instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught
that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math.

but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really. The idea

of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be true that
simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.
This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:
2y = 4z + 5x,
but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really. The idea
of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be true that
simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

smitchtheidiot@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught
that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math.

but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really. The

idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be true
that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

No Smitch. The is no addition for zero.
Just as there is no positive size.
No positive quantities exist.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught
that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math.

but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really. The

idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be true
that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:

smitcht...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught
that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math.

but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really. The

idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be true
that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

No Smitch. The is no addition for zero.
Just as there is no positive size.
No positive quantities exist.

Your nuttiness exists python...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

Moron babble.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:33:10 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:

smitcht...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote: >>>> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught >> that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math.

but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really.

The idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be
true that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

No Smitch. The is no addition for zero.
Just as there is no positive size.
No positive quantities exist.

Your nuttiness exists python...

No. The denial of a replacement theory is an exposure of these poor fellows' lack of ability I'm afraid. That or they have not fully considered the possibility, for if there are problems with it, and I am sure there are; then they would expose those
problems. Instead, it is just a 'nah, I don't like that flavor of ice cream' thing.

Should the 'equation', and here I will grant my replacement theory secondary status; so we'll remain in the primary convention which is well established as I understand it. Anyway, should an equation actually break out into many pieces, then isn't that
equation of higher complexity than it's pieces? In the event of a theory whose parts break out naturally from one equation we will probably not be witnessing a sum-of-parts relationship. It is rather to say that the units of data do in fact occur at a
high level; with multiple units attached, as with, say, foot-pounds. This is likely a complex value; in that it does retain two potentially unique and even variable components. If the feet are not separable from the pounds, then the meaning of the
terminology is suspect. Ahh... to what degree is spacetime fitting of this units system; such that space-seconds are the actual units? Here we witness the issue of a categorical distinction. The physicality of the situation is actually a matter of taking
these points literally. This is perfectly suiting to a physics which is in fact concerned with reality. Rather than a challenge to a young mind to mimic a professor on some habituated journey through the forest to see the trees, a kindred one will have
already learned how they sprout not by someone elses teachings, but by direct contact. That physics in its experimental form does surpass theory is well known. As theory comes up and chases experiment in a game of mimicry what ensues is arguably of weak
form. The hope of cutting through it all one day; simply and cleanly; this is exactly what we are after. Now, let's attack the equation from this ground where by a unitary bridge formed in the arithmetic product is mutatable. Did you care that there
were in fact two feet at twenty pounds force? Then: let's go to Ohm's law, and the grand chase that became Maxwell's House.

V = I R .

Oh, come on now, I'm not going to even spell out. Did you care? Does it matter? Then along comes Kirchoff? Summing to zero?

Under our new presentation, and I think here we can sympathetically call it secondary to the prior conversation in the above paragraphs:
Sigma( I R ) .
where Sigma is the sum operator. Obviously you can stop where you started, yet if you chose to keep going around that is not even really a problem. Of course you need a closed loop. I guess ordinary Sigma doesn't quite get us there. Engage the
ModuloSigma, please, or should it just be called Loop? Continuous versus discrete will mean a bit here.

Gaining true complex impedance will raise the system a degree, and possibly even several ways. Still, we are going to land with:
Loop( I Z ) .
That is it. That is the law in its null-form. It is done. Voltage seems a fraud in hindsight. No conduction, no voltage. And boy do they get carried away with this stuff in meters. Oh, man, if you get 20Gigohms input impedance you can do amazing things.
As I recall open gate JFETS at nearly no VDS are the way. In series at the gate goes your 20 Gigohm resistor, added in series with your JFET input impedance; somewhere already up in the tens of megohms. It is all a game of leakage currents and to use
such an instrument is trouble from the start. Still, high impedance is cool. For next to no input cost nor load, comes lots of output, fairly well isolated, and of course followed on by many more stages of amplification which are less stringent than the
first stage. I may not have all that quite right, but this is one way of pushing things. And still, it's not as if they've hit some quantum level of engagement, either.

I can accept that somewhere down in the cold the next computer will arrive, but I don't think it is going to be quite as they want it now. It is going to have classical results. Photonics is rather under-appreciated now, isn't it? They hiding something?
Lurking inside the pentagon, perhaps? Insistent upon being redundantly secured at as many secure locations as possible? Hello, Big Brother.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:33:10 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:

smitcht...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught >> that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math. >>> but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really.

The idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be
true that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

No Smitch. The is no addition for zero.
Just as there is no positive size.
No positive quantities exist.

Your nuttiness exists python...

No. The denial of a replacement theory is an exposure of these poor fellows' lack of ability I'm afraid. That or they have not fully considered the possibility, for if there are problems with it, and I am sure there are; then they would expose those

problems. Instead, it is just a 'nah, I don't like that flavor of ice cream' thing.

Should the 'equation', and here I will grant my replacement theory secondary status; so we'll remain in the primary convention which is well established as I understand it. Anyway, should an equation actually break out into many pieces, then isn't that

equation of higher complexity than it's pieces? In the event of a theory whose parts break out naturally from one equation we will probably not be witnessing a sum-of-parts relationship. It is rather to say that the units of data do in fact occur at a
high level; with multiple units attached, as with, say, foot-pounds. This is likely a complex value; in that it does retain two potentially unique and even variable components. If the feet are not separable from the pounds, then the meaning of the
terminology is suspect. Ahh... to what degree is spacetime fitting of this units system; such that space-seconds are the actual units? Here we witness the issue of a categorical distinction. The physicality of the situation is actually a matter of taking
these points literally. This is perfectly suiting to a physics which is in fact concerned with reality. Rather than a challenge to a young mind to mimic a professor on some habituated journey through the forest to see the trees, a kindred one will have
already learned how they sprout not by someone elses teachings, but by direct contact. That physics in its experimental form does surpass theory is well known. As theory comes up and chases experiment in a game of mimicry what ensues is arguably of weak
form. The hope of cutting through it all one day; simply and cleanly; this is exactly what we are after. Now, let's attack the equation from this ground where by a unitary bridge formed in the arithmetic product is mutatable. Did you care that there were
in fact two feet at twenty pounds force? Then: let's go to Ohm's law, and the grand chase that became Maxwell's House.

V = I R .

Oh, come on now, I'm not going to even spell out. Did you care? Does it matter? Then along comes Kirchoff? Summing to zero?

Under our new presentation, and I think here we can sympathetically call it secondary to the prior conversation in the above paragraphs:
Sigma( I R ) .
where Sigma is the sum operator. Obviously you can stop where you started, yet if you chose to keep going around that is not even really a problem. Of course you need a closed loop. I guess ordinary Sigma doesn't quite get us there. Engage the

ModuloSigma, please, or should it just be called Loop? Continuous versus discrete will mean a bit here.

Gaining true complex impedance will raise the system a degree, and possibly even several ways. Still, we are going to land with:
Loop( I Z ) .
That is it. That is the law in its null-form. It is done. Voltage seems a fraud in hindsight. No conduction, no voltage. And boy do they get carried away with this stuff in meters.

