Deeper than primes

[The Man]

In linear addition like (A+B) A is strict value, B is strict value and the result of their addition is also strict value.

In algebra “A” is a variable, “B” is a variable and their linear addition results in a variable (that we can call “AB”, (A+B) =AB). As variables they can all be indeterminate with “AB” having just the restriction of being equal to "A+B" as asserted.

A = False
B = True

OK so now you’ve given your “A” and “B” variables particular values.

A given classical bit can have one and only one value, and this value must be strict, for example:

Bit₁ = A OR B.

Only if you apply some particular vales to your “A” and “B" variables as you just did above. Otherwise your “Bit₁” remains indeterminate with just your restriction that it must “= A OR B” as you have stated.

Unlike Bit₁, QuantumBit₁ can be also A AND B, which is a contradiction in terms of Bit₁, but not in terms of QuantumBit₁ because of a very simple reason:

Once again “A AND B” is not a contradiction even with your “A = False B = True” assigned values. That would just make it an expression that evaluates to False (we have been over what constitutes a contradiction before). A Qbit still just represents a single wave function that is the superposition of other wave functions just as any given waveform can be considered a superposition of other waveforms (see Fourier transform)

The simultaneity of more than one value prevents its strictness, where strictness is possible only if QuantumBit₁ has exactly one and only one value (which is A strict or B strict, in this case), but in this particular case QuantumBit₁=Bit₁.

You really need to learn what a wave function is along with some basic algebra and mathematics.

In other words, what is called linear addition like (A+B) where A is strict value, B is strict value and the result is strict value, simply can't express (A+B) as the simultaneity of more than one value that is non-strict, and only the collapse of this simultaneity into a single value, determines its strictness.

Again you really need to learn what a wave function is and why its evolution is linear, which is of course why the principle of superposition applies, along with some basic algebra and mathematics. You keep trying to express this “non-strict” notion of yours which so far simply amounts to being ‘indeterminate’ which any variable can be. Basically you just want to conflate your “non-strict” notion with quantum superposition while evidently not even bothering to understand either.

Left-only hemisphere minds, like you The Man, wrote this wiki article, and you are no more than some Left-only hemisphere mind that reads it, and of course gets it only in terms of classical simultaneous single-value bit.

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

In other words, no actual Superposition is defined by left-only hemisphere minds, and it is really does not matter what left-only hemispheres (which are step-by-step only minds) say about it, because they can't get it anyway.

Ah back to playing the deliberate ignorance card again I see. Unfortunately for you the only one that particular card trumps, is you.

Let's take, for example, the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree (step-by-step only minds, can't get it):

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB ,B ) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.

The universe of step-by-step only minds is the particular case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1), and they have no chance to get
the whole 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree, from their particular point of view.

The Man and his interpretation of (A+B) in terms of DS (A,B) under F (1,1), is an actual example of this limited particular point of view.

Repeating your nonsense doesn’t make it any less nonsense

And again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.


Learn what a wave function is Doron, learn why its evolution is linear and thus the principle of superposition can be applied and how it is applied, learn why things work instead of just making up crap for 20 odd years and trying to conflate it with what does work.

 

[epix]

Please look at these works about Left-Right Hemispheres Math:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2029936


Please also look at this interesting part, taken from http://www.scribd.com/doc/53948152/10/Nonanalytic-Aspects-of-Mathematics (pages 403-405):

By defining the union between parts, we are able to be developed beyond our current limitations.

Not really. There is no only-left or only-right hardware performance and there is no evidence that folks that are almost "ambicerebral" perform significantly better. Read up something on the distinction:
http://web-us.com/brain/LRBrain.html

You won't make things better by just defining stuff around. You need to alter the genetic inheritance in order to intervene on behalf of better performance within the mass of the frontal lobe. But for this task, you need advanced brain to figure the procedure, which includes the development of non-biochemical model to test theories on, so it's lovely Catch 22.

