rge number of electrons).
So the gravitational measurements will produce something like an X-ray
picture of a wavefunction, without destroying it. I find this queer, but
here I quit for the night, waiting for any other opinions on this issue.
George K.
--
You received this message because you are
tic."
>
We also need some additional assumption, For Gleason, it was
"non-contextuality of measurements". I have seen others.
I think that it is enough to assume "equal measures imply equal
probabilities", but I do not remember seeing this claim before. (I am
ov's axioms or their
> logical equivalent. The information interpretation is QBism.
>
Formal properties are not enough to explain probabilities as a guide to
life.
George K.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To
are well grounded on the errors in the construction of the
box.
(If, instead of errors of construction, you prefer to deal with errors of
measurement, we shall be mired by the controversy in the foundation of
statistics. Therefore I suggest that we just consider construction.)
George K.
--
You r
ld be
discussed in a separate conversation -- appealing to your "logical and
mathematical skills", as you say.
George K.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop rece
ve expressed objection to the first assumption,
but this is only because some work is needed in order to combine "there are
no probabilities" with "there are probabilities in some sense", else one is
vague to the point of being ridiculous. One needs to specify "in what
s
uble-slit interference experiment: Caroll's idea implies that field
(outside the box) would be as if generated by the electron-as wave, without
decoherence. I suggest that we look at the consequences of this conclusion,
to assess the plausibility of the idea.
George K.
--
You received thi
e must swallow the pill of no-probability
for single outcomes, and build a decision theory on that. (Yes, we can!)
>From QM we obtain only the Born Rule for large enough samples.
George K.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" g
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:13:43 PM UTC+3 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 6:04 PM George Kahrimanis
> wrote:
>
>
>> > Strictly speaking, zero information implies "undefined probability",
>
>
> Sure, but[...]
>
Sorry, but if
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:33:46 AM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 3:03 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:
>
> [...] Strictly speaking, zero information implies "undefined probability",
> or "imprecise probability between 0 and 1". The reason it
an
instinctive impulse. But for a RATIONAL decision theory this probability is
not granted, IMO.
I can give examples of a decision theory w/o probability, but they would
dilute the focus of this message.
George K.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
&
On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:54:04 AM UTC+3 Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:05 AM George Kahrimanis
> wrote:
>
>> -2- The "box" (in which Scroedinger's cat is enclosed, with the lethal
>> apparatus) contains also its "environment"
difference between non-local HV
theories, which violate relativity, and MWI, which does not.
I am writing in a hurry, because these days are hectic. I may have missed
some important postings, sorry. I would welcome any hints (with the name
and time of posting) sent to my G-mailbox: GeKahrim.
cause it has relevance to decision theory (in particular,
on whether Maximisation of Expected Utility is a rationally justified
method).
George K.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this grou
ce), if you
prefer.
I hope that these inadequacies in my exposition will not prevent you from
focusing on the "Conclusion" about the locality of splits!
George K.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
T
for saying the opposite in my previous posting.
First, a clarification.
On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:48:25 AM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
> "In George's description" means George knows...what? Does he know the
> setting of Alice's polarizer? Does he know that she got 1
n ("wavefunction") of a superobserver,
George, who only knows that, first Alice then Bob, measure entangled spins
on two pre-set axes, without him knowing the outcomes. Instead of the
superobserver, you may think of an impersonal quantum description of the
whole system, but I wonder what does it
ing, if and when they mature.
George K.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussi
>
I guess you refer to the theoretical possibility of the environment
occasionally failing to "decohere" the state. Here is one of the
approximations that are required in the translation from objective,
deterministic QM (without collapse) to the application of QM in the world
of experie
in the particular application). Some people may think
"po-tah-toes, pot-eight-os", but at some level of thinking *this* is the
crucial issue. In particular, a serious consequence for decision theory
results from failing to find any rationale for probability proper!
George K.
--
You recei
> point I am trying to get across.
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 3:07 AM George Kahrimanis wrote:
>
>> A realistic version of the scenario with Bob and Alice [...]
>>
>> There have always been worries about detection inefficiencies and errors
> in the t
ess we still have a record indicating that, temporarily, an
entanglement had been in effect! I remember David Deutsch showing this in a
lecture, in 1985.
