ahmet

theorem 1) when <H,+,.> is a circle. a,b ϵ H-{0H} , if a.b=0H ,then a,b are called zero division of H circle. if tere is no such elements ,then H is called as it has had no this property. theorem 2:) H is a circle, and ∀ x,y,z ϵ H , for ∃ x≠ 0H ,if this; , x.y=x.z <=> y=z condition is satisfied then ,we can conclude that simplification exists in H. theorem 3) if H is a circle, to be able to apply simplification , theorem 1 is sufficient and required (<=>). thus, you cannot write the simplification in that way because of theorem 1 ,theorem 2 and theorem 3 (check please theorem 2).

this is wrong as I know. because of some rules in algebra (general algebra) in fact you tried to write 0+0= 0(1+1)= 0 .2 if we would simplify both parts then we would find that (0=2) or equivalently 0*0=0 0*0=0+0 0*0=0(1+1) simplify 0 at both parts. then 0=2 which is wrong. you cannot do this , because of the rules in algebra. (that mentioned rule/property is (presumably) this one: for all elemnts in R,Q,Z that are not equal to zero (other than zero), the multiplication of two elements will never be zero) that mathematically said ∀ x,y ϵ R or Q or Z and x≠0 ,y≠0 --> x.y≠0

no. but as it said, I think that this subject extends to "belief" rather than being biological subject. but to me, as both in physical direction and biological, I do not think that something can be happened two times in the same form in general thanks for clarification/explanation. I think that the destruction of all the things is possible. (here, including atoms,molecules,too)

no. any article that proves that sentences exactly with the suitable response in our real life. maybe like this : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4106628/

yeah,yes I did mean so. sorry for missing detail. but again .. not all of them will have tendency. (maybe there might be a scientific research about this?) although,I have no expertise in this area,I know that not all of them are typical. there are some content that might be relevant to this issue for instance some keywords like GABA ,glutamate, dopamine,etc (I am unable to dominate all the content but..). I also can mean that some sympoms are interferrable ,but not all of symptoms ,exactly and of course.

presumably, you forgot to mention only some of that patients (not all of them are so) or otherwise,I can be sure that you are not psychiatrist/a medical doctor who is specialized in psychiatry

hahaha yes, sometimes happens to me too. I say; it is possible. but if you are asking the reality: I think now, no one can know the future via dreams when they are asleep, except some very specific people. but this issue will probably extend or have a relevance with a belief.

to someones, this already happens. but other ones do not accept it. This means ,it depends on whose sleep and whose comment. generally the people who are not knowledgeable do not take attention. could you specify which type of information you would like us to provide? or which type of information you are looking for?

can we say that the bold curve shows the hearable treshold at the same time? for instance the sound specigically in these intervals are not hearable by human's ear. between 0-40 dB and between 0-50 hertz. after 10.000 hertz and between 0-18 hertz. and could someone provide more contexts about hearable sounds (diagrams,graphs with numeric parameters would be great)? thanks

GUYTON is being referenced for phsiology (but more ,as I know for neurophysiology and biophysics. )

thank you for your suitable reply. lets see what I have been doing. (but for the quotation I won't use the original tags ,I shall use [/ instead [ and /] to help you better understand what I have been doing. for instance assume please I am quoting on this text. then I do [/quote/] for instance assume please I am quoting on this text [/quote/] and where is my failure? it includes my own comment ,too ,into the quotation. I think I do this. oh, okkkkk!!! I newly realised haha when I pass over the text the option appears ,presumably it has been resolved! I am feeling myself way more carismatic than before pahah

the things you are able to do are that : 1) you could enroll biophysics or physiology (MSc) at medical science institutions. (but I do not recommend this in general if you are not so much eager and ...something more (more talents required because this way is a bit containing some significant risks )) 2) you could read articles/thesis in medical science. it either cases, your opportunities will be limited. according to modern guidance/educational system you will select all of your options/preferences by your own. I was also mathematician , but do not prefer to describe myself as a mathematician anymore. TIPS THAT I CAN SHOW YOU (based on my experiences): 1) you might try to change your work style. (remember, you have been working by writing almost everything you hear and you say but as of now,...) 2) you might consider to learn something else (that contains applications) rather than reading useless theoretic papers 3) you might need to stop your sentences starting with "if ..." 4) you should not leave the reality / real life. 5) you may need to be patient.