 

[doronshadmi]

In algebra “A” is a variable, “B” is a variable and their linear addition results in a variable (that we can call “AB”, (A+B) =AB). As variables they can all be indeterminate with “AB” having just the restriction of being equal to "A+B" as asserted.

Wrong. "AB" is not a single variable, but it is the simultaneity of more than one variable, where this simultaneity is non-strict as long as it is not collapsed into a single result.

In other words, your notion of (A+B) is limited to (A,B) and as a result, it can't get (AB) of 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree (by your notion, the non-strictness of the simultaneity of more than one variable, simply can't be comprehended) not to mention that it can't get the whole tree.

OK so now you’ve given your “A” and “B” variables particular values.

So what, a given variable has simultaneously one and only one value.

Only if you apply some particular vales to your “A” and “B" variables as you just did above. Otherwise your “Bit₁” remains indeterminate with just your restriction that it must “= A OR B” as you have stated.

Again, a given variable has simultaneously one and only one value, and Bit₁ is useful only in the particular case of simultaneous one and only one value.

Once again “A AND B” is not a contradiction even with your “A = False B = True” assigned values.

Here you are forcing once again (A,B) on (AB).

Once again “A AND B” is not a contradiction even with your “A = False B = True” assigned values. That would just make it an expression that evaluates to False (we have been over what constitutes a contradiction before).

"A AND B" is always false (always false = contradiction) by (A,B) form, and not just false, as you wrongly put it.

A Qbit still just represents a single wave function that is the superposition of other wave functions just as any given waveform can be considered a superposition of other waveforms (see Fourier transform)

In other words, this wave function is non-strict as long as it is not collapsed into a single strict state.

Fourier transform actually transforms (AB) into (A,B) in order to provide some strict result.

So once again, it is shown how your notion is tuned to deal only with strictness.

For example:

the quantum Fourier transform acts on a quantum state, whereas the classical Fourier transform acts on a vector, so the quantum Fourier transform can not give a generic exponential speedup for any task which requires the classical Fourier transform.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform )
In other words, since superposition is involved in non-strict quantum states that are collapsed into some strict state by direct measurement, there is no equivalence between the classical Fourier transform that acts on a vector (which is a set of strict values) and the natural non-strict state of quantum superposition.

You really need to learn what a wave function is along with some basic algebra and mathematics.

You really need to get (AB) not in terms of (A,B).

Again you really need to learn what a wave function is and why its evolution is linear, which is of course why the principle of superposition applies, along with some basic algebra and mathematics. You keep trying to express this “non-strict” notion of yours which so far simply amounts to being ‘indeterminate’ which any variable can be. Basically you just want to conflate your “non-strict” notion with quantum superposition while evidently not even bothering to understand either.

Again, you really need to get (AB) not in terms of (A,B).

As long as you can't do that, you do not understand (AB).

Repeating your nonsense doesn’t make it any less nonsense

And again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

Repeating on (A,B) in order to get (AB) posits aspects of your own failed reasoning onto yourself.

Learn what a wave function is Doron, learn why its evolution is linear and thus the principle of superposition can be applied and how it is applied, learn why things work instead of just making up crap for 20 odd years and trying to conflate it with what does work.

Learn how to get out of (A,B) in order to really get (AB).

Some analogy:

You are like a researcher that wishes to research the natural life of night creatures by using a spotlight.

 

[doronshadmi]

Not really. There is no only-left or only-right hardware performance and there is no evidence that folks that are almost "ambicerebral" perform significantly better. Read up something on the distinction:
http://web-us.com/brain/LRBrain.html

You won't make things better by just defining stuff around. You need to alter the genetic inheritance in order to intervene on behalf of better performance within the mass of the frontal lobe. But for this task, you need advanced brain to figure the procedure, which includes the development of non-biochemical model to test theories on, so it's lovely Catch 22.

Advanced brain, is first of all the ability to actually co-operate between different brain skills, such that they reinforce each other as a one comprehensive system.

Please prove that researchers that use almost only one hemisphere of their brain, can actually do a reliable research on the human brain.