George K.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe
oidable imprecision, in the polarisers not being
perfectly parallel, and in the possibility of a transcription error in the
recording and of the records themselves. So, such branches will not be
exactly unphysical, but rather of very small measure. So there are no "Bad
Pairings", strictly
olled, and so the requisite randomisation is supposedly
introduced, and we can speak of probability proper. Where is the
randomisation in a MWI? (A rhetorical question.) So, there is no
probability (strictly speaking) in a MWI. We can only identify
something-like-probability; I have posted ab
e Abstract and the first
subsection of the Introduction.
An argument for workability of QM leads to the Born Rule, for QM without
collapse and for QM with collapse
George Kahrimanis [, ...]
6 April 2022, incomplete work
ABSTRACT
Any interpretation of QM without collapse (a.k.a. a MWI) cruci
device
designed to trigger the explosive? Would he perceive /heat quantization/
as an anthropically determined phenomenon (in analogy to the
quantization of electron's orbit in our world)?
George
On 12/31/2019 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Dec 2019, at 05:02, 'Brent Meeker' via
On 12/29/2019 4:34 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
George,
Does your interpretation of Boltzmann's view on the conservation of
energy invoke any observer like Boltzmann's Brain or Wigner's Friend?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend
You know, we need all the Friends we
vious state /even in the presence of an arrow of time,/
thereby restoring its entropy to its original value. This version of the
paradox renders moot the arrow of time assumption and bypasses the
H-Theorem.
The paper includes a theoretical discussion, simulation and experimental
data.
George Levy
Thanks Bruno
On 11/11/2015 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi George,
Congratulations!
Best wishes for you and your amazing work. I am not convinced but that
might only be due to my incompetence in the field. I will make a
further look.
Bruno
On 10 Nov 2015, at 23:10, George Levy wrote
_Temperature_Gradient_in_Non-Maxwellian_Gases
Best
George
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.
the temperature gradient(s) into low entropy energy (i.e., work) and/or
low temperature matter.
George
On 11/30/2014 8:36 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
John,
Experimental results at several high-energy colliders suggest that at
some point in the big bang the universe was a quark-gluon plasma
would not flow backward. There is a lot of literature
on this topic but from the narrow point of view of a non-Maxwellian
perpetual motion machine, Loschmidt was wrong with respect to the
direction of time.
In summary: entropy can decrease but time always flows forward.
Best,
George Levy
.
Best
George Levy
On 11/27/2014 6:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
The 2nd law is like that - unlikely things generally
failing to happen - on the molecular scale
is built in, but can be circumvented by
stepping outside of, classical physics.
George Levy
On 11/24/2014 12:24 PM, George wrote:
The gas does not flow unidirectionally in the column as in a pipe.
There is no net flow. Convection involves a cyclic, mostly vertical,
movement of gas
but answering them may enlighten the
Loschmidt paradox.
George Levy
On 11/23/2014 5:38 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:28 PM, George gl...@quantics.net
mailto:gl...@quantics.net wrote:
There is no convection current even though gas near the floor is
hotter than gas near
ground is identical to the original
**
This shows that Loschmidt was wrong. A column of gas following Maxwell’s
distribution cannot spontaneously develop a temperature gradient. It
remains isothermal.
Best
George Levy
On 11/23/2014 8:39 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:48 PM
.
Best
George
On 11/22/2014 1:09 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Loschmidt's idea was that an isolated column of gas in a
gravitational field would develop a temperature gradient, warmer
at the top.
I
is to justify using the exponential distribution, obviously
without having to invoke the Second Law which is being challenged.
On 11/21/2014 11:19 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/20/2014 9:07 PM, George wrote:
Brent you are right.
Maxwell distribution is not exponential with energy. For the purpose
in temperature.
*Figure. 12.* Renormalized Fermi-Dirac distributions at ground level
(red/thick) and at elevation (blue/thin) are different. Elevation lowers
energy and temperature of gas.
Please look on the right of the pictures for the temperatures at the
ceiling and at the floor.
George Levy
. The distribution decays exponentially with higher
energies.
George
On 11/20/2014 6:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
If it were the momentum or velocity the mean would be zero, but it
wouldn't be exponential. If you just considered the speed (absolute
magnitude of velocity) in a particular direction
is whether Maxwell distribution is exponential
with _elevation_. If it is then Loschmidt falls on Maxwellian gases. If
it is not, then Loschmidt is completely vindicated for any kind of gas.