This becomes an observer problem. We normally claim that our meters are essentially infinite impedance. Who cares already at 10 megohms input impedance? Well, the circuit which is sensitive does; the high impedance circuit; such as analyzing the front
end discussed below (prior post) will not give realistic measurements. Not even DC bias settings will read correctly. As we creep up into this domain we are essentially reaching into the subtleties of static electricity. We are beyond good results on a
damp day, and even the human who sweats salty secretions may be to blame for the peculiar results; steadily repeated successfully by his skinny chain smoking friend. The femptoamp is this illusive, and of course in the IZ department you are looking at
some seriously high Z if you are getting anything near a volt, say, which I am claiming has disappeared under this new realm of analysis. Disappeared where exactly? Well, Kirchoff already took care of that, you see? Is it there, then, that a generalized
sign approach might yield some new work? As we put our bipolar probes up in the air sniffing for juice; and there is plenty of it. I've got 100 mVAC reliably without trying very hard. I did touch the top of my positive test lead. 1.047 Volts when I
ground the negative end to a chassis. Doesn't this imply conduction, however? Here we can get to the observer problem in ordinary electrical theory. If no current flows into the probes then no measurement can be had. It doesn't matter that it could be
femptoamps in the case of a gigohm input impedance. The claim of voltage itself as a free standing entity can meet this trouble. Your meter will tell a lie at some significant figure. Many a meter goes faulty in such a way that is quite difficult to
understand. Clean the circuit board; check the connections; oh, the best one I have ever seen is static charge buildup on an analog meter movement making a hell of a puzzle for me; thank dog somebody else posted to the internet on that one. I would never
have guessed. The high grade plastic cover holds it's insulating properties quite seriously; so seriously that upon installing a charge there it won't go away! The needle of the meter is this sensitive; perhaps an experiment around this is in order; a
new meter movement alights. How many volts were on the plastic? I couldn't tell you.

Look people, we've got to do something about these pesky electrons. You can't trap them, and when you do you didn't mean to. Their supposed quantum effects remain elusive. As if the photon weren't enough, there is a double bull's eye on the target, and
then if you look carefully enough there is yet a finer bullseye in the center of those two. You might need an electron microscope or something to see it. I'm treating the electron as an open problem. Case closed.

Oh, man, if you get 20Gigohms input impedance you can do amazing things. As I recall open gate JFETS at nearly no VDS are the way. In series at the gate goes your 20 Gigohm resistor, added in series with your JFET input impedance; somewhere already up

in the tens of megohms. It is all a game of leakage currents and to use such an instrument is trouble from the start. Still, high impedance is cool. For next to no input cost nor load, comes lots of output, fairly well isolated, and of course followed on
by many more stages of amplification which are less stringent than the first stage. I may not have all that quite right, but this is one way of pushing things. And still, it's not as if they've hit some quantum level of engagement, either.

I can accept that somewhere down in the cold the next computer will arrive, but I don't think it is going to be quite as they want it now. It is going to have classical results. Photonics is rather under-appreciated now, isn't it? They hiding something?

Lurking inside the pentagon, perhaps? Insistent upon being redundantly secured at as many secure locations as possible? Hello, Big Brother.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 8:45:13 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:33:10 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:

smitcht...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught
that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math. >>> but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really.

The idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be
true that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

No Smitch. The is no addition for zero.
Just as there is no positive size.
No positive quantities exist.

Your nuttiness exists python...

No. The denial of a replacement theory is an exposure of these poor fellows' lack of ability I'm afraid. That or they have not fully considered the possibility, for if there are problems with it, and I am sure there are; then they would expose those

problems. Instead, it is just a 'nah, I don't like that flavor of ice cream' thing.

Should the 'equation', and here I will grant my replacement theory secondary status; so we'll remain in the primary convention which is well established as I understand it. Anyway, should an equation actually break out into many pieces, then isn't

that equation of higher complexity than it's pieces? In the event of a theory whose parts break out naturally from one equation we will probably not be witnessing a sum-of-parts relationship. It is rather to say that the units of data do in fact occur at
a high level; with multiple units attached, as with, say, foot-pounds. This is likely a complex value; in that it does retain two potentially unique and even variable components. If the feet are not separable from the pounds, then the meaning of the
terminology is suspect. Ahh... to what degree is spacetime fitting of this units system; such that space-seconds are the actual units? Here we witness the issue of a categorical distinction. The physicality of the situation is actually a matter of taking
these points literally. This is perfectly suiting to a physics which is in fact concerned with reality. Rather than a challenge to a young mind to mimic a professor on some habituated journey through the forest to see the trees, a kindred one will have
already learned how they sprout not by someone elses teachings, but by direct contact. That physics in its experimental form does surpass theory is well known. As theory comes up and chases experiment in a game of mimicry what ensues is arguably of weak
form. The hope of cutting through it all one day; simply and cleanly; this is exactly what we are after. Now, let's attack the equation from this ground where by a unitary bridge formed in the arithmetic product is mutatable. Did you care that there were
in fact two feet at twenty pounds force? Then: let's go to Ohm's law, and the grand chase that became Maxwell's House.

V = I R .

Oh, come on now, I'm not going to even spell out. Did you care? Does it matter? Then along comes Kirchoff? Summing to zero?

Under our new presentation, and I think here we can sympathetically call it secondary to the prior conversation in the above paragraphs:
Sigma( I R ) .
where Sigma is the sum operator. Obviously you can stop where you started, yet if you chose to keep going around that is not even really a problem. Of course you need a closed loop. I guess ordinary Sigma doesn't quite get us there. Engage the

ModuloSigma, please, or should it just be called Loop? Continuous versus discrete will mean a bit here.

Gaining true complex impedance will raise the system a degree, and possibly even several ways. Still, we are going to land with:
Loop( I Z ) .
That is it. That is the law in its null-form. It is done. Voltage seems a fraud in hindsight. No conduction, no voltage. And boy do they get carried away with this stuff in meters.

This becomes an observer problem. We normally claim that our meters are essentially infinite impedance. Who cares already at 10 megohms input impedance? Well, the circuit which is sensitive does; the high impedance circuit; such as analyzing the front

end discussed below (prior post) will not give realistic measurements. Not even DC bias settings will read correctly. As we creep up into this domain we are essentially reaching into the subtleties of static electricity. We are beyond good results on a
damp day, and even the human who sweats salty secretions may be to blame for the peculiar results; steadily repeated successfully by his skinny chain smoking friend. The femptoamp is this illusive, and of course in the IZ department you are looking at
some seriously high Z if you are getting anything near a volt, say, which I am claiming has disappeared under this new realm of analysis. Disappeared where exactly? Well, Kirchoff already took care of that, you see? Is it there, then, that a generalized
sign approach might yield some new work? As we put our bipolar probes up in the air sniffing for juice; and there is plenty of it. I've got 100 mVAC reliably without trying very hard. I did touch the top of my positive test lead. 1.047 Volts when I
ground the negative end to a chassis. Doesn't this imply conduction, however? Here we can get to the observer problem in ordinary electrical theory. If no current flows into the probes then no measurement can be had. It doesn't matter that it could be
femptoamps in the case of a gigohm input impedance. The claim of voltage itself as a free standing entity can meet this trouble. Your meter will tell a lie at some significant figure. Many a meter goes faulty in such a way that is quite difficult to
understand. Clean the circuit board; check the connections; oh, the best one I have ever seen is static charge buildup on an analog meter movement making a hell of a puzzle for me; thank dog somebody else posted to the internet on that one. I would never
have guessed. The high grade plastic cover holds it's insulating properties quite seriously; so seriously that upon installing a charge there it won't go away! The needle of the meter is this sensitive; perhaps an experiment around this is in order; a
new meter movement alights. How many volts were on the plastic? I couldn't tell you.

