Hi Matt. I enjoyed reading your discussion
except for one thing :-]
"Matt Jones" <jonesmat at physiology.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:b86268d4.0402100852.3bf4e329 at posting.google.com...
> Xiaoshen Li <xli6 at gmu.edu> wrote in message
news:<c08fgr$pm9 at portal.gmu.edu>...
> > Hi,
> > I have an electrophysiology question.
> > [...]
>> Think of Ohm's Law:
>> V = iR
> EPSC (excitatory postsynaptic CURRENT (not
> "conductance", as another poster said)).
OK, show me a "current" in the absence of
In nervous systems, "current" is embodied
in ion's motions - "conductances".
Forgive me, please, it seems that, these 'days'
I'm thrust-into work that entails eliminating
redundant usage in symbolic representations.
It's not "trivial". All the extra stuff that's heaped-
up in the symbolics 'blinds' folks to what's act-
ually going-in in-there.
Please Forgive me. I'm not 'jumping' =you=.
I'm working to Fix what needs Fixing in the books.
Cheers, Matt, ken [k. p. collins]