God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Uh Oh, I Translated 1.7 Into Baby-talk!? Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on July 29, 2002 04:23:21 UTC

thanks for a difficult challenge; I just think I translated equation 1.7 then realised you said 1.27!

Oh well, here is 1.7:

"Do you want to play a game of hide-and-seek?"
"O.K., deal."
"Where did the "ten minutes" come from?"
"Wherever it came from, it didn't come from this agreement (although it may have come from juggling many things including the idea you had of a game now). To find the rules governing the deal you have to look outside the deal."

Details:

probability (number of possible intersections) of seeing data set (intersection of categories) at time t (at intersection with another category) is

one view of a set of numbers (data) and their algorithmic transformation; looking at another view of that set of numbers (data) and their algorithmic transformation; now looking at the difference in volume between them.

Looking at the left-overs after looking at the volume of mutual agreement, to find any rules governing the deal.

one view of a rule governing the intersection zone a category has with another category (thus transforming the look of the first category in that intersection zone)

OF another view of the rule governing the intersection zone of these two categories (the view from the other category of how it looks different in the intersection zone)

view (say from "moon" perspective) of rule that intersects "moon" + "objects over 100km diameter" OF alternate view of rule that intersects "objects over 100km diameter" + "moon" (say from "objects over 100km diameter" perspective)

SO the objects + moon RULE seen from objects, further seen from the moon view of the rule; so constraining the rule to an area of agreement (overlap, probability density)

The view from this mutually-containing-view of the differential volume in the space of the category before intersection taken into account. So the rule resides in the remainder after the deal is done if their is a rule at all.

A deal is done. Any rule governing that deal, resides outside that deal in the data brought to the table before the deal.

When you agree with your landlord on a rent-rise; any rule governing the deal you do, resides in the data you (or he) brings to the table outside of the transformed data that the deal itself produces.

Using "moon" intersects with "objects over 100km in diameter":
Put "often glows at night" with them, this acts as a constraint or a widening of the zone of intersection (depending on your perspective); this restricts or increases the "volume left over from the view of their intersection from one viewpoint of that intersection "; reducing or increasing the area in which you may look for a rule governing the intersection residing in data not generated by the intersection itself.

"It follows that there are no omitted solutions in our representation" as Dr. Dick says. We now have constrained where to look for the "rule".

Equation 1.7:

P(x with arrow on top, t) = Greek letter psi with arrow on top and a cross beside it (x with arrow on top, t) dot (times?) Greek letter psi with arrow on top (x with arrow on top, t) dv

"The algorithm represented by Greek letter psi with arrow on top and a crossed beside it, Greek letter psi with arrow on top " may always be represented as a probability density."

"where dv is a differential volume in the space of x with an arrow on top"

Dr. D. wants to remove constraints imposed by definition.

G arrow on top (x arow on top, t) is general algorithm to transform a set of numbers (represented by arrow on top).

I think I get it.

More or less.

-dolphin