a complaint: I am commonly using quotation by etiquette , but this shows my own comment inside the quotation. what an annoying thing

1.what do you mean by "duality" here?

why not? but what ...?( I think you did not conclude the setence with a meaningful/obvious result) if you implied an action like given in this sentence: "might atoms and molecules also be destroyed (i.e. died (but they already do not live ))" then , why not?(if you implied destruction,ok.) (but with one notation: I think this will potentially fall outside the scope of this forum or will potentially be accepted so) again this seems that it is more relevant to "belief" ,thus you need some readings in the area of arts and human sciences or social sciences. I recommend that you scan articles in the area of arts and human sciences & social sciences. mm, do seeds live? viruses, and ..prions (maybe I did not write this correctly)

mmm,I deeply respect that. because my chemistry knowledge is (I think) worse even than physics with my apologies,I could not answer the thread well.

ok. I presume you might find something here about aluminum foil here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/aluminum-foil but only alimunium as far as I know , it is one of (presumably the english equivalent terminology for it is: ) "prime metal" what does it mean? : this is a class as I know in periodic table. others are "Zn,Pb,Cr" all these are also prime metals (maybe I confuse this with half metalic metals,not sure). their properties have both metalic and ametalic. a notation: my physical/chemistry knowledge might be insufficient,therefore please consult scientific context more than my comment under this thread. general information in fact,all elements each has its unique atomic number and this determines its place on periodic table. personal opinion I think,you can find some stronger metals than aluminum

if you are trying to discuss scientific contexts,then WELCOME.. if you are trying to take some medical advice and/or medical helps from us as "us" means here we may include medical scientists ,too; then sorry we cannot help about it. in such cases I recommend you to see your doctor. regards

first, the perception and consciousness are different presumably. (But I am not sure really) hearing,smellinga and tasting are all different ...but as far as I know hearing is being occured almost wholly different. because in normal action (except cardiac system (check please the relevant context ** funny current)) Na-K is working but again as far as I know ,this happens in hearing system conversely to whole of body (except cardiac system**funny current) there are spcific receptors for each

could you provide more context please, among my notations I can find "hyperplanes" for you but not exactly hyperdimensions. however,I recommend you not to leave from reality whenever you work.

and you give yourself a reasonable explanation but do not give the same opportunity to other people. What a selfish manner anyway, I am very busy with more important things to do,and do not consider to reply further.

these are already known.(because you are mentioning very basic subsubjecs but I am not sure that that man knows all these instructions (in maths) meanwhile,I think I can add some more (like ,separable spaces, first class spaces and 2nd class spaces, Lebesgue integral space) ....

as it said, my hodja means someone who was "hodja" from my BSc.(not my friend exactly) however, I am about to accept/assume that do not understand / differentiate some terminoogy in matematics. because I did not use "continuous everywhere" ,where is that? ,I used "continuous almost everywhere". in anyway, I might consider studying a bit physics more. because I have not understood what swansont meant very well and / or what the criteria were ,for a description to be accepted as "physical" ...

if I understand you correctly , you... presumably want something that allow us to make any physical experiment or have a consciousness by our 5 sense organs. if so, or something like this. Then yes. assume please there are two flat mirrors each are in the opposing each other. (but think two cases) (to me,you could find the similar contexts in either examples among the discussion) 1) the mirrors are two circle mirrors and here our radius is infinity. 2) in this second case. assume please the the mirror are in rectangular shape. then two subcases exists. 2a) assume please the angle between these two flat mirror is 180 degree. 2b) assume please you are playing/changing with angle (only between -10,+10) what will you see? this is the tunnel and the frame. the inside of that rectangular frame is infinitive , but the count of frames are also infinitive. you see the frames each.then it has been experimentally measured and mathematically can be formulated. for mathematical appearance and formulization give a variation to the distance between each consecutive frame. (you see them) and our function is dst(x) = {x, x= distance between each consecutive two frames} then Kpl(t)= {t,t= count of domain set of dst(x) function} .....

that functional expression is equivalent expression of f(x)= | sgn(x) | ,x is the element of R. I understand. I was more trying to judge the claim that swansont had given. What does "physical" mean ? (for an expression) (what is the criterion?)