everything you are saying about what is nonsense and what would be a fun way to calculate it anyway.
My post is showing that *even if* we did it that way, the answer given is wrong.
Ask it “ Today is 0 Celsius, what temperature will be tomorrow if forecasts says that will be two times colder” - after the response I resigned from my job so they wouldn't have to do it themselves
The fact that a conversation simulator does math incorrectly is hardly period that programmer simulators won't be as good or better than programmers. Most people do math incorrectly. The conversation simulator is doing a bang up job of simulating conversation, in which math is often done incorrectly. Good luck!
I tried it once for an easy real world question and it got it totally wrong. "How many gallons are in a cubic yard" - it told me that the two two are not comparable without knowing the material. What?
Your submission was removed for the following reason: Rule 6: Your post is a commonly used format, and you haven't used it in an original way. As a reminder, [You can find our list of common formats here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/wiki/commonposts). If you disagree with this removal, you can appeal by [sending us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FProgrammerHumor&subject=Any%20common%20post%20will%20be%20removed%20if%20it's%20not%20novel&message=Include%20a%20link%20to%20the%20removed%20content%20and%20the%20reason%20for%20your%20appeal%20here.).
I wonder. How... how \*should\* one add temperatures? Convert to Kelvin? What does adding two temperatures even mean?
It doesn’t make any sense to talk about adding temperature. Temperature is the measure of average kinetic energy of particles. You’d be adding 50 particles of x at 50 degrees with 100 particles of y at 100 degrees and that’ll differ if the number of particles were flipped
If you had one liter of water at 40°C and another liter at 70°C and poured them both in the same container, assuming no loss of heat to the environment, couldn't you make the case that the temperatures would average out to 55°C? I'm not a physicist so if I'm wrong I'd appreciate a correction.
Yes, you can and the answer would be 55 degrees, since you specified *one liter of water* for both cases. But the original question still remains: is this considered “adding temperature”?
I guess you're right, the scenario I gave is a physical quantity, not an abstract "0°C +0°C". It doesn't make a lot of sense to think of something like temperature in that way.
Yeah, for anyone else reading this, a good analogy is to think of two high school classes. Class A of 30 people scored an average of 82 points. Class B of 30 people scored an average of 60 points. The average overall is 71 points, but adding the 2 averages to get 142 points doesn’t exactly make any sense
So it is like this, temperature x (weight and volume) = final_temp x (weight and volume)
Sort of but not always because you could have phase changes, so you have to take latent heat into account then Edit: also the heat capacity could change but that is only significant at very large differences
Yeah, exactly. And that's why it trips the AI up, because there aren't examples of people talking about it in that way, and it's a language simulator using training data to form responses.
Yes, but no. Yes as in that's functionally what would happen with water at the specified temperature but no because in general this depends upon the heat capcity of the thing your mixing. Heat capacity is more or less the amount of energy required to change the temperature of a substance and its not constant with temperature (though it often is functionally). That means it can take more energy to go from 1-2 C then 2-3 C for the same material. So techincally the answer is no, you would need to calculate the amount of energy stored in both litres of water and then do some calculus to determine the temperature that two litres of water would have with that much energy and you'd probably get pretty close to 55C if I had to guess since heat capcity tends to be almost constant at these temps.
I only read the first three words but I feel like you're right
Ahhh. The correct answer has arrived.
If you have M1 kg of water at temperature T1 and M2 kg of water at temperature T2, then you mix them, the final temperature is the weighted average, given by T = (M1 \* T1 + M2 \* T2) / (M1 + M2). The thermal energy (strictly speaking, enthalpy) contained in each water is C \* M \* T where C is a constant specific to the water (heat capacity). The quantity M \* T is proportional to energy so we are just adding thermal energies together, not temperatures.
Thought this at first. realized, tho, it's mathematically the same calculating a final temperature after addition of a specified amount of heat. Like, the standard equation Q=mCdelT. If adding two temperatures, the first would be temperature in terms of state. the other would be temperature in terms of temperature change, or delT from the equation above.
Agreed, if we’re talking about a delT it makes sense to add two temperatures.
There’s really no such thing as adding one temperature to another. Heating something so that the final temperature is 20 degrees higher than the starting temperature means that you’re adding a quantifiable amount of **heat** to the thing, not adding some amount of **temperature**.
