Hi I was not going to post 'til Berkeley done
...however, will mention
1) I'm sure the idea of posting a better abstract was something I saw from reading your earlier exchanges.
2) What you just posted is a start...and please don't portray me as being fussy about the number of words...(it's almost a joke, considering the context)
3) IN a nutshell, which differential equation
is Dick saying gives solutions which match other laws of physics ... or you can say,"Go see his paper again" if you don't want to type it here.
I think Dr. Dick posted a new link to his paper within the past few days.
4) In your descriptions, a few sentences appear to need amendment in order to say something.
a) "He has proved that any set of numbers whatsoever must conform to a particular differential equation ..." -- is the word "conform" here used in a familiar way? I am not familiar with it. What could persuade you to divulge what it means for a set of numbers to "conform" to a differential equation?
I'd be grateful.
5) "God had no choice.." ...too general, if you'll forgive me for saying so. Sounds like a little more rhetoric...and unnecessary to support the math thesis.

• Stafford's result in one sentence! - pmartin - July 22, 2002 - 16:48 UTC
  • Better yet, - pmartin - July 22, 2002 - 17:41 UTC
  • You have the gratitude of human, horse, dog, cat, bird & plants - kantolfir2 - July 22, 2002 - 20:44 UTC
  • The law of non-contradiction - dolphin - July 23, 2002 - 04:36 UTC