Ken S. Tucker
08-21-2005, 05:50 PM
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1124602476.011405.151260@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > Using an Infinite number of derivatives,
> >
> > wrt "x" applied to any function results in the factors,
> > (apart from 0),
> >
> > 1) de^x = e^x , ((stable))
> >
> > (e = expotential)
> >
> > AND/OR
> >
> > 2) d^4 sin x = sin x, ((cyclic))
> >
> > IMO, physically (1) is the g-field and (2) is the EMR bath
> > we inhabit within light, TV, cell phones...
>
> You have been mixing your medication with alcohol again.
> I told you - don't do that.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dirk, wish it was that simple, the logic I
re-published was done in the 70's.
Apparently Mr. Tucker disagreed and an
experiment was required. Sofar we'll need
to await an appraisal of the data.
Regretably, Tucker might be correct.
((means I will go out of retirement)).
Ken S. Tucker
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1124602476.011405.151260@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > Using an Infinite number of derivatives,
> >
> > wrt "x" applied to any function results in the factors,
> > (apart from 0),
> >
> > 1) de^x = e^x , ((stable))
> >
> > (e = expotential)
> >
> > AND/OR
> >
> > 2) d^4 sin x = sin x, ((cyclic))
> >
> > IMO, physically (1) is the g-field and (2) is the EMR bath
> > we inhabit within light, TV, cell phones...
>
> You have been mixing your medication with alcohol again.
> I told you - don't do that.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dirk, wish it was that simple, the logic I
re-published was done in the 70's.
Apparently Mr. Tucker disagreed and an
experiment was required. Sofar we'll need
to await an appraisal of the data.
Regretably, Tucker might be correct.
((means I will go out of retirement)).
Ken S. Tucker