studiot

Yes I fully understand that, but you can't just slap on an extra strand (if 3 then why not 4, 5......?) without consequences. I'm sorry to report that chemical bonding theory is not yet sufficiently advanced to predict those consequences. Even with your solid model colour diagrams that theory is far behind molecular orbital theory, which itself is still in its infancy. In atomic terms we can only solve the Wave equation for Hydrogen. So what we do for more complicated atoms is to use the Hydrogen solution orbital structure and try to modify it for more complicated atoms. This works reasonable well for the lightest elements ( s and p orbitals) but starts to go awry when d, f etc orbital are brought into play and becomes quite unmanageable for the most complicated atoms. For bonding the first attempts were to combine the modified hydrogen orbitals for the bonding atoms. This is called the Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals method (LCAO). Subsequently the idea was to define orbitals for the whole molecule rather than for the participating atoms. These are called molecular orbitals and again they work well for simple molecules and have been called sigma and pi bonds. However I am not aware of any extension to superlarge molecules such as RNA etc. This follows the same pattern as for atomic orbitals but lagging by half a century. Perhaps one day Chemists will be able to calculate these things.

Vibroacoustics sites are reporting a University of Turin study that plant increase pollen production in response to the buszzing of bees. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francesca-Barbero-2 https://www.hfsp.org/node/74710

What do you think the H bonds do in the DNA molecule? So what would be the function of the H bonds in your arrangement ?

Glad you found this useful and could cope with the English. Looking now at your coloured blobs, there are conventions on this and a very good writeup in the classic book 'Biochemistry' originally by Stryer, as in my 1995 edition. The book has now reached its 9th edition and aquired some coauthors, but still published by Freeman. It is a massive book and therfore very costly, although older editions can be had cheaply. Here are a couple of pages explaining £D space models and going on to explain bonding as relevant to Biochemistry and life. I have starred a short sentence which explains why simpler models are most often used - namely that space filling blobs though more realistic can obscure the view of the back of the molecule. Sorry for the scannimg, but even my 4th ed is over 1000 pages long it is a big book.

This is so much better. OK so some further explanation. Valency refers to the number of chemical bonds that can be formed a single atom or single ion or group of atoms/ions acting as a single unit. An example group os the ammonium ion [NH4]+, which is a monovalent cation. Note the nitrogen is now quadrivalent within the ion. Chemical bonds cannot be pulled apart mechanically Furthermore they bestow or lead to the combined molecule or ion have new chemical properties not enjoyed by the parent atoms/ions. Chemical bonds have nearly fixed lengths, energies and configuration in space. Hydrogen bonds vary in whether or not they form and where they form. It was originally thought that they were weaker than chemical bonds because they can be pulled apart mechanically, but there are examples of very strong hydrogen bonds.. However they do not confer additional chemical properties on H bonded species. They also vary in length. However they do modify the physicsl properties of the material they form in. For example in liquid water H bonds are constantly forming and breaking as the water molecules move around, leading to the famous 'anomalous' physical behaviour of water. As a result H bonds do not count in the valency considerations. They are very important in some (large) bio molecules, especially those such as you are considering with close wound structures. They are special because they occur on account of casual proximity. Here is a way to think about it. A true chemical bond is like what we call a popper or press stud in clothing. They cllck and stay together and hold the parts of the fabric to form one garment. (Obviously you can pull poppers apart) A hydrogen bond , on the other hand is like velcro. Not positive location and click like a popper, but interlocking hooks that can be more easily pulled apart and offerd up in different ways to form various arrangement. Note this is not a perfect analogy but it may well help understand the difference. For your purposes these Pharmacy books may help

No. Thank you for wasting my time. Good Night.

The valency of an atom is not set by what is connected to it but is intrinsic to each element. Some elements exhibit more than one valency in certain circumstances. For example nitrogen is trivalent, or has a valency of 3. Following your prescription would suggest that the nitrogen molecule, which has two atoms of nitrogen connected together, is monovalent or has a valency of one. In fact there are three bonds between the nitrogens in the molecule so satisfying the valency requirement of 3 for each by means of a triple bond. I suggest that you try this out on simple molecules before going to very complex ones.

That is at best a very very poor description of valency, but more realistically incorrect.

So you don't understand valency. So why don't you just ask ?

I recommend you take a look at this thread when thinking about machines or algorithms that are designed to always yield a result. https://scienceforums.net/topic/135965-not-entirely-satisfactory-answers-from-ai/?_fromLogin=1 When I mentioned unusual number systems, I was thinking about floor numbering in lifts (or elevators) and street house numbers that omit the number 13 or have an extra house added later. The Bard was right with the line There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

Years ago there was much counselling about instruments with electronic numeric readouts, from blood pressure machines to navigation equipment to calculators etc. Basically any device or algorithm designed to return an answer will always do that, however ridiculous. It of course physically unable to do anything else. So humans were advised to use experience an be on their guard against false output - either too precise or just ridiculous.

So did I but I wanted to check for the reasons below, which I'm sure you appreciate. If you don't understand them or want to say anything about them why did you post them? A Do you know what a hydrogen bon is and why it is not part of valency calculations ? B & C Yes if you are using the conventions that carbons are not explicitly labelled. However that does not explain why site B is trivalent and site C is quadrivalent. D on nitrogen is allegedly divalent and the other allegedly trivalent and connected to another allegedly trivalent carbon. As noted by exchemist, a load of gobbledegook.

Really ? You don't seem to have addressed my last comment Perhaps you will address this one. You have completely failed to distinguish between Work and Power, thus making your statements dimensionally inconsistent.