I need to think about this. Any idea?
George
On 11/20/2014 6:41 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/20/2014 6
.
This paper discusses derivation of 2^nd Law from QM.
I welcome any comment or criticism that you may have.
George Levy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
.htm
George Levy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything
energy of
the gas molecules?)
George Levy
On 1/17/2013 6:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/17/2013 7:10 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I particularly liked this statement by Baez which relates to Feynman
renomalization for QED and Crammer's Transactioanal Analysis:
Manin and Marcolli [20
lifetime.
George
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more
Hi John
Thanks for your appreciation.
John Mikes wrote:
Dear George,
I was missing more of your contributions on this list lately (years?).
Let me reflect to a few of your topics:
*Chaos.*
A decade or so ago I was named 'resident chaotician' on another list -
later changed my mind when I
and therefore, they are in their own image. There can be many different
consciousnesses, each one being in fact a whole world.
Best Regards
George
Rabbi Rabbit wrote:
Dear Jason,
My assumption is that the Name of God, according to Abraham Abulafia,
could be made of any possible combination
have to define the operations +, - x / with specific
exceptions for overflow.
The concept of BIGGEST needs to be tied with _the kind of operations you
want to apply to_ the numbers.
George
Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
You have to explain why the exception is needed in the first
you need to include the creator of the look
up table in the argument. (Inclusion can be across widely different time
periods and spacial location)
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
as resetting the universe. No more problem or paradox associated
with forgetting!
George
A. Wolf wrote:
Thanks! This is like undoing historical events. If you forget about the
fact that dinosaurs ever lived on Earth and there is an alternative
history
that led to your existence
as resetting the universe. No more problem or paradox associated
with forgetting!
George
A. Wolf wrote:
Thanks! This is like undoing historical events. If you forget about the
fact that dinosaurs ever lived on Earth and there is an alternative
history
that led to your existence
. The sum is no sum at all:
U = M_o Q_o where o = you as observer.
George
Wei Dai wrote:
Jack Mallah wrote:
They might not, but I'm sure most would; maybe not exactly that U, but a
lot closer to it.
Can you explain why you believe that?
No. In U = Sum_i M_i Q_i, you sum over
of this
problem.Your paper really did not illuminate the issue in a satisfactory
manner.
George
Jack Mallah wrote:
--- On Sun, 2/8/09, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Suppose you differentiate into N states, then on
average each has 1/N of your original measure. I
Jack Mallah wrote:
Hi George. The everything list feels just like old times, no? Which is nice
in a way but has a big drawback - I can only take so much of arguing the same
old things, and being outnumbered. And that limit is approaching fast again.
At least I think your point here
This last example illustrates how three different observers can see
three different probabilities.
George Levy
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
to say if there is
such a logic.
George
Brian Tenneson wrote:
We get Tegmark on this list occasionally. He, like you, needs to
acquaint himself more with the core concepts of THIS discussion.
In his last post to us he admitted as much.
By THIS discussion, did you mean the aspects
Hal
Ok, there is no feeling but there is motivation. There is no feeling of
motivation and there is motivation without feeling. This is totally
alien or the English language is broken.
George
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi George:
I see no feeling of anything in a Something. There is only
Hal,
Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only) motivator of
the members. In other words the members feel motivated by
incompleteness. They do have the feeling of being incomplete that
motivates their behavior. Is this correct?
George
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi George:
I see
of the Something.
which denies spirit,
and on the third hand:
the quest is an ... system induced need for a
ongoing influx of information
in which the term need goes back to supporting a spirit-based system.
George
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi George:
I use the term quest because a Something if incomplete
Hal Ruhl wrote:
This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces
[meaningful questions] applied to it.
What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces?
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
with A, then if M has access to M, it also has access to q. (This is a
form of Anthropic principle)
I am not sure if this is leading anywhere, but it's fun playing with it.
Maybe a computer program could be written to express these staqtements.
George
Bruno Marchal wrote:
George, you can do that indeed
. I guess there may be cases where multiple machines can
have access to the dame data.
Same with statement 4
George
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 22-nov.-07, à 20:50, George Levy a écrit :
Hi Bruno,
I am reopening an old thread ( more than a year old)
which I found very
Hi Bruno,
I am reopening an old thread ( more than a year old) which I found very
intriguing. It leads to some startling conclusions.