 

[doronshadmi]

But within the framework of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, decoherence cannot explain this crucial step from an apparent mixture to the existence and/or perception of single outcomes.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence )

2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is some particular example of a novel model, which shows exactly how a mixture of states in superposition (AB,AB) are collapsed into single outcomes (A,B):

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.

The universe of single outcomes is the particular case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1) under the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree.

 

[jsfisher]

2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is some particular example of a novel model....

Perhaps you could demonstrate some utility for this novel model which is neither.

 

[epix]

Advanced brain, is first of all the ability to actually co-operate between different brain skills, such that they reinforce each other as a one comprehensive system.

Nonsense.

Please prove that researchers that use almost only one hemisphere of their brain, can actually do a reliable research on the human brain.

After you prove otherwise.

Your links include the one where presumably "two-hemispheres" researcher believes that Jesus actually turned water into wine collapsing some waves.

Andrew Powell speculates, ‘A mind of greater power can collapse the wave uniquely, apparently miraculously, on one notable occasion turning water into wine. However, quantum sceptics argue that the influence of observation on observed objects claimed by particle physicists may be negligible with regard to macro objects.

We've been always at mercy of some aholes whose crap is appealed to through academic authority by ignorants.

CHRIST is a subset of CHemISTRy. Since the cardinality of the subset is 6, the whole hoopla with turning water into wine must be done in 6 jars and desribed in Verse 6, so the coincidence 666 could materialize.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7429527&postcount=16180
Then you need to attach notoriety to 666 and link it significantly with Jesus' activities. That means you need to employ a bit of neuroscience, which causes the human brain regard a fiction an irreversible fact. Common sense tells you that Jesus couldn't turn water into wine, coz, for one, if he could he would be smart enough not to let his ass stapled to the cross. But Andrew Powell thinks "wave collapsing" instead.

Sometimes it happens that the "the bit of advanced neuroscience" hits a brain that is not completely screwed, which brings about results like

Cantor believed his theory of transfinite numbers had been communicated to him by God.

Due to Cantor, we know that subset|CHRIST| = 6 and set |CHemISTRy| = 9.

Me, My Divine and Irreversibly Accelerated 10-Hemisphered Wisdom, cannot turn water into wine Myself, but I shall say onto you that I can turn 6 into 9.

I keep turning, then I stop
when 6=bottom and 9=top


Keep turning, Heavenly Father, just keep turning . . .
Lols.

 

[The Man]

Wrong. "AB" is not a single variable, but it is the simultaneity of more than one variable, where this simultaneity is non-strict as long as it is not collapsed into a single result.

Again you really need to learn what a wave function is, instead of just trying to conflate your nonsense with quantum mechanics by simply saying “collapsed”. Oh, and a “single variable” can represent, well, “more than one variable” including some operations like addition, as in C=A+B. That’s what makes variables useful. Learn some basic algebra.

In other words, your notion of (A+B) is limited to (A,B) and as a result, it can't get (AB) of 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree (by your notion, the non-strictness of the simultaneity of more than one variable, simply can't be comprehended) not to mention that it can't get the whole tree.

No Doron, my “notion of (A+B)” is exactly, well, (A+B), the sum of two variables.

So what, a given variable has simultaneously one and only one value.

No Doron a variable can represent a whole range of values; your assertion is patently false. Learn some basic algebra. That you happen to give yours some particular value at that time does not detract from the fact that they could represent a range of values (and would without your specific assertion of some particular value at that time). Do not confuse your particular choice at some particular time with a restriction that prevents a variable from representing a range of values at some particular time.


Let’s take a very simple example…

A²=B

It doesn’t matter what positive numeric value we might give “B”, “A” will always represent both a positive and a negative value, in each instance. So even with “B” strictly a single positive value, “A” isn’t. Whether “A” is positive or negative is simply indeterminate.

Next time learn math from something other than yourself and a kindergarten class.

Again, a given variable has simultaneously one and only one value, and Bit₁ is useful only in the particular case of simultaneous one and only one value.