Physically, it makes no sense. Mathematically, however, you can add temperatures. And it works with Kelvin, Farenheit and Celsius, since all three are Interval scales (Kelvin is even a Ratio scale). Have you ever said something like "Today it's 5°F/°C warmer than yesterday"? That's you adding two temperatures. With Kelvin, you can even say 200K is twice as much as 100K. That does not work with Farenheit and Celsius, since they are only Interval scales. Again, obviously physically it makes no sense. It is, however, mathematically sound.
“Today is 5 degrees warmer than yesterday” is **comparing** two temperatures. And yes, you use subtraction, which is technically addition, to compare them. But you’re not adding temperatures in the sense that you’re **combining** the temperatures of two things and getting a **new temperature**. You took two different things and subtracted their temperatures, and the result was the **difference** in temperature between the two things. The five degree difference is not a temperature in and of itself.
As I said multiple times, physically, it makes no sense. Mathematically, however, are you telling me that 5°C isn't a valid value? It's mathematically sound.
Celsius and Kelvin uses the same intervals and scale in a way, so you can say that 200k is twice as much as 100k with that too. Its 273,15 °C lower than kelvin all the time. They are paralells
Yes, but on the Celsius scale, 200 is not twice as much as 100, whereas on Kelvin, it is. What makes a scale a Ratio scale is a true negative, which Kelvin has. Celsius doesn't, that's why you can't multiply or divide in Celsius.
In the immortal words of Feynman (different context, but same principles apply): >There's no purpose whatsoever in adding the temperature of two stars. Nobody *ever* does that except, maybe, to then take the *average* temperature of the stars, but *not* to find out the *total* temperature of all the stars! It was awful! All it was was a game to get you to add, and they didn't understand what they were talking about. It was like reading sentences with a few typographical errors, and then suddenly a whole sentence is written backwards.
What is this from? The context seems interesting
Feynman was helping choose new Math textbooks in California in the 60s(?), and wrote an article entitled "Judging Books by Their Covers" describing his experience. It's very "illuminating".
I also wish to know this.
[удалено]
If you said "the temperature outside is 0°C but it will be 10° warmer tomorrow" then obviously you are saying it will be 0 + 10 = 10°C (50°F) tomorrow. but that same math doesn't work if you convert each figure individually to Fahrenheit first - 32°F + 50°F != 50°F.
Yeah, I was prolly drinking liquid stupidity. What I said really only makes sense with 0°.
I don't think it matters what unit you do it in, however you need to recognize that you're adding two different kinds of values: 0°C (temperature) + 0°C (temperature delta). If you wanted to convert a temperature delta to a different unit, it should *not* have the offset applied. So, a delta of 0°C == 0°F == 0K. And a delta of 1°C == 1.8°F == 1K, etc.
Temperature isn't a quantity that can be summed in that way, unfortunately. You can add energy to a system, which may then be expressed by an increase in temperature. Basically, there's an extra variable "how much energy this takes to change temperature," also known as "specific heat" to consider. The basic equation is q = mcΔT, where q is the thermal energy, m is the mass of the sample, c is the specific heat, and ΔT is the temperature change. Ice, steam, and water are all H2O in different states and must either release or consume energy to change phases, which they do without changing temperature. So you need to add an extra part to the equation if you're interested in knowing how much your coffee will cool down if you add ice to it, for example. Assuming the ice is 0°C, this would be expressed as: m_ice L_v + m_ice c ΔT_ice = m_coffee c ΔT_coffee m_ice L_v + m_ice c (T_final-0) = m_coffee c (T_final- T_hot) T_final = (m_coffee c T_hot - m_ice L_v)/ c(m_ice + m_coffee) Other coffee cooling methids can be found here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/coocof2.html
I took thermodynamics so hopefully I’m qualified for this. Short answer is that you can’t add temperature in its own. In order for any of this to mean anything, you would need to specify a medium. For instance, water. Given a certain mass of water and a certain kinetic energy, I can tell you the temperature of the water. Based on this, we can define a quality called the specific heat of our medium, which is essentially how much energy you would need to add per unit mass of the medium you have. In our example, with water, if you have a lot of water and add a little energy, not much happens. If you have a lot of energy and only a little water, you may end up with steam. And yes, you would convert to Kelvin (or if you’re insane you can convert to the Fahrenheit equivalent, Rankine) before doing any of these calculations.
Exactly. You can add temperatures and you have to convert into Kelvin first. Temperature is the amount of the energy you can add it.