Look people, we've got to do something about these pesky electrons. You can't trap them, and when you do you didn't mean to. Their supposed quantum effects remain elusive. As if the photon weren't enough, there is a double bull's eye on the target, and

then if you look carefully enough there is yet a finer bullseye in the center of those two. You might need an electron microscope or something to see it. I'm treating the electron as an open problem. Case closed.

Oh, man, if you get 20Gigohms input impedance you can do amazing things. As I recall open gate JFETS at nearly no VDS are the way. In series at the gate goes your 20 Gigohm resistor, added in series with your JFET input impedance; somewhere already

up in the tens of megohms. It is all a game of leakage currents and to use such an instrument is trouble from the start. Still, high impedance is cool. For next to no input cost nor load, comes lots of output, fairly well isolated, and of course followed
on by many more stages of amplification which are less stringent than the first stage. I may not have all that quite right, but this is one way of pushing things. And still, it's not as if they've hit some quantum level of engagement, either.

I can accept that somewhere down in the cold the next computer will arrive, but I don't think it is going to be quite as they want it now. It is going to have classical results. Photonics is rather under-appreciated now, isn't it? They hiding

something? Lurking inside the pentagon, perhaps? Insistent upon being redundantly secured at as many secure locations as possible? Hello, Big Brother.

Mathematical zero exists as the unlimited does.
Zero math is of its own. It is replacing the undefined.

Mitchell Raemsch

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:39:55 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 8:45:13 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:33:10 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:

smitcht...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught
that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math.

but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced

really. The idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or
could it be true that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

No Smitch. The is no addition for zero.
Just as there is no positive size.
No positive quantities exist.

Your nuttiness exists python...

No. The denial of a replacement theory is an exposure of these poor fellows' lack of ability I'm afraid. That or they have not fully considered the possibility, for if there are problems with it, and I am sure there are; then they would expose

those problems. Instead, it is just a 'nah, I don't like that flavor of ice cream' thing.

Should the 'equation', and here I will grant my replacement theory secondary status; so we'll remain in the primary convention which is well established as I understand it. Anyway, should an equation actually break out into many pieces, then isn't

that equation of higher complexity than it's pieces? In the event of a theory whose parts break out naturally from one equation we will probably not be witnessing a sum-of-parts relationship. It is rather to say that the units of data do in fact occur at
a high level; with multiple units attached, as with, say, foot-pounds. This is likely a complex value; in that it does retain two potentially unique and even variable components. If the feet are not separable from the pounds, then the meaning of the
terminology is suspect. Ahh... to what degree is spacetime fitting of this units system; such that space-seconds are the actual units? Here we witness the issue of a categorical distinction. The physicality of the situation is actually a matter of taking
these points literally. This is perfectly suiting to a physics which is in fact concerned with reality. Rather than a challenge to a young mind to mimic a professor on some habituated journey through the forest to see the trees, a kindred one will have
already learned how they sprout not by someone elses teachings, but by direct contact. That physics in its experimental form does surpass theory is well known. As theory comes up and chases experiment in a game of mimicry what ensues is arguably of weak
form. The hope of cutting through it all one day; simply and cleanly; this is exactly what we are after. Now, let's attack the equation from this ground where by a unitary bridge formed in the arithmetic product is mutatable. Did you care that there were
in fact two feet at twenty pounds force? Then: let's go to Ohm's law, and the grand chase that became Maxwell's House.

V = I R .

Oh, come on now, I'm not going to even spell out. Did you care? Does it matter? Then along comes Kirchoff? Summing to zero?

Under our new presentation, and I think here we can sympathetically call it secondary to the prior conversation in the above paragraphs:
Sigma( I R ) .
where Sigma is the sum operator. Obviously you can stop where you started, yet if you chose to keep going around that is not even really a problem. Of course you need a closed loop. I guess ordinary Sigma doesn't quite get us there. Engage the

ModuloSigma, please, or should it just be called Loop? Continuous versus discrete will mean a bit here.

Gaining true complex impedance will raise the system a degree, and possibly even several ways. Still, we are going to land with:
Loop( I Z ) .
That is it. That is the law in its null-form. It is done. Voltage seems a fraud in hindsight. No conduction, no voltage. And boy do they get carried away with this stuff in meters.

This becomes an observer problem. We normally claim that our meters are essentially infinite impedance. Who cares already at 10 megohms input impedance? Well, the circuit which is sensitive does; the high impedance circuit; such as analyzing the

front end discussed below (prior post) will not give realistic measurements. Not even DC bias settings will read correctly. As we creep up into this domain we are essentially reaching into the subtleties of static electricity. We are beyond good results
on a damp day, and even the human who sweats salty secretions may be to blame for the peculiar results; steadily repeated successfully by his skinny chain smoking friend. The femptoamp is this illusive, and of course in the IZ department you are looking
at some seriously high Z if you are getting anything near a volt, say, which I am claiming has disappeared under this new realm of analysis. Disappeared where exactly? Well, Kirchoff already took care of that, you see? Is it there, then, that a
generalized sign approach might yield some new work? As we put our bipolar probes up in the air sniffing for juice; and there is plenty of it. I've got 100 mVAC reliably without trying very hard. I did touch the top of my positive test lead. 1.047 Volts
when I ground the negative end to a chassis. Doesn't this imply conduction, however? Here we can get to the observer problem in ordinary electrical theory. If no current flows into the probes then no measurement can be had. It doesn't matter that it
could be femptoamps in the case of a gigohm input impedance. The claim of voltage itself as a free standing entity can meet this trouble. Your meter will tell a lie at some significant figure. Many a meter goes faulty in such a way that is quite
difficult to understand. Clean the circuit board; check the connections; oh, the best one I have ever seen is static charge buildup on an analog meter movement making a hell of a puzzle for me; thank dog somebody else posted to the internet on that one.
I would never have guessed. The high grade plastic cover holds it's insulating properties quite seriously; so seriously that upon installing a charge there it won't go away! The needle of the meter is this sensitive; perhaps an experiment around this is
in order; a new meter movement alights. How many volts were on the plastic? I couldn't tell you.

Look people, we've got to do something about these pesky electrons. You can't trap them, and when you do you didn't mean to. Their supposed quantum effects remain elusive. As if the photon weren't enough, there is a double bull's eye on the target,

and then if you look carefully enough there is yet a finer bullseye in the center of those two. You might need an electron microscope or something to see it. I'm treating the electron as an open problem. Case closed.

Oh, man, if you get 20Gigohms input impedance you can do amazing things. As I recall open gate JFETS at nearly no VDS are the way. In series at the gate goes your 20 Gigohm resistor, added in series with your JFET input impedance; somewhere already

up in the tens of megohms. It is all a game of leakage currents and to use such an instrument is trouble from the start. Still, high impedance is cool. For next to no input cost nor load, comes lots of output, fairly well isolated, and of course followed
on by many more stages of amplification which are less stringent than the first stage. I may not have all that quite right, but this is one way of pushing things. And still, it's not as if they've hit some quantum level of engagement, either.