I expect to be away most of this weekend so don't rush. Iused the term 'connected path', which is common in maths and I think desxribes your meaning. Using this also gives the opportunity to distinguish singly connected; doubly connected: triply connected etc.

I asked you to explain the valency, not tell me that it is 'OK'. Specifically at these points indicated in the diagram you posted. A What is type of bond does the broken line represent ? B What is located at the triple junction ? C Again what is located at the triple junction ? D How are these nitrogens trivalent ? Please use the quote function in future when responding to queries.

I owe you an apology. As an applied mathematician I don't usually worry about matters at the base of mathematics and as I have already pointed out, this is really the only area of maths where one can hold an 'opinion'. However maths is not a belief system - I leave that to religious folks. I have just remembered that there is a branch of maths called 'constructive mathematics'. Your prefacing it with 'Real' threw me so I welcome the change to Necessary (though by its own tenets youhave to proove the use of the word) Depending upon where you are in the world you may not have come across this reference and source. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-constructive/ My take on constructive mathematics is that it is sometimes at odds with physical reality and I prefer a base closer to the system noted in the extract about groups that I posted, with definitions and undefinitions. So as a system it is missing out on some matters. For instance it is possible to define a number system that does not agree with addition or some of the other basics of peano arithmetic, yet is used everyday all over the world. Interestingly this tems from religious superstition. There is also an other entirely different approach in logic to deal with the problem of when and how it is appropriate to apply 'the law of the excluded middle'. Once such approach is by defining 'orders' of logic so that logic using this law is called first order logic and logic excluding it is called second order and so on. I have already alluded to this with tristate and don't care logic which appears in the physical world. I also wish that this third way or option appeared on ballot papers so that I could vote for 'none of these'. This issue is also a failing of multple choice questionaires, exams and the like and particularly of computer based forms.

I think the biggest difference between Science and Religion is that religion has no mechanism for advancement. Science and religion started seriously diverging about 500 years ago. If I look only at the last hundred years It is interesting to to compare how many times Science has sought out evidence and revised things to general benefit, with Religion that has remained mired in thoughts form over a thousand years previously. I do acknowledge that there have been some atempts to update by breakaway religious sects but they are in the definite minority.

Did not not agree with my shortform history of mathematics over the last 5000 to 7000 years ? Like all sciences, maths is a developing subject, with an accelerating pace of development as history proceeds. This development implies that there is no 'core' that will always carry forward or be relevent. In my own time and experience I started writing on slates with chalk, then progressed to paper and pencil, then to using logarithms and tables for calculations, then to slide rules and nomograms, then to calculators, then to primitive computers (which have grown more capable with time) . So in that short time much 'core' learning has become redundant. So despite being offered a mathematical reference to your own holy book, that you ignored, you continue to promote religeous mystical woo.

I'm glad to see you are now proposing more than one time(like) dimension in your update. The main purpose of my last post was to demonstrate that to support your hypothesis there has to be more than one time dimension. Because our universe can only ever be a part of this 'multiverse'. I see you are defining linear as a connected path. In some ways this is unfortunate as linear has a different specific meaning in both Maths and Physics. As a result of the two above observations, you need to resolve the second point in my previous post, that of non uniqueness. You have yet to do that. You should also find a way to distinguish between the stage or coordinate system of dimensional axes for you manifold and the activity itself. It is interesting to note your introductions of shadows. I often use the lack of these and one reason for the choice of 3 spatial dimensions and time rather than some other numbers. There are other reasons such as 3D is closed under spatial rotations, but neither 2D nor 4D are.

Additionally to swanson't comment, Planck's force is a unit of measure not a type of force.

Can you explain how your first diagram follows the normal rules of valency ?

I wanted to have an opinion of your understanding of a sequence of core concepts for your topic of most basic operation and activity in (philosophical) mathematics and based on the answer see how I determine what maths is for human beings in society as aspect. I read the part about science and maths proof, and it is helpful about confirming what proof is, and thought that math proofs don't require much regarding difficulty of structure, and it's how it is using words that keep the proof held. I haven't got a good answer for the purpose of math at the time. I unfortunately do not think we could give a core place for math in all society since there's a lot to still discover and better comprehend about society and what we expect mentally. There's a lot to consider in world implications that need math and your answer is great for current knowledge and the capabilities humans use and experiment until this time. I'm confirming that math can be done using minimal things and that it can function in general. I'm using the example of Von Neumann as well as minimal instructions since this would be closer to that basic necessary thing. I understand in principle with basic combined computer / program all math more or less is slow and sure. I'm trying to confirm the basic necessities for the philosophy of mathematics with example, and to have confirmation with it. Maybe there's another example more simplistic that can illustrate the core. I asked you two specific questions in reply to your earlier comments, evidenced by the question marks at their end in the above quote. Thank you for any apology but how is any of your surrounding text an answer to either question ?

No, not in the least bit. In fact, unlike a dumb Von Neuman machine that can only obey Turing and Churches' theorems and being human I feel quite affronted that you have not mentioned a single word that I recently posted. Back along you also mentioned semantics - the Science of Meaning. Do you understand that such a machine cannot even distinguish between a line of data and a line of instructions) ? So how can it be expected to understand the meaning of such lines of cocde ? You keep wittering on about 1 and 0. Have you ever heard of Tristate logic or Don't care states in K-maps ? Do either of these represent a 1 or a 0 or something else entirely ?

Well I asked because I don't think you have the right of it.

Can you demonstrate the correctness of these statements in elctrical circuit theory ? Cells are generators, they do not pass current or voltage, they generate it. If you need a bypass then why do you need that bypass to be a diode ?