ahmet

to begin with,I would thank to you for your post and while I am not sufficiently sure for other branches of science (maybe in physcis) , the keyword given in bold is wrong in mathematics. And I will try to provide the exact description of that keyword. what does "ideal" mean in mathematics? Let E be a ring, and F be another ring with the condition of F< E , if; i)for every x ∈ E and for every y ∈ F x.y ∈ F and ii) for every k ,t ∈ F k-t ∈ F. then F is called as "ideal" of E. the most simple example is presumably this one: Odd numbers (T) and Even numbers (C) (sets) are each subsets of Z But C subset is specifically satsfies the given conditions above. Thus C is an ideal of Z (Z shows integer numbers (set))

thank you very much for your share. I see some specific terms (or keywords) in this post. Could you share some sources please that would provide comprehensive/detailed explanations? A specific preference: I need examples in use. The graphs and their sensitivity is highly important for me (We tried to express that such contexts/points would be very important to us (find the therad relevant to R program) or more succintly, the reality of graph (its appearance) is highly important. And one more reminding: the more example provided in the source,the more it is valuable for me. ....

e.g. defining them by specific (but no more than) several criteria. for instance can we say that if we have several specific points and that implied function is passing over these points, then that would be just one specific function. Or are there such specified functions? Thanks

yes, this is right. Unfortunately sometimes it is probable for me or maybe someone like me as a specialised one in the area to make very simple failures. in fact, yes here [math] \pi [/math] is an irrational number.

hello, I wonder whether it was natural or artificial also,the reason why someone think about some people or some thing was strange (?)

hi, this is presumably different than my prediction but I shall ask though. are you asking about IPSP and EPSP? as I remember summation was a different subject or I might have confused. I think that tetanus might be also different in comparison all of these. because in tetanus , when I pay attention to description of the illness, the contractile case is (presumably) continuous. Thus action potentials are also continuous. according to my knowledge an action potential definitely exists or does not exist. But not between these two probabilities.(I mean its existence was certain) on the other hand yes summation is also a case, but how,I do not remember very well

e.g.: [math] \pi = \frac{22}{7} [/math] (only 4 operation is allowed)

hi, I was working and I have almost always drunk water regularly in my room (I use an open tip cerafe for this but generally drink much water as doctors recommend) in the past for a long time I could not realise a detail but one day I was again drinking water, I directly tried to drink water from that cerafe and realised that something was moving over the surface of water. I realised or still suppose so , that it was one of flies (larva). I presume they release their eggs,(spawning) (go) through inside of water. but I wonder how the mother flies could understand where my cerafe is? how can they do that? thanks.

this question is important in fact. And to me,it shows some realities. Here ,in turkey there are many professors who have many scientific publications or known so, but do not have any invention. an another reply maybe like this: Science is not a legacy for any specific community or nation or anyone and not inherited. simply, someone find or invent but other ones or that une uses it or takes the efficacies of science.

to me, none of those expressions/words are same with "door". but with one notification: I am not native english. within this, I would also remind you that british english and usa and canadian english also australian english are different (but british is really different, they almost nowhere use "t" in words (e.g. they do not say "get" ,they use "ge!" instead. for instance they do not say "I have got wet" ,they say "I 'v go we!" (assuming that there was a "t" but not being read, only exclamational tongue is used)

this style of writing,I felt myself like reading an abstract of article. should I reply to the topic, while The thing (now I will say) I do is a common manner that almost everyone does,I think it is not a unique way. "generally assisstance from people that we knew them and samely those people who had experience in that specific subject is requested "

definitely right! but at the same time, I was thinking this one: if we know the cause ,then we might solve problem,too. as far as I know, dopamine is responsible of course for some disease ,specifically for shizophrenia. Nonetheless, again according to my knowledge (as I tried to mention/imply in a nother thread) there are some shizophrenic patients but do not have hallucination. ) of course,I am not a medical doctor (I had learned some (basic) medicine but..) and presumably or with very high potentiality i am failing with my logic approach (if we know the cause/reason,then we could ..because I did think much directly so the idea might not provide solution) ,while at one side, good schizophrenic patients exist, (or I do not know exactly where this idea comes from, maybe I read it from somewhere) psychiatrists cannot say that they could clear all of patients' hallucination up.) one job assigned to me and I need to go by now. Thank to all participants to ensure me learn a point even if it seems simple. Good evening.

