"mat" <mats_trash at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43525ce3.0304130628.322d53dd at posting.google.com...
| If its all so obvious and simple Ken, show us the mathematics -
| us how you convert the hodgkin-huxley formalism into your theory.
| explicit about what you mean using equations/formulae rather than
| just abstract prose which even you must admit seems to be
Gladly. In-person, before fair witnesses of my choice.
I could do it here, but no one would comprehend [well, some would,
but, interpolating with respect to what's already transpired, the
ones who comprehend will just 'borrow' it, leaving me as I stand, and
withholding the understanding from those who are Ravaged be-cause the
understanding is being withheld from them].
The other thing is that I've developed some 'new' Maths [I've been
deep into the nervous system for 30 years, after all], which I'm sure
any Mathematician can deal with - but my Maths 'language' is
non-standard, and my experience has been that 'no one' would be able
to follow it without, first, giving themselves over to 'complaining'
about it's 'non-standardness'.
In-person, I can translate all of it into vector diagrams that
communicate universally. In-person, I can animate the vector
It's why in-person is necessary [that, and, through the fair
witnesses, to assure that it's stuff actually makes it to the
So, Mat [=ANYONE=], set up the opportunity. My travel expenses, room
and board will have to be funded, including a small
after-the-presentation try-to-stay-alive 'kitty' [I can't dry-up
financially in the midst of giving such a presentation] - I'm ;broke'
[but not Broken :-]
K. P. Collins