Uhhh…. That’s not how that works. It depends on how much matter you have and how much matter you’re adding as well
Nope it is exactly how it works. To heat up a brick from absolute zero to 273,15 C° will take twice as much energy as heating it up to 0 C°. Assuming 100 effectiveness of your heater, brick doesn't dissipate energy(not cooling down in the process(let's say, it is suspended in the vacuum and shiny)), brick doesn't melt (no aggregation state change) and no endo/exo thermic reactions happen. Edit: Yeah you have to consider a mass. Because it is indeed energy per unit of mass and it thermal capacitance or what it was called. But point is still valid it is indeed measure of the stored energy. And for the same object you can compare/add/subtract... etc
You’re talking about heat and energy, not temperature. You can add heat to a system to raise its temperature since temperature is the measure of average heat/energy. But that’s not adding temperature, that’s adding “an amount of energy equivalent to making the new temperature y degrees higher” Think of it this way. You have Class A of 20 students and Class B of 20 students. Average score of class A is 90 points and average score of Class B is 70 points. The average class score is analogous to temperature. You can give extra credit to raise Class B’s average to 80, this is analogous to adding heat. But “adding temperature” is taking Class As average and Class Bs average and getting 160 points. It’s a number that really makes no sense
“an amount of energy equivalent to making the new temperature y degrees higher” - It doesn't matter. You can measure temperature as an average for whole body. Or in the spot(or even solve thermal conductivity equation to find how it change between spots). In both cases it is measure of energy stored in the system or it the spot nothing else.T = Q/C where Q - amount of stored energy, C - capacitance of the body or point you measure temperature in. As I said before. If I have two bricks with T1 = 0C and T2 = 273,15C, Q2/Q1 = 2 or second brick will store *exactly* twice as much energy
It absolutely matters. “I have a brick that is 20 degrees kelvin. I add another identical brick that is 40 degrees kelvin. What is the total temperature of the bricks?” This question makes no sense. If I ask what is the total energy/heat of the two bricks, THAT makes sense. Point is, you can’t sum up temperature
The thing is absolute temperature is nothing but the energy amount multiplied by linear coefficient. And everythin you can do with the energy you can do with the absolute temperature. If you need to add two temperatures for the same body or find what temperature Nx bigger than another one for some specific body. You can do it in Kelvins. Nothing brakes.
Then explain why my example works for total energy but not total temperature. I have x calories of energy in brick A. 2x calories of energy in brick B. Now total energy is 3x calories. I can’t do this with temperature. The problem is absolute temperature and energy are not related by linear *coefficient*. It is related by a *variable* that depends on the system.
This variable - is a linear coefficient. Call it as you like but for given body or closed system it is const. In your example system not closed your added second brick.
The difference is you've added another body of equal mass so you need to divide by two. If you have one brick at 10K and double it's temperature, you have added 10K to it's temperature.
Temperature of those two bricks 30K. 1) Because it is describe total energy amount in them. 2) It is a temperature of the equlibrium eg temperature you would be measure in any point of this two bricks after they exchange energy between them. 3) If you will add another body to the system they will effect on it in infinite amount of time(waiting for equlibrium yet again) as the body with 2xMass and 30K Temperature.
Yeah your answer is right, and the logic too. But then the conclusion here is by adding 20 degrees and 40 degrees I get 30 degrees. I hope you can understand why I’m saying adding temperature doesn’t make sense now. You can add heat and energy and express the result as temperature, you can mix temperatures to get a new overall average temperature at equilibrium. But it doesn’t make sense to add temperature
But it does. In your example you added another body not temperature. If I have the brick 20K and increased it temperature by 20K (added 20K), it gonna be 40K brick and energy stored in it double up.
No he’s right. Mass isn’t being added. Only energy. Regardless of the size of the mass, as long as the size of the mass stays consistent, then you can technically add (and subtract) temperatures as if they’re a direct measurement of energy and the logical output of the math will make sense. If a block of tungsten went from 20°K to 40°K, then it will have double the kinetic energy that it started with. The additional 20°K that got added makes sense here.
Hmm maybe the issue is interpreting “adding temperature” differently. When I heard adding two temperatures in the original context it read like “there are two rooms full of air that are 0 degrees Celsius what happens if I add the temperatures of the two rooms together” Not “if I raise the temperature by 0 degrees Celsius”. Actually even in this case 0 degrees Celsius would imply a delta of temperature so the answer should be 0 degrees.