that link,was embeded to the text so I have not realised that,sorry. reading the article, but probably you know that (this is a common case in mathematics and is rule) examplifying is not a proof of any proposition/theorem (unless it is an example that clearly refutes the proposition/theorem) I meant not all of bodies have same immune system and not all of them reflecting everything. there will of course be a limit but not 80 hours. no. I do not do that. But not even that, I was just thinking examplfying or giving too much embodiment to the ideas/propositions or to the issue might affect someone (other people,reading here) so,...

I think I have found similar article , or this article mentions same experiment reading: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-humans-stay/#:~:text=The easy experimental answer to,hours (about 11 days). yes,the surname of that researcher was Gardner. I remember it. but this article presumably states that Gardner was dyad. maybe I do not remember clearly

a comment: I asked the core particle of question to one of my old hodja's (professor) and she confirmed the information but did not specify any source. (she confirmed that graded potential could not cause "consciousness/perception" (but I do not remember which one consciousness or perception. ) maybe it is better to revise the question as in: "can graded potentials ensure anyone perceive anything" OR " are action potentials mandatory to perceive anything?

This should be incorrect or cannot be generalised. I am sure that I had read a paper and there was specific experiment and observation.I of course do not remember the whole of paper, but one result was saying that the time for that (max. time to be able to remain "awake") was changing from one by another one.but surely I also remember that that author was stating that he had an experiment on himself/herself and could remain awake 7 days,which is definitely not equal to 80 hours.once again I would point out that I do not ask any medical advice or clinical methods to try on anyone. (Thus,I request you to concentrate on the question and be abstract as much as possible.)Thanks for your understandings.

maybe this responds the question: atoms> compounds > amino acids > nucleotids > proteins > cells > tissues> organs & systems > organism>life

well, I am not asking here medical advice or any type of clinical applications to try on aynone. I just ask the questions I wonder. but I feel myself a bit surprised now.

really,interesting. I give the potentiality to be not same for these situations: but again I am asking. why while we can obtain (artificial) hallucinations, we can't clear it up? I was thinking that dopamine was not just one responsible thing of hallucination. But maybe I am failing.

first, not all of patients that have had same "disease" are same. for instance, you can find some schizophrenic patients that have more qualified life and also achievements than even normal/natural people. also, there are some types of patients that are really dangerous.But I think or the doctors I know reporting that there would be no correlation between diseases and events/achievements (of the those patients have relevant ilnesses) but one detail might make everything confused, psychiatrists here saying "there are many undetected patients among the folks"

I remember one of my doctor friend (he was hardworking ,so probably a good doctor) was saying, "ahmet, do you know ,any psychiatrist can ensure you to see hallucination via giving you a drug." I wonder here whether hallucination can occur artificially by taking drugs,is this really possible?? (I mean only "normal/natural" persons and all of them (do not have any psychiatric or any else illness in the past) under assumption) ....

I consider a plan ,moving to india for a while for next summer. I hope or think that I would have sufficient time and money. because I am a teacher. but interestingly the corporations that I see their ads on such a popular musics videos have no webpages. I cannot reach them. these are such samples: 1) elsen pro production 2) geet any idea?

I was almost sure that this man would change his status (increasing) because I had seen his desire at his first music video at "ya lili , ya lila" .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0SdcZLLo8 I can't understand or even spell well this arabic .. -but mid / low quality - high/mid quality,I give 8 points of 10. maybe it bwould be good to visit india instead romania. cheaper and same or better quality. but I do not know whether the musics appearing above produced in india.