I can accept that somewhere down in the cold the next computer will arrive, but I don't think it is going to be quite as they want it now. It is going to have classical results. Photonics is rather under-appreciated now, isn't it? They hiding

something? Lurking inside the pentagon, perhaps? Insistent upon being redundantly secured at as many secure locations as possible? Hello, Big Brother.

Mathematical zero exists as the unlimited does.
Zero math is of its own. It is replacing the undefined.

Mitchell Raemsch

No Mitch. There are details which take bigger chunks of meaning with their zero contents. Within electromagnetics we have another great zero law:
Integral over s of ( b dot ds ) is zero. This is the conservation of magnetic flux. It does get imposters. I recall a string theoretic presentation supposing that a clean and steady magnetic flux permeated the universe. Now, this is a fascinating
concept, but it should not be carried out upon magnetic flux. Why? Because this law is calling loops of magnetic flux. You can even flip it around, and you'll still be riding that zero. This zero under discussion here isn't going away any time soon. It
is a null-form, and all that is left of this equation is to obliterate the 'equals zero' part why exactly? Because it is redundant to the conception of a balance; of an equality; of an assertive statement upon what exactly? These, and this in particular
is an unconditionally true statement. It always holds. Getting back to Dirac: his consideration of a magnetic monopole has never been found, felt, probed; whether directly or through the quagmire of electronic tools in use by practicing physicists; not
in the plasma; not in the vacuum of free space; not even in the heart of the electron.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:33:10 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:

smitcht...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught >> that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math. >>> but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really.

The idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be
true that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

No Smitch. The is no addition for zero.
Just as there is no positive size.
No positive quantities exist.

Your nuttiness exists python...

No. The denial of a replacement theory is an exposure of these poor fellows' lack of ability I'm afraid. That or they have not fully considered the possibility, for if there are problems with it, and I am sure there are; then they would expose those

problems. Instead, it is just a 'nah, I don't like that flavor of ice cream' thing.

Should the 'equation', and here I will grant my replacement theory secondary status; so we'll remain in the primary convention which is well established as I understand it. Anyway, should an equation actually break out into many pieces, then isn't that

equation of higher complexity than it's pieces? In the event of a theory whose parts break out naturally from one equation we will probably not be witnessing a sum-of-parts relationship. It is rather to say that the units of data do in fact occur at a
high level; with multiple units attached, as with, say, foot-pounds. This is likely a complex value; in that it does retain two potentially unique and even variable components. If the feet are not separable from the pounds, then the meaning of the
terminology is suspect. Ahh... to what degree is spacetime fitting of this units system; such that space-seconds are the actual units? Here we witness the issue of a categorical distinction. The physicality of the situation is actually a matter of taking
these points literally. This is perfectly suiting to a physics which is in fact concerned with reality. Rather than a challenge to a young mind to mimic a professor on some habituated journey through the forest to see the trees, a kindred one will have
already learned how they sprout not by someone elses teachings, but by direct contact. That physics in its experimental form does surpass theory is well known. As theory comes up and chases experiment in a game of mimicry what ensues is arguably of weak
form. The hope of cutting through it all one day; simply and cleanly; this is exactly what we are after. Now, let's attack the equation from this ground where by a unitary bridge formed in the arithmetic product is mutatable. Did you care that there were
in fact two feet at twenty pounds force? Then: let's go to Ohm's law, and the grand chase that became Maxwell's House.

V = I R .

Oh, come on now, I'm not going to even spell out. Did you care? Does it matter? Then along comes Kirchoff? Summing to zero?

Under our new presentation, and I think here we can sympathetically call it secondary to the prior conversation in the above paragraphs:
Sigma( I R ) .
where Sigma is the sum operator. Obviously you can stop where you started, yet if you chose to keep going around that is not even really a problem. Of course you need a closed loop. I guess ordinary Sigma doesn't quite get us there. Engage the

ModuloSigma, please, or should it just be called Loop? Continuous versus discrete will mean a bit here.

Gaining true complex impedance will raise the system a degree, and possibly even several ways. Still, we are going to land with:
Loop( I Z ) .
That is it. That is the law in its null-form. It is done. Voltage seems a fraud in hindsight. No conduction, no voltage. And boy do they get carried away with this stuff in meters. Oh, man, if you get 20Gigohms input impedance you can do amazing things.

As I recall open gate JFETS at nearly no VDS are the way. In series at the gate goes your 20 Gigohm resistor, added in series with your JFET input impedance; somewhere already up in the tens of megohms. It is all a game of leakage currents and to use
such an instrument is trouble from the start.

I forgot to mention here that the input is differential and so balanced, and it is this balanced pair of JFETs put closely together; sharing the same temperature; the same bias current; the same everything, really, except that they will amplify or at
least impedance transform the slight signal at their inputs, and as one leaks a picoamp and the other leaks a picoamp the balancing of them can be beneficial. Why exactly just one JFET at the input with a zeroing mechanism is insufficient: then too; why
three inputs shouldn't benefit somehow as well; could it be that noise will in fact play a role across them? I never did see the noise analysis on these. It's been a wonder of mine: we take two mosfets, and compare their noise outputs. the correlated
noise will be diminished while their noise components should add, or however the circuit is setup take some measurable form. Next thing you know your getting into cosmic rays and such, and your capacitors are getting fried...

Still, high impedance is cool. For next to no input cost nor load, comes lots of output, fairly well isolated, and of course followed on by many more stages of amplification which are less stringent than the first stage. I may not have all that quite

right, but this is one way of pushing things. And still, it's not as if they've hit some quantum level of engagement, either.

I can accept that somewhere down in the cold the next computer will arrive, but I don't think it is going to be quite as they want it now. It is going to have classical results. Photonics is rather under-appreciated now, isn't it? They hiding something?

Lurking inside the pentagon, perhaps? Insistent upon being redundantly secured at as many secure locations as possible? Hello, Big Brother.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:25:34 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:33:10 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:

smitcht...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught
that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math. >>> but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really.

The idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be
true that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

No Smitch. The is no addition for zero.
Just as there is no positive size.
No positive quantities exist.

Your nuttiness exists python...

No. The denial of a replacement theory is an exposure of these poor fellows' lack of ability I'm afraid. That or they have not fully considered the possibility, for if there are problems with it, and I am sure there are; then they would expose those

problems. Instead, it is just a 'nah, I don't like that flavor of ice cream' thing.

Should the 'equation', and here I will grant my replacement theory secondary status; so we'll remain in the primary convention which is well established as I understand it. Anyway, should an equation actually break out into many pieces, then isn't

that equation of higher complexity than it's pieces? In the event of a theory whose parts break out naturally from one equation we will probably not be witnessing a sum-of-parts relationship. It is rather to say that the units of data do in fact occur at
a high level; with multiple units attached, as with, say, foot-pounds. This is likely a complex value; in that it does retain two potentially unique and even variable components. If the feet are not separable from the pounds, then the meaning of the
terminology is suspect. Ahh... to what degree is spacetime fitting of this units system; such that space-seconds are the actual units? Here we witness the issue of a categorical distinction. The physicality of the situation is actually a matter of taking
these points literally. This is perfectly suiting to a physics which is in fact concerned with reality. Rather than a challenge to a young mind to mimic a professor on some habituated journey through the forest to see the trees, a kindred one will have
already learned how they sprout not by someone elses teachings, but by direct contact. That physics in its experimental form does surpass theory is well known. As theory comes up and chases experiment in a game of mimicry what ensues is arguably of weak
form. The hope of cutting through it all one day; simply and cleanly; this is exactly what we are after. Now, let's attack the equation from this ground where by a unitary bridge formed in the arithmetic product is mutatable. Did you care that there were
in fact two feet at twenty pounds force? Then: let's go to Ohm's law, and the grand chase that became Maxwell's House.