It does indeed depend on the interpretation of the problem. We’re just saying that there is in fact an interpretation where the addition of temperature makes sense. And you are correct, thinking about it as a delta instead of an amount if energy would result in 0°C. And funny enough, even in that interpretation, the addition of temperature still makes sense.
Sure but in neither of these cases does it make sense to convert to kelvin first
In the interpretation where you are directly adding energy, converting to kelvin makes sense. An object at 0°C has energy, 273.15°K worth. 0°C of energy is 273.15°K of energy.
In the first interpretation the concept of adding temperature doesn’t make any sense in the first place. In the second interpretation converting to kelvin makes no sense either
Apologies if my explanation wasn’t clear. Here’s a simplification of it: Temperature (in K) is a measurement of kinetic energy. You can add kinetic energy, therefore you can add temperature (in K). You can also add it in C and F, but only if you’re adding a delta of energy instead of an absolute amount of energy because the 0° points of C and F are not 0 energy. If you’re adding an absolute amount of energy, you need to convert to K first, because only in K does 0° have 0 energy. Hope that helps.
If you want to add temperatures use Kelvin. Everything else will give weird results.
Rankine also works.
u/YARandomGuy777 is right. If we treat it as the addition of kinetic energy directly, then as long as the mass (specifically the thermal capacity) of whatever hypothetical object we’re talking about stays consistent, then the math works out. (In Kelvin) If a block of tungsten went from 20°K to 40°K, then it will have double the kinetic energy that it started with. The addition of 20°K of energy (relative to the block) makes sense. So in this case (the OP), we’re adding 273.15°K to 273.15°K. This would be 546.3°K. Convert to Fahrenheit, and it’s 523.67°F. And there’s your answer. Really puts the energy of 0°C into perspective. lol
As other commenters here have said, adding temperatures doesn’t make sense directly (although you can add a temperature difference). However, you can abstract this to not think of physical “sense”, but instead just mathematically. The error arose from treating temp conversion as a linear transformation, i.e. using the property f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y). Conversion between relative temperature scale is an affine transformation, not purely linear. hence, if f(x) = g(x) + b, then f(x+y) = g(x+y) + b Where g is the scaler, and b is the offset Using this, you’ll preserve 0°C + 0°C ~= 32°F
It's nonsense. You can't add temperature because temperature doesn't really exist. It's a representation of the kinetic energy of a substance. You can add energies but not temperatures though. It's like dividing by zero, it just doesn't work logically.
I think the best way, although not perfect, would be to average the numbers?
Temperature is like distance or speed. There's no negative. On the proper scale, at least. That would be Kelvin. 0 K is absolute zero. Approximately 273,15 K is 0°C. Now, regardless what temperature values you add together, it will be the same as adding numbers. If you say 2°C + 25°C, you'll have 27°C which is roughly 300,15 Kelvin. That's the logics behind the numbers. Now what exact meaning this has on a molecular level, like what difference there would be between 50 K and 100 K, I don't know.
isn't temperature logarithmic? adding it makes no sense
It’s not. It’s a linear measurement of kinetic energy (which is logarithmic relative to velocity). If you think of it as adding kinetic energy, it works out (in Kelvin).
It makes sense to add logarithmic things sometimes.
What if, in the original question, we replace the ‘+’ with the words “increased by”. “What is 0 degrees Celsius increased by 0 degrees Celsius in Fahrenheit” I feel like this maintains the original intent of the question while removing ambiguity.
You can add/increase temperature the problem here is the logic you need to do you calculation first and then your conversion ie 0 + 0 = 0 = 32f
You shouldn't. Just like you shouldn't add dates or timestamps. You can subtract two dates to get a time interval or subtract temperatures to get a temperature difference. You can also add a time interval to a date, or a temperature difference to a temperature, in which case the temperature difference would be in either Kelvin or Rankine.
rip ai, the proper answer is " whaaat??? what are you taking abaut maaan?"
exactly, mismatched types
The proper answer is "*whatchu talkin bout GPTWillis*"
ChatGPT is essentially useless with math in general. If it wasn't it would make all sorts of complex multi-field calculations & conversions super easy.
I once used it for a fairly simple calculus math question and it took me an hour to get it to work lol
Wolfram Alpha is your friend. Although, it would be nice to have an AI that could integrate with WA.