Again please learn some basic algebra and you just might find how a variable representing more then “one value”, more than one variable and even some operations also is, well, useful.

Here you are forcing once again (A,B) on (AB).

What? “A = False B = True” was your assertion not mine. Why do you always run from you own assertions and try to blame others for them? No one forced you to make those assertions, you did it yourself, but you run from yourself and then fallaciously accuse others of “forcing” you.

"A AND B" is always false (always false = contradiction) by (A,B) form, and not just false, as you wrongly put it.

No “A AND B” is not always false, however given your stated truth value for “A” and stated truth value for “B” that expression with those values (I guess you just forced yourself to give) evaluates to False. Again a contradiction is an expression that evaluates to False regardless of the truth values of its inputs. Not one that just evaluates to False because evidently hyou had to force yourself to give it a particular pair of input values.

In other words, this wave function is non-strict as long as it is not collapsed into a single strict state.

No a wave function for an electron would strictly give you the probability of finding that electron at some particular point in space and time. When that function is said to ‘collapse’ the probability distribution takes a more defined peak but the time based evolution of the function continues from there. Again learn what a wave function is instead of just making up crap and trying to conflate it with what works. Heck just learn what a function is first.

Fourier transform actually transforms (AB) into (A,B) in order to provide some strict result.

Again if your going to try to invoke superposition then AB = A + B. Otherwise stop lying about what you have already demonstrated you know about the linearity of superposition.

So once again, it is shown how your notion is tuned to deal only with strictness.

So once again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

For example:

Oh, I can’t wait for this…

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform )
In other words, since superposition is involved in non-strict quantum states that are collapsed into some strict state by direct measurement, there is no equivalence between the classical Fourier transform that acts on a vector (which is a set of strict values) and the natural non-strict state of quantum superposition.

A wave function is a state vector Doron. Learn at least something please.

You really need to get (AB) not in terms of (A,B).

Again, you really need to get (AB) not in terms of (A,B).

OK, the only terms you’ve given so far is that it is indeterminate, as any variable can be, and you placed some limits on your (AB) that you related to your (A,B) but then subsequently refused to specifically acknowledge. So when you can “get (AB) not in terms of (A,B)” you be sure to let us know. Oh, guess what (just to clue you in), if you do happen to get your “(AB) not in terms of (A,B)” then it has no relation to your “A”, “B” variables (just thought I should let you know before you wasted another 20 some odd years).

As long as you can't do that, you do not understand (AB).

Evidently you don’t.

Repeating on (A,B) in order to get (AB) posits aspects of your own failed reasoning onto yourself.

Nope just yours and your sepcifed relation of your “(AB)” to your “(A,B)”.

Learn how to get out of (A,B) in order to really get (AB).

You said how and then simply refused to acknowledge what you specifically said. So learn how not to simply contradict yourself. Given your blatant lie before about what the article you quoted said and your other lies about what other posters have said it seems that you are just a compulsive liar.

Some analogy:

Same accusation…

You are like a researcher that wishes to research the natural life of night creatures by using a spotlight.

You are like someone that compulsively lies just to perpetuate his self-contradictory fantasy.

 

[epix]

A²=B

It doesn’t matter what positive numeric value we might give “B”, “A” will always represent both a positive and a negative value, in each instance. So even with “B” strictly a single positive value, “A” isn’t. Whether “A” is positive or negative is simply indeterminate.

Next time learn math from something other than yourself and a kindergarten class.

That B can be also negatively signed and that wouldn't alter the sign duality of A either. After A and B comes C, and letter C is reserved for complex numbers. So when

A² = -4

for example, the equation has two solution, like in the case when B>0.

A = 2i or A = -2i

But after A, B, and C comes D, and the letter D is reserved for Doronetics, so the equation with unknown variable A

A² = B

has three solutions, not just two: the left hemisphere thinking provides the first solution, the right hemisphere thinking the second solution, and the simultaneous thinking of both hemispheres provides the third solution, namely that the equation doesn't have a solution at all.