V = I R .

Oh, come on now, I'm not going to even spell out. Did you care? Does it matter? Then along comes Kirchoff? Summing to zero?

Under our new presentation, and I think here we can sympathetically call it secondary to the prior conversation in the above paragraphs:
Sigma( I R ) .
where Sigma is the sum operator. Obviously you can stop where you started, yet if you chose to keep going around that is not even really a problem. Of course you need a closed loop. I guess ordinary Sigma doesn't quite get us there. Engage the

ModuloSigma, please, or should it just be called Loop? Continuous versus discrete will mean a bit here.

Gaining true complex impedance will raise the system a degree, and possibly even several ways. Still, we are going to land with:
Loop( I Z ) .
That is it. That is the law in its null-form. It is done. Voltage seems a fraud in hindsight. No conduction, no voltage. And boy do they get carried away with this stuff in meters. Oh, man, if you get 20Gigohms input impedance you can do amazing

things. As I recall open gate JFETS at nearly no VDS are the way. In series at the gate goes your 20 Gigohm resistor, added in series with your JFET input impedance; somewhere already up in the tens of megohms. It is all a game of leakage currents and to
use such an instrument is trouble from the start.

I forgot to mention here that the input is differential and so balanced, and it is this balanced pair of JFETs put closely together; sharing the same temperature; the same bias current; the same everything, really, except that they will amplify or at

least impedance transform the slight signal at their inputs, and as one leaks a picoamp and the other leaks a picoamp the balancing of them can be beneficial. Why exactly just one JFET at the input with a zeroing mechanism is insufficient: then too; why
three inputs shouldn't benefit somehow as well; could it be that noise will in fact play a role across them? I never did see the noise analysis on these. It's been a wonder of mine: we take two mosfets, and compare their noise outputs. the correlated
noise will be diminished while their noise components should add, or however the circuit is setup take some measurable form. Next thing you know your getting into cosmic rays and such, and your capacitors are getting fried...

Still, high impedance is cool. For next to no input cost nor load, comes lots of output, fairly well isolated, and of course followed on by many more stages of amplification which are less stringent than the first stage. I may not have all that quite

right, but this is one way of pushing things. And still, it's not as if they've hit some quantum level of engagement, either.

I can accept that somewhere down in the cold the next computer will arrive, but I don't think it is going to be quite as they want it now. It is going to have classical results. Photonics is rather under-appreciated now, isn't it? They hiding

something? Lurking inside the pentagon, perhaps? Insistent upon being redundantly secured at as many secure locations as possible? Hello, Big Brother.

Thinking a bit further on this, and I wish I hadn't just hit post, is it then the correlatory problem to witness the one; the two; the three; and so forth and should we expect a greater balance be found as we compound the results. Thus at two no such
correlation exists; they are antipodes, yet at three they are coming into something else, and at four as well; It's a strange claim to make, but these matchings; for they can no longer be called pairs; could matter somehow. The fact that two devices do
not yield the same noise profile as three: this is what we would be looking for. That the geometry of the layout could matter: obviously here we are touching upon balancing of the polysign variety. Here we see an actionable system built of polysign
principles; yet done in ordinary electronics. The move is merely a copy again of the same input stage; no different than the first time; carried through what was more diff amps and now become triamps and quadamps we can ask again why not just keep them
singular and admit them as n-ary-amps... amplinarys? Of course I could completely wrong here and no good effects will come of this. As well we will have the perplexing problem of why we are stopped at four; as if stopping at two weren't already enough.
There is no symmetrical balancing of five in our space; nor in our spacetime. Still, as we accomplish these circuits we will have signals:
s10
s20 s21
s30 s31 s32
s40 s41 s42 s43

and yet we will be forced to align our s1 somehow, and our s2 opposing elements another how; the S3 in a plane another how, and finally S4 in their tetrahedral pattern, again orderly, yet balanced. What, sit there wagging them all around hoping for
something?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:40:17 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:25:34 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 6:16:16 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:33:10 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:

smitcht...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught
that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math.

but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced

really. The idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or
could it be true that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

No Smitch. The is no addition for zero.
Just as there is no positive size.
No positive quantities exist.

Your nuttiness exists python...

No. The denial of a replacement theory is an exposure of these poor fellows' lack of ability I'm afraid. That or they have not fully considered the possibility, for if there are problems with it, and I am sure there are; then they would expose

those problems. Instead, it is just a 'nah, I don't like that flavor of ice cream' thing.

Should the 'equation', and here I will grant my replacement theory secondary status; so we'll remain in the primary convention which is well established as I understand it. Anyway, should an equation actually break out into many pieces, then isn't

that equation of higher complexity than it's pieces? In the event of a theory whose parts break out naturally from one equation we will probably not be witnessing a sum-of-parts relationship. It is rather to say that the units of data do in fact occur at
a high level; with multiple units attached, as with, say, foot-pounds. This is likely a complex value; in that it does retain two potentially unique and even variable components. If the feet are not separable from the pounds, then the meaning of the
terminology is suspect. Ahh... to what degree is spacetime fitting of this units system; such that space-seconds are the actual units? Here we witness the issue of a categorical distinction. The physicality of the situation is actually a matter of taking
these points literally. This is perfectly suiting to a physics which is in fact concerned with reality. Rather than a challenge to a young mind to mimic a professor on some habituated journey through the forest to see the trees, a kindred one will have
already learned how they sprout not by someone elses teachings, but by direct contact. That physics in its experimental form does surpass theory is well known. As theory comes up and chases experiment in a game of mimicry what ensues is arguably of weak
form. The hope of cutting through it all one day; simply and cleanly; this is exactly what we are after. Now, let's attack the equation from this ground where by a unitary bridge formed in the arithmetic product is mutatable. Did you care that there were
in fact two feet at twenty pounds force? Then: let's go to Ohm's law, and the grand chase that became Maxwell's House.

V = I R .

Oh, come on now, I'm not going to even spell out. Did you care? Does it matter? Then along comes Kirchoff? Summing to zero?

Under our new presentation, and I think here we can sympathetically call it secondary to the prior conversation in the above paragraphs:
Sigma( I R ) .
where Sigma is the sum operator. Obviously you can stop where you started, yet if you chose to keep going around that is not even really a problem. Of course you need a closed loop. I guess ordinary Sigma doesn't quite get us there. Engage the

ModuloSigma, please, or should it just be called Loop? Continuous versus discrete will mean a bit here.

Gaining true complex impedance will raise the system a degree, and possibly even several ways. Still, we are going to land with:
Loop( I Z ) .
That is it. That is the law in its null-form. It is done. Voltage seems a fraud in hindsight. No conduction, no voltage. And boy do they get carried away with this stuff in meters. Oh, man, if you get 20Gigohms input impedance you can do amazing

things. As I recall open gate JFETS at nearly no VDS are the way. In series at the gate goes your 20 Gigohm resistor, added in series with your JFET input impedance; somewhere already up in the tens of megohms. It is all a game of leakage currents and to
use such an instrument is trouble from the start.