Something like this? https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/10f4hit/first_look_chatgpt_wolframalpha_gpt35_and/
I wouldn’t say useless. It got a lot better. It passed most of the college algebra and statistics tests I fed it. But yeah, I wouldn’t get anymore complex than that. It was averaging about 80-85%. Which is better than most humans would do but still not ideal.
I'm talking more than just straight formulas. Think more of word problems, it consistently fails those for me. I like to do nerdy calculations (Often for fictional scenarios or as a fan of some universe) that include mass, energy, material properties, forces, thermodynamics, material strengths...etc , and they are always painful to do. They are all fundamentally simple, the hard part is finding the "known properties" and formulas of things. It takes a lot of energy to do research on "*facts humanity knows about stuff*" . An AI should have a strong, superior, knowledge of "*fundamental facts we know of the universe*".
It did pretty well on word problems for me, usually falling into that 80-85% range. But again, that’s just freshmen level Algebra and Statistics. Pretty impressive for a language model, but not something you’d actually want to use when it matters. Math isn’t really its intended purpose anyway though. A LLM is never going to be the ideal choice for complex mathematics.
Has someone asked it if 0.999... is equal to 1? Its second response make me think of people that try to disprove that statement, and wrongly end up equating 1 to 1+1 in one of their algebraic conversions.
Care to explain further?
Ok, going to open a bakery then
I asked bing chat. This was it's answer: Hello, this is Bing.😊 Adding two temperatures together is not a meaningful operation because temperature is not a quantity that can be added like mass or length[1](https://www.quora.com/If-I-add-0-degrees-Celsius-to-0-degrees-Celsius-does-that-make-it-64-degrees-Fahrenheit). However, if you want to convert 0 degrees Celsius to another temperature scale, I can help you with that. For example, 0 degrees Celsius is equal to 32 degrees Fahrenheit[2](https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/temperature/celsius-to-fahrenheit.html)[3](https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/temperature/0-c-to-f.html), 273.15 degrees Kelvin[4](https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/temperature/celsius.html), or 491.67 degrees Rankine[4](https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/temperature/celsius.html). It definitely took context into account. Edit: when I asked to just answer it regardless of if it was meaningful or not, I got: If you insist on adding 0 degrees Celsius to 0 degrees Celsius, you will get 0 degrees Celsius. This is because adding zero to anything does not change its value. However, this does not mean that the result is a valid temperature or that it makes sense in any physical context.🤷 Bing can be great.
Holy shit... Did Bing just do a better job than Google? That's pretty cool
Now that bing is chatgpt with internet search... Google won't even come close to Bing, until they release their own AI powered search I guess
How do you have access?
Tbf this is exactly the kind of code committed by junior devs.
dang ... been there, done that.
It's not the AI's fault, you just asked a stupid question
It’s the AIs fault not viciously mocking you for it.
32F would be equally wrong.
Would it? Cause of the canceling box thingies? Conversation something? I got a C in chem
The question is nonsense. Any answer that isn't a clarifying question is wrong.
Nah it just means your and new developers task, is to make AI so good it replaces administrative jobs like managers. Then once they too are out of a job. They will complain to congress who will proceed to ban AI. Boom everybody has lost and now been rehired for their jobs. Just gotta make it so good, it is a threat to the appropriate people so it gets banned and no body loses their job.
Ah so when AI threatens the jobs of CEOs and politicians, only then will AI be banned.
This is approximately the answer you would get if you posted this as a meme on Facebook. Frankly, I'm impressed by how well AI can emulate the average person calling tech support for problems with their computer.
Oh cool another low effort chatGPT post.
I'll never understand why people expect ChatGPT to correctly do math. The kinds of errors it makes should be completely expected by everyone.
And this isn't even real math. It's completely nonsensical
Ah yes, stack two ice cubes on top of each other to get cold water
Garbage in - garbage out.
I've played with ChatGPT a bit. I think it can easily give us 80% good code, but it can't not give use the 20% of shit code. I take a lot of solace knowing in knowing someone will have to excise that 20% and then fix it. Even if somehow they get some AI to 95.5% right, that's still a whole industry of fixing that .5% of bugs. One bug can easily cost a business a million dollars. .5% buggy is unuseable crap, well except to me and the other devs who can now fit in another game of foozball.
It's worse. It will give us good code 80% of the time, crap code 10% of the time, but that last 10% of the time it will give us crap code that looks like good code.