 

[The Man]

That B can be also negatively signed and that wouldn't alter the sign duality of A either. After A and B comes C, and letter C is reserved for complex numbers. So when

A² = -4

for example, the equation has two solution, like in the case when B>0.

A = 2i or A = -2i

But after A, B, and C comes D, and the letter D is reserved for Doronetics, so the equation with unknown variable A

A² = B

has three solutions, not just two: the left hemisphere thinking provides the first solution, the right hemisphere thinking the second solution, and the simultaneous thinking of both hemispheres provides the third solution, namely that the equation doesn't have a solution at all.

Good point, epix. though given Doron's problems just understanding negation. I didn't think the square root of a negated value (complex numbers) would have been much help to him. Other than for him to just try to conflate a complex number with his "complexity" nonsense.










Wait for it..............

 

[doronshadmi]

Again you really need to learn what a wave function is, instead of just trying to conflate your nonsense with quantum mechanics by simply saying “collapsed”. Oh, and a “single variable” can represent, well, “more than one variable” including some operations like addition, as in C=A+B. That’s what makes variables useful. Learn some basic algebra.

C is a strict result of A strict and B strict.

In other words you are still get only strict things (in this case you are using the particular case of DS (A,B,C) under F (1,1,1), which are under 3-Uncertainty x 3-Redundancy Distinction-Tree).

Let’s take a very simple example…

A²=B

It doesn’t matter what positive numeric value we might give “B”, “A” will always represent both a positive and a negative value, in each instance. So even with “B” strictly a single positive value, “A” isn’t. Whether “A” is positive or negative is simply indeterminate.

You are using again DS (A,B) under F (1,1), exactly because A is positive OR negative.

Under DS (AB) superposition A is simultaneously positive AND negative, but it is not a contradiction since (AC) is non-strict.

No Doron a variable can represent a whole range of values;

Not simultaneously, The Man, not simultaneously, and if it is a sum (as done in C=A+B), then the sum is some strict single value.

The Man, you are still closed under strictness and simply can't get out no matter what twisted maneuvers are done by you with variables.

A wave function is a state vector Doron. Learn at least something please.

Only if (AB) is transformed into (A,B) by classical Fourier transform, and the result is not equivalent to the state of superposition, exactly because any measurement actually changes the superposition into set of strict values (a state vector) (the superposition is collapsed into a strict state).

No wonder that you can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7431694&postcount=16185.

At least try to get out of your please.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nonsense.

After you prove otherwise.

Right Brain and Left Brain​

We can make some statements that are normally true for a right handed person.

1. The right brain deals with novel situations. In teaching, we want to keep the right brain of students engaged.

2. The left brain deals with routine. The left brain stores and processes procedures and algorithms. An important aspect of learning is to move knowledge and skills from being novel to being routinized (from right brain to left brain).

( http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~moursund/Math/brain_science.htm )
And I would add that also moving from left brain to the right brain is important, but persons like The Man, jsfisher and you can't make it.

You are like a person that jumps on one leg instead of using both legs for walking.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here is some analogy about superposition and superposition collapse.

There is a door that is opened only by one thing at a time.

As long as more than one thing try simultaneously to open that door, it is stayed closed.

Staying closed means that id is indeterminate or in superposition.

Only if the superposition is collapsed into a thing that opens the door, a strict id is given.

For example, the expression C = A+B is possible only by things that have strict ids like (A,B,C).

(ABC) expression means that a given thing does not have a strict id, or in other words, it is under superposition (the door is closed).

An expression like C = A+B can't be defined by (ABC) unless it is collapses into (A,B,C) (the door is opened).

Furthermore, if A = "closed door" and B = "opened door", then (AB) = "indeterminate under superposition" and (A,B) = "determinate under superposition collapse".


The principle of superposition claims that while a measurement is not taken (the door is closed), it is actually in all possible states simultaneously.