I forgot to mention here that the input is differential and so balanced, and it is this balanced pair of JFETs put closely together; sharing the same temperature; the same bias current; the same everything, really, except that they will amplify or at

least impedance transform the slight signal at their inputs, and as one leaks a picoamp and the other leaks a picoamp the balancing of them can be beneficial. Why exactly just one JFET at the input with a zeroing mechanism is insufficient: then too; why
three inputs shouldn't benefit somehow as well; could it be that noise will in fact play a role across them? I never did see the noise analysis on these. It's been a wonder of mine: we take two mosfets, and compare their noise outputs. the correlated
noise will be diminished while their noise components should add, or however the circuit is setup take some measurable form. Next thing you know your getting into cosmic rays and such, and your capacitors are getting fried...

Still, high impedance is cool. For next to no input cost nor load, comes lots of output, fairly well isolated, and of course followed on by many more stages of amplification which are less stringent than the first stage. I may not have all that

quite right, but this is one way of pushing things. And still, it's not as if they've hit some quantum level of engagement, either.

I can accept that somewhere down in the cold the next computer will arrive, but I don't think it is going to be quite as they want it now. It is going to have classical results. Photonics is rather under-appreciated now, isn't it? They hiding

something? Lurking inside the pentagon, perhaps? Insistent upon being redundantly secured at as many secure locations as possible? Hello, Big Brother.

Thinking a bit further on this, and I wish I hadn't just hit post, is it then the correlatory problem to witness the one; the two; the three; and so forth and should we expect a greater balance be found as we compound the results. Thus at two no such

correlation exists; they are antipodes, yet at three they are coming into something else, and at four as well; It's a strange claim to make, but these matchings; for they can no longer be called pairs; could matter somehow. The fact that two devices do
not yield the same noise profile as three: this is what we would be looking for. That the geometry of the layout could matter: obviously here we are touching upon balancing of the polysign variety. Here we see an actionable system built of polysign
principles; yet done in ordinary electronics. The move is merely a copy again of the same input stage; no different than the first time; carried through what was more diff amps and now become triamps and quadamps we can ask again why not just keep them
singular and admit them as n-ary-amps... amplinarys? Of course I could completely wrong here and no good effects will come of this. As well we will have the perplexing problem of why we are stopped at four; as if stopping at two weren't already enough.
There is no symmetrical balancing of five in our space; nor in our spacetime. Still, as we accomplish these circuits we will have signals:

s10
s20 s21
s30 s31 s32
s40 s41 s42 s43

and yet we will be forced to align our s1 somehow, and our s2 opposing elements another how; the S3 in a plane another how, and finally S4 in their tetrahedral pattern, again orderly, yet balanced. What, sit there wagging them all around hoping for

something?

I am sorry to wreak havoc here, but I must carry this on a bit farther. These signals are to be taken as unique and really as single sided. Perhaps here is the lay of the balance: their power comes from a branched source, and this is typical. Their
biases however are identical. Oh, this is getting very waveletty. I did once work out the Haar basis; actually a four step orthogonality was claimed of those values. I never honestly quite understood. I did get it working though. Just some C code taking
in a sequence of numbers and spitting out a sequence of numbers; say ten or a hundred if you wanted. Deary me: here is how the world gets so little done on their computers: overlook batch processing and its computational ease and you've laid yourself a
very large burden; or at least that's what I learned along the way. Still, hands tied by technology. But what we have has never come before. They never even dreamed of the obnoxious wealth that we have over... All Of Them? All our ancestors for all time?
Wow. Gee.

Here we go. We are Shakespeare's monkeys, aren't we? Any who write are such and only those such do we know of, but as well there must be mere readers in the lot. Of course I feel as though my writings do apply to future readers, entrusted to Google,
apparently. That was one of those 'do no evil' things, I suppose. I guess when and if they get over it the spilling of the beans will be very excellent. We're talking very hot fresh beans thrown in all directions. That's gotta hurt. As I cast my lot from
a good sized spoon I realize the power of the little catapult. In a great lob what was a gob turned to a stream leaving steam and disappeared into the distance... amongst other loads of the same. The words are but a game, yet the gig will be up to you to
figure out, dear sir, or mam, as the case may be. It's rare to even bother for me, and really 'kind sir' would do.

A four-matched quad, A tri-matched triple, a double matched double you dubbers, a mono matched unit; each in their own bias class; no requirement of full matching, and thus a cryptome may possibly exist for them. Certainly in time, ah, but we already
know that P2 is essentially wiped out by P4.
It is nothing but a redundant subharmonic, and yet, turned the other way around, and by the way that is the usual way; looking up onto P4, shall we say, and granting their unique categories too, that we can have P2, and P2subs too, and where and what do
the P1subs and the P3subs do when?

Indeed, you might say.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:26:11 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught
that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math.

but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really. The

idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be true
that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

I really must state here how nicely Mitch has changed the tune.
This issue of inverse images so readily found as - a is, and here I do mean two distinct things - (minus), and a (the letter a). To confuse the two as one thing is the hideous thing that you were taught to do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:31:07 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:26:11 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math.

but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really.

The idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be
true that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

I really must state here how nicely Mitch has changed the tune.

Zero math is the new tune... you cannot subtract from it
as there is nothing left to take.

This issue of inverse images so readily found as - a is, and here I do mean two distinct things - (minus), and a (the letter a). To confuse the two as one thing is the hideous thing that you were taught to do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:25:23 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:31:07 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:26:11 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math.

but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really.

The idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be
true that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

I really must state here how nicely Mitch has changed the tune.

Zero math is the new tune... you cannot subtract from it
as there is nothing left to take.

I am sorry I was so harsh over on your galaxy spinning thread.

It is sort of interesting that the charge model broke into thirds with quarks, and now the amount of amazement over this detail seems normalized to me. This is sort of like the normalization of the Nazi problem in Ukraine, except quarks have had quite a
few more years; well, this is not quite true if you are willing to go back to Lebed. Then we'll have to give Ukraine the lead time. The time to stew up some strange new brew.

Anyway, starting from scratch there is no doubt that simplicity rules the number without sign by design, and this issue of designage as a dismantling of a thing versus the construction of a new one is in some ways second order, isn't it? Sign is
structurally atop magnitude. Without the lowly magnitude doing her continuous thing we will be caught in an extremely simplistic quantized state. Oh, gee, that is of interest, isn't it?

There we go perhaps: sisters in a cause, but not quite family. I've been looking for something like this.

Recently I learned that orange is a shade of brown. It's a strange mixed up world.
Don't let the colloidal form get you down. As to what is elemental:
we have lived the lies of our time. It is our duty to pursue the truth rather than swallow and regurgitate that which our predecessors have done.
We cannot and must not wipe them from the face of the Earth, but we should go forward knowing of their works, but not worshipping them. Our own good dog senses, and I believe that we all share in this good dog mentality ultimately; that man is dog's best
friend for the greatest of causes. Well, that it is the other way around, you see, inverts the tables a bit. Still, within the quest of life's better parts our ability to love another species better than our own must stand out as a clause, as you fondle
that dog's ears, and it looks at you glowingly. Something is awry with humanity. I am certain of it. To tread such territory and not land in the pit of nihilism: I pledge I will, and I do believe that it can be done. Still, seeking truth is not actually
so straight-forward a task as the scientists wish.