There are many ways to do it. Exactly how many is left as an exercise for the reader. Exactly how many GOOD ways is a graduate thesis
> Even if somehow they get some AI to 95.5% right, that's still a whole industry of fixing that .5% of bugs. Excuse me, but I think I just found a bug.
Shhh! Don't let them know that I'm a bot
I keep saying that 80% of the time 80% of the code it gives is useable.
It makes up libraries like 20% of the time.
It's not technically wrong...
Adding temperatures can have different meanings depending on the context. Here are a few examples: Adding temperatures can be used to calculate the total temperature of a system: If you have a system with multiple components or parts, each with its own temperature, you can add up the temperatures to find the overall temperature of the system. This can be useful in fields like thermodynamics, where the total energy of a system is related to its temperature. Adding temperatures can be used to find the average temperature: If you have a set of temperatures, you can add them up and divide by the number of temperatures to find the average temperature. This is a common technique used in statistics and data analysis. Adding temperatures can be used to perform calculations involving temperature differences: If you have two temperatures and you want to know the temperature difference between them, you can subtract one from the other. However, in some cases, you may need to add temperatures to perform a calculation. For example, the heat flow between two objects is proportional to the temperature difference between them, so you may need to add temperatures to find the average temperature of the two objects before calculating the heat flow. In all cases, it's important to use the appropriate temperature scale and to make sure that the units are consistent.
I mean, the AI is technically correct.
Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers
Oh shit! AI is going to recode the stack!
Just wait 5 years and we are all fucked
Thanks for putting a dot behind the last letter of the acronym :)
At first, I didn't put a dot, I noticed after re-reading the title for mistakes. 
I don't know why, but every single time I see an acronym without the last dot, a little part of my soul dies
What is wrong with Rest In P?
[удалено]
It's not true in any sense. Even if you were to be able to simply add temperatures like that, it would end up being 273.15K + 273.15K = 546.3K = 273.15°C = 523.67°F. It makes no sense at all to get different absolute results based on which measurement scale you want to use. The above method is the only mathematically reasonable way to do it, even though it is still physically meaningless.
i already said it was nonsense.
You said that it was valid in a particular way, but it isn't that either. That's what my math above shows.
what i was meaning with my words is if the temperatures are a converted representation of a specific quantity of heat energy, then they can be added together, but otherwise it's a nonsense question. and yes it's a nonsense answer. i understand that's not how quantities of energy are represented. i was just trying to give the robot a little benefit of the question being nonsense to begin with. to me it's more fun to try and see how the answer *could* make sense than just point and laugh at a language model that was never meant to do this type of thing in the first place. the other point that i didn't even get into is that it's sort of silly to assume a math AI couldn't be trained just bc chatGPT isn't great at it.
I understand, and previously understood, exactly what you are saying here. I agree with everything you are saying about what is nonsense and what would be a fun way to calculate it anyway. My post is showing that *even if* we did it that way, the answer given is wrong.
Alright. I don't know enough about chemistry / physics to argue so I'll take your word for it.
Getting hot in here 🥵
I have made this exact point as a joke for years, i didn't know i was so ahead of my time.
Ask it “ Today is 0 Celsius, what temperature will be tomorrow if forecasts says that will be two times colder” - after the response I resigned from my job so they wouldn't have to do it themselves
I also get confused by word problems in math
It's not wrong, it's just stupid.
Got em.
The fact that a conversation simulator does math incorrectly is hardly period that programmer simulators won't be as good or better than programmers. Most people do math incorrectly. The conversation simulator is doing a bang up job of simulating conversation, in which math is often done incorrectly. Good luck!
I wonder it couldn't gave any argument against adding two temperatures it just took that statement and added the two as it is.
Bing is available to us all. Bing welcomes all. Visit Bing at www.bing.com
This is why encoding is important and why you must do all your operations in the same encoding and translate after the fact
It is required one calorie of energy to heat up 1 ml of water by one degree centigrade. That's all I know... sorry.
I tried it once for an easy real world question and it got it totally wrong. "How many gallons are in a cubic yard" - it told me that the two two are not comparable without knowing the material. What?
https://xkcd.com/169/
Well since adding temperatures is not a thing... But adding temps was a thing, then I could see the logic...
Bookmark https://www.reddit.com/r/SpringBoot/comments/11g5y46/how\_to\_propagation\_context\_with\_traceid\_in/