There's a lot inherent in your post, but there's nothing inherent in
it that leads me to reject the position inherent in my prior reply.
"mat" <mats_trash at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43525ce3.0304151608.60c873df at posting.google.com...
| You've avoided my main question:
I just stated my position.
| if this thing you have is so big you should
| trying to share it at all costs wherever, no
| matter what happens to you -
I'll use my oen brain to arive at decisions with respect to what it
is that I "must" do, 'thank you very much'. All things considered,
from the perspective in which I work, the Hodgkin-Huxley equation is
not "so big" - I've never worked with it before the other night/ I
looked at it, saw that it could be restated in terms of "amps", and,
therefore, knew that I could transform it sans-'time'. That was the
entirety of the position I posted.
| including therefore the requests of posters
| to this forum for clarification in mathematics
| of what you talk.
If it were as you say, then I might as well toss my own brain into
the nearest waste receptical, 'cause, who needs a brain if one allows
one's decisions to be made for one by others?
| If you can convince me I'll believe you -
I don't care to convince you. We went our separate ways long ago. My
perception is that you are operating in accord with a 'hidden
agenda', because the =only= thing you've ever done, in interaction
with me, is 'trash' me. Why should I want you to "believe" me if all
you've ever done is 'trach' me? :-]
Why throw good effort after bad?
| what I won't take as a premise is that you have
| to explain in person becuase its too difficult
| otherwise - that just shows lack of ability on your
| part.
Now, wouldn't it be a lot more 'fun' to be able to demonstrate your
'position' in-person? :-]
| I understand relativity without Einstein having
| explained it to me personally.
Einstein was allowed to Publish his work. I have not been allowed to
Publish my work.
| In fact, if this theory is so marvellous and
| important what happens to you is the
| least of worries surely?
There's where you're 'barking up the wrong tree'. The Hodgkin-Huxley
equation, which is the topic under discussion in this thread, is not
"this theory", which is NDT, and which I have, and will continue
while I can, do everything I can to assist folks understanding of -
toward that end, I've been discussing its Maths all along.
| So quit whining, most people in the world
| have a worse deal than you and they don't
| have the money to waste it posting on the
| usenet.
If you are talking about Hodgkin-Huxley, I reiterate that I gave all
that's necessary in my first reply.
If you're talking about NDT, and cannot see that I've been discussing
it's Maths all along, then you're 'excused'.
K. P. Collins