This issue of inverse images so readily found as - a is, and here I do mean two distinct things - (minus), and a (the letter a). To confuse the two as one thing is the hideous thing that you were taught to do.

Four cranberry pole beans sit before me on my keyboard. I have not given them individual identities, but they do already have them, don't they?
As the conversation about the equation and balance and zero goes, these beans are cleanly grouped; they are sequestered; they are stable. They have not moved for several days, though I do recall sort of stacking them on top of each other once recently.
Did I alter their identities as I did this operation and did I return them to their original state? No: as far as I can tell their history is gone. I do take Susskind's arguments around entropy in black holes and information loss as problematic. The idea
that information is not retained is entirely acceptable. We are ghosts of the past.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 10:55:09 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:25:23 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:31:07 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:26:11 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Moronic gibberish.

Actually, I think I can substantiate Mitch's three-liner:
Suppose that equations simply read e.g.:
4z + 5x - 2y.

That is not an equation.

This naturally is a null-form. Traditionally we require more technology, our equivalent being something like:

The only technology required is grade school math where one is taught
that an equation contains one equal sign SOMEWHERE.

2y = 4z + 5x,

Congratulations, you have some understanding of grade school math.

but in that the null-form is a simplification, and mathematics ought to enjoy simplicity, then as well that language such as 'left hand side', or 'rhs' would imply inverse forms as a regular usage within the equation seems too advanced really.

The idea of balance as connected to conservation does suit the discussion. Could it be that those averse to status quo mathematics might find this form more acceptable? If so, then who is the better mathematician? Is one thing two things? Or could it be
true that simplicity is best found within unity, and thus in balance?

Ice cream has no bones.

There is no subtraction for zero.
Just as there is no negative size...
No negative quantities exist...

I really must state here how nicely Mitch has changed the tune.

Zero math is the new tune... you cannot subtract from it
as there is nothing left to take.

I am sorry I was so harsh over on your galaxy spinning thread.

It is sort of interesting that the charge model broke into thirds with quarks, and now the amount of amazement over this detail seems normalized to me. This is sort of like the normalization of the Nazi problem in Ukraine, except quarks have had quite

a few more years; well, this is not quite true if you are willing to go back to Lebed. Then we'll have to give Ukraine the lead time. The time to stew up some strange new brew.

Anyway, starting from scratch there is no doubt that simplicity rules the number without sign by design, and this issue of designage as a dismantling of a thing versus the construction of a new one is in some ways second order, isn't it? Sign is

structurally atop magnitude. Without the lowly magnitude doing her continuous thing we will be caught in an extremely simplistic quantized state. Oh, gee, that is of interest, isn't it?

There we go perhaps: sisters in a cause, but not quite family. I've been looking for something like this.

Recently I learned that orange is a shade of brown. It's a strange mixed up world.
Don't let the colloidal form get you down. As to what is elemental:
we have lived the lies of our time. It is our duty to pursue the truth rather than swallow and regurgitate that which our predecessors have done.
We cannot and must not wipe them from the face of the Earth, but we should go forward knowing of their works, but not worshipping them. Our own good dog senses, and I believe that we all share in this good dog mentality ultimately; that man is dog's

best friend for the greatest of causes. Well, that it is the other way around, you see, inverts the tables a bit. Still, within the quest of life's better parts our ability to love another species better than our own must stand out as a clause, as you
fondle that dog's ears, and it looks at you glowingly. Something is awry with humanity. I am certain of it. To tread such territory and not land in the pit of nihilism: I pledge I will, and I do believe that it can be done. Still, seeking truth is not
actually so straight-forward a task as the scientists wish.

This issue of inverse images so readily found as - a is, and here I do mean two distinct things - (minus), and a (the letter a). To confuse the two as one thing is the hideous thing that you were taught to do.

Four cranberry pole beans sit before me on my keyboard. I have not given them individual identities, but they do already have them, don't they?
As the conversation about the equation and balance and zero goes, these beans are cleanly grouped; they are sequestered; they are stable. They have not moved for several days, though I do recall sort of stacking them on top of each other once recently.

Did I alter their identities as I did this operation and did I return them to their original state? No: as far as I can tell their history is gone. I do take Susskind's arguments around entropy in black holes and information loss as problematic. The idea
that information is not retained is entirely acceptable. We are ghosts of the past.

Alright. I understand it's getting a little weird here on this thread, in case you are trying to follow along. I might add that on the four pole electronics things may get as complicated as a rhombic dodecahedron outer frame, with internal connections to
boot to the center of the thing, and onward and outward such that a three-vector gets you to the exterior in permutations of (1,1,1,0), (1,1,0,0), and (1,0,0,0); these last being actually the first steps away from the originated center of the structure
which in P4 yields the tetrahedral legs first, thence interconnections above and beyond these. Whether circuit topology can take over for polysign is sort of what we are after. In that four signals in four directions are already built by the first stages
then all is good just there, but the loops that form, and if these are electrical loops than there are quite a few of them, and as magnetic flux is allowed through them then some notion of a sort of a complex coil could alight here. It's reminiscent of a
Faraday cage in some ways, but there is a core flow, and this sets polysign pretty far apart from other geometries. The ray: more fundamental than the line? For vector analysis I wish the question already did answer itself to you, but for the Cartesian
buffoon in you. And in me too. I was heavily trained in such nonsense. Well, it works, doesn't it? Well, yeah, but, there are a number of ambiguities. The very stacking of the ambiguities is somewhat known as the modern curriculum.

Well, I never did know a set theorist to find the animals crossed with the animals to be a useful set product. Did you? I could be obnoxious here, and start listing out all sorts of nonsense just at this point, and what of it will be sensible? Then too,
what the hell does the damn order matter if they are the same stinking thing? This is in a way the Cartesian conundrum: the granting of order to something that is lacking in order is a disorderly conduct, and this is exactly what the Cartesian product as
RxR is, does, and affects us all... infects us all? And then we simply do it again, and then Einstein once more, and Klean another yet, then too some 6D emag freaks found a breakthrough, and of course the string theorists have barely begun at ten, and
did you want to hear about all the animals that can quack like a duck, bark like a dog, meow like a kitty, squeak like a mouse, then meow like a kitty again, and this is no strange incident; I don't know, maybe finish off with an elephants roar? Hail
Barbar?

Within polysign, the components have what is known as a signature: they as raw (unsigned) magnitudes are granted their identities in balance with one another. If you want to pull a whole layer of gauge theory over these I suppose it is possible; possibly
desirable, but just staying flat is pretty good challenge already by the time you want to do division by algorithm. It's not easy, while the product is completely straightforward.