It is the measurement itself (the door is opened) that causes a thing to be limited to a single possibility.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7431694&postcount=16185 is a novel model of the transition from superposition non-strictness to strict possibility.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here is some question for Mr. James Randi:

Mr. James Randi, are you and the scientists that are co-operated with you in order to discover frauds, are also monitored, such that the scientific investigation methods and your brain activity are openly included?

 

[epix]

( http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~moursund/Math/brain_science.htm )
And I would add that also moving from left brain to the right brain is important, but persons like The Man, jsfisher and you can't make it.

You are like a person that jumps on one leg instead of using both legs for walking.

Your notion of "proof" or "evidence" shares the same space with the locality where Doronetics comes from, e.g. neither from the left or the right hemisphere, but from the anus.

Things are not set up the way you think they are.

It has now become quite clear that the two hemispheres complement each other as far as language and visual-spatial information processing are concerned. Differences do exist crediting the left side with slightly greater linguistic ability and the right side efficiency in visual-spatial processing. But the differences are likely much smaller than they were originally described. Some researchers now believe that a truly meaningful difference exists not in the information that are presented to both sides of the brain but in the processing style of the two hemispheres. A widely accepted view is that the left side specializes in analytical processing, the right in holistic or abstract processing; but this is difficult to substantiate in the laboratory. The main problem is that researchers often disagree on whether a task designed to test processing style requires analytical or holistic processing. Indeed, there is hardly any task in our daily living that requires only one type of processing. The complexity of the brain is such that both hemispheres likely participate in every aspect to optimize survival and intellectual development.

Both hemispheres are used -- that's why they are included in the hardware. But there is that "third hemisphere," which can solve problems without the "learn and repeat" process. The best test for the third hemisphere is based on something that relates to 3 -- like the cube. So here is the question: What is in that box?

 

[doronshadmi]

Your notion of "proof" or "evidence" shares the same space with the locality where Doronetics comes from, e.g. neither from the left or the right hemisphere, but from the anus.

Things are not set up the way you think they are.


Both hemispheres are used -- that's why they are included in the hardware. But there is that "third hemisphere," which can solve problems without the "learn and repeat" process. The best test for the third hemisphere is based on something that relates to 3 -- like the cube. So here is the question: What is in that box?

epix, once again you do not provide the reference of your used quote.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7397738&postcount=16045 (do not ignore the links there) is clearly an example of the inability of a person to get math that is done by using both hemispheres, by using only his left-hemisphere.

Indeed, there is hardly any task in our daily living that requires only one type of processing.

Professional mathematicians are indeed a minor community of left-hemisphere specialists, which have influence on our civilization that the do not deserve.

The Man and jsfisher are concrete examples of this minor community.

 

[epix]

Here is some analogy about superposition and superposition collapse.

There is a door that is opened only by one thing at a time.

As long as more than one thing try simultaneously to open that door, it is stayed closed.

Wrong. It doesn't go like that.

 

[doronshadmi]

Wrong. It doesn't go like that.

Unless it is used as an analogy, which is something that your poor humor can't comprehend.

Furthermore, in your reply, two strict keys of DS (A,B) are used (they are not under superposition).

 

[zooterkin]

Here is some question for Mr. James Randi:

If you are serious about asking him, email would be a better way to contact him. He doesn't spend much time reading the forums.

Mr. James Randi, are you and the scientists that are co-operated with you in order to discover frauds, are also monitored, such that the scientific investigation methods and your brain activity are openly included?

On the other hand, I think you might want to formulate something a little more meaningful if you don't want to get short shrift from him. What is that question supposed to mean?

 

[epix]

epix, once again you do not provide the reference of your used quote.

Why should I? There is near consensus that the simultaneous performance of both hemispheres doesn't produce any thought to cheer upon:

Global markets have issued a vote of no confidence in the management of the world’s two largest economies, the U.S. and the euro area. To regain credibility, leaders on both sides of the Atlantic need to recognize the magnitude of the crisis they face.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-loud-no-confidence-vote-in-leaders-view.html