One interpretation within the 'flat' version of P4 still has a class of axial values, and pancaked values too. These subdimensions make themselves felt. As to how you would assign the frequencies say of a signal mu^n, which is just the simplest discrete
oscillator here of that four transistor ring which hopefully oscillates onesies on the way through with antenna elements loading the ring topology; a four stage oscillator, but now what do we assign as a frequency to the thing? Pretty clearly the period
of the signal is from mu to mu; four steps in the ring, each taking some tau, and hopefully matched here for simplicity, though perhaps some strangely gauged antenna would work as well, maybe say four unique element lengths... uh-oh, is this a gauge
type of theory? No infinities here; just an option to go asymmetrical. Still, it is extremely simple in its ring form, which is just as sign behaves, and so the coherency is good. Leaving those elements the same length, with the same tau, probably is
still a good idea, but this mixed tau seems kind of obvious too. Then throwing in more components starts to make more sense, except the dimensionality of free space is limited, so that some sense of redundancy is probably going to be the outcome of say
getting stringy and insisting on ten elements or so. Still, the electronics as extended this extremely simply way are straightforward. What would not be straightforward is the orientation of all those elements. Ahh, so manufacture of identical antennae
could matter. It's sort of like cruising the ham bands and always talking one brand transceiver to the same brand transceiver, because they works by the same frequency shifts, or really by the same protocol. In effect a given areial selection is a
protocol selection, in that the order of the ring amps as they tie to those elements in what was a simplex array, but then went redundant in the P4+ modes, I suppose.

It would be totally immature of me to claim some P5 phenomenon out of the system wouldn't it? Yet what about modestly claiming a P5 image; a projection essentially? Isn't the ray itself as we draw it being projected up into 3D space? Isn't the line as
well? For some two lines still form their first plane, but for polysign we want just three rays, and then four rays to get to volumetric (3D) space. Still, what is this space? We do have to trouble over more. It seems it does indeed have more character
than mathematics has been willing to give it from, say the Euclidean form. All those who claim to transit to and from that form might as well seal their deaths by this black and white correspondence; frozen in time upon bringing in that uncomfortable
fourth dimension, when really it seems the human barely even appreciates the plane, let alone our claims to have 3D vision. No: we have two primitve 2D cameras, and that is all that we have. Yes, they are very stimulating to our being, but already our
cell phones have better eyes than we do. We may still have better image processing abilities, but that isn't going to last. Some probably already think my statement here antiquated.

I hope you feel as stuck here as I do, but as well, not in a black and white cartoon, eh?
Euclid's Saturday morning is over.
It's Monday, and I've taken the day off.
Pretty steady rain here today after quite a warm spell.
It really sets a mood.
November cometh now
Well in two days
Tides and turns and all the while along for the ride, watching it all unfold. To claim information conservation is sheer silliness. I'm sorry, Doctors: you have it all wrong. These sores are not some cancer on my side. Why they are outgrowths of a new
beginning... Yeah, dream on...
Time to hunt turkeytail, perhaps. I reccommend dead and down red maple; in a swamp or wet area; could be a stream, and fresh and bright and even sometimes tiny you will find them and an earthy little bite they are just raw even. They grow on you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

zero is Not A Number


--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 10:32:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

zero is Not A Number

It is a name of the no quantity concept.
And that has a role in math.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 10:32:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

zero is Not A Number

It is a name of the no quantity concept.
And that has a role in math.

If the universe came from Nothing/Zero...is that Nothing a positive or negative?


--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:35:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 10:32:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

zero is Not A Number

It is a name of the no quantity concept.
And that has a role in math.

If the universe came from Nothing/Zero...is that Nothing a positive or negative?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Here, Starmaker, polysign numbers can step in with quite some suppositions. They are net zero and general dimensional, and your question about sign is their business; they are the polysign numbers, and so your question does have a triple form; implied,
and merely a sister to the double form that you propose. Not only this, but that these sisters have a little brother... here, and then again on the other side a lack of negotiation towards largess, yet balance demanded. That this form is a discrete form;
it really could mimic some of quantum theory's strange constructions; somewhere around q sub n as I recall. In a chase for configuration parameters, so much complexity is here onto the basis, rather than the parameters themselves, and all within this net
zero paradigm, and as we could discuss the brothers and sisters in their lower form should we keep these high forms in that same family? When calculus demands an infinity did anybody shrug?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:45:23 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:35:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 10:32:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

zero is Not A Number

It is a name of the no quantity concept.
And that has a role in math.

If the universe came from Nothing/Zero...is that Nothing a positive or negative?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.

Here, Starmaker, polysign numbers can step in with quite some suppositions. They are net zero and general dimensional, and your question about sign is their business; they are the polysign numbers, and so your question does have a triple form; implied,

and merely a sister to the double form that you propose. Not only this, but that these sisters have a little brother... here, and then again on the other side a lack of negotiation towards largess, yet balance demanded. That this form is a discrete form;
it really could mimic some of quantum theory's strange constructions; somewhere around q sub n as I recall. In a chase for configuration parameters, so much complexity is here onto the basis, rather than the parameters themselves, and all within this net
zero paradigm, and as we could discuss the brothers and sisters in their lower form should we keep these high forms in that same family? When calculus demands an infinity did anybody shrug?

The idea that in balance things constructed are net naught is to propose that such can be constructed from naught. In some ways this presumption of balance might be argued to be related to the principle of cosmology, where their own form of balance comes
out with directionality as an argument. There are oddities in general dimension. Under this angular awareness: the farthest you can ever turn away from you current orientation is till just 180 degrees; no matter what dimension. As such perhaps this
figure should get fundamental shrift. This is the inverse in fact in geometrical terms, but sad for the two-signers, to them the negative sign will suffice here, whereas in polysign your one, even rudimentary component value; no particularly rudimentary
unit value, and if you fail this unitary test then take up art, please, can only be answered by every other (rudimentary) component value; whereby their sum by definition is naught. To give these signs such character and in their unitary form might be
called a beautiful step in the art of physics, and so it can be known that those who adopt a unitary approach can still be artists too.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:19:30 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

Yes: the bases. Why stop at two? Why is binary enough for our computers? Because it is all that we have? We cannot do tristate? Quadstate? Does the ring buffer in four versus two, which by the way is bistable, too, and could we mu if we wanted to? Can we
mu our systems? The strangest thing is to admit that our fundamental amplifying stages; those active with the smarts, let's say; so rarely found that when they are sound they are worth a thing or two, and then three or four, and along the way some chain
away, some to, some afar yet alive can be felt through the sieve which for some is a comb, and for others, a steel course, and still others a copper trace, and then others back on the copper another way, and really everywhere, at that. That we could comb
them away and find a grain beneath. Would this really be a surprise? The comb unbroken is already spoken for. That the yield would be in balance is really all that we have to agree upon. Somehow there is some grand balance whose differentials play out as
imbalances in the values in the comb progression, which somehow confess that in swapping the one for the two somehow somebody has been off by one for quite some time. As to who this might be, sir... Ahem.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 12:35:20 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 10:32:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

zero is Not A Number

It is a name of the no quantity concept.
And that has a role in math.

If the universe came from Nothing/Zero...is that Nothing a positive or negative?

How do you know the universe doesn't have a source?
Why would the stars be young if there was no beginning?
God is math. Man is after...

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 12:35:20 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 10:32:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: >> > > mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

instead of undefined solutions there
is zero math. It is a mathematical beginning.
It also serves the purpose to set bases...

zero is Not A Number

It is a name of the no quantity concept.
And that has a role in math.

If the universe came from Nothing/Zero...is that Nothing a positive or
negative?

How do you know the universe doesn't have a source?

A source of what moron?

Why would the stars be young if there was no beginning?

Continuous creation moron.

God is math. Man is after...

Gibberish moron.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)