Le 05-août-06, à 02:07, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:I think that if you want to
make the first person primitive, given that neither you nor
One more question: can or should p be the observer?
George
George Levy wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I am reopening an old thread ( more than a year old) which I found
very intriguing. It leads to some startling conclusions.
Le 05-août-06, à 02:07, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:I think
/dn12891-is-mathematical-pattern-the-theory-of-everything.html
The Wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_%28mathematics%29 on E8
is also interesting.
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Sorry the nice equation formats did not make it past the server. Anyone
interested in the equations can find them at the associated wiki links.
George
Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 12:20:35PM -0700, George Levy wrote:
Russel,
We are trying to related the expansion
ve trouble relating these facts to your equation H = C + S or
maybe to the differential version dH = dC + dS. What do you think? Can
we push this further?
George
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 05:11:01PM -0700, George Levy wrote:
Could we relate the expansion of th
platonic frame of reference respectively. A common platonic frame of
reference implies that there are other platonic frames of
references.This is unthinkable... literally. Maybe I have painted
myself into a corner Yet maybe not... No one in this Universe can say...
George
Bruno Marchal
Oops: replace Newton's demon by Maxwell's demon.
George
George Levy wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Yes I am still on the list, barely trying to keep up, but I have been
very busy. Actually the ball was in my court and I was supposed to
answer to your last post to me about a year ago!!!. Generally I
instead of matter over mind), so I would very much like to see an
argument that could prove it, but in my opinion Maudlin's does not cut
it. More comments below.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi George,
Are you still there on the list?
I am really sorry to (re)discover your post just now, with a label
the capacity
for suffering, favouring pleasure rather than avoidance of pain as a
motivating factor.
A sado-masochistic world would do the trick, wouldn't it?
George :-)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-oct.-06, 21:54, George Levy a crit :
To observe a split consciousness, you need an observer
who
is also split,
?
This is simple. The time/space/substrate/level of the observer must
match the time/space/substrate/level of what he observes
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 08-oct.-06, 08:00, George Levy a crit :
Bruno,
Finally I read your filmed graph argument which I have stored in my
computer. (The original at the Iridia web site
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume3CC/3%20%202%20.pdf
is not accessible
that consciousness
does not supervene the physical. The example is just an instance of
consciousness operating across two different time intervals by mean of a
physical substrate and a physical means (recording) of connecting these
two time intervals.
George
. To understand the insertion of
Maudlin into the consciousness of The Conscious_Subroutine, you must
agree that this consciousness is independent of
time, space, substrate and level. This Maybe is the Moral of Maudlin's
Machinations...?
George
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 03-oct.-06, 21:33, George
Oops. Read: IF (Input = 27098217872180483080234850309823740127)
George
George Levy wrote:
Bruno, Stathis,
Thank you Stathis for the summary. I do have the paper now and I will
read it carefully. Based on Sathis summary I still believe that Maudlin
is fallacious. A computer program
rating in a
bootstrapping reflexive emergent manner.
Bruno is right in applying math/logic to solve the
consciousness/physical world (Mind/Body) riddle. Physics can be derived
from machine psychology.
George
Russell Standish wrote:
If I can sumarise George's summary as this:
In order to gener
e resolved by tracing how information flows
and Maudlin is certainly in the circuit, using information, just like
Maxwell's demon is affecting entropy.
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everyt
also exist (the Plenitude).
Hence he is not alone. Solipsism is dead.
George
Colin Hales wrote:
This is an extract from the full work on solipsism. It is one special
section written in the first person, for what else could a solipsist
scientist do? I'd be interested in any comments
If you're not sure that you are sane, then you must be crazy to say
"Yes Doctor."..
...yet a man could say it but not a "sane" machine.
Bruno's quest based on machine psychology runs the risk of leaving
unanswered the really big quest based on human
nanswered the really big quest based on human psychology.
George
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 21-aot-06, 07:11, Stathis Papaioannou a crit :
It seems to me that there are two main sticking points in the
discussions on
several list threads in recent weeks. One is computationalism: i
Brent Meeker wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
pointed out was an unsupported inference.
IMHO everything hinges on "I think." "I th
Brent Meeker wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
pointed out was an u
are in fact emergent
according to the Anthropic principle. The logical links (or
consistencies) exist because you are there to observe them. Just as a Rorschach test . You are making the links as you go
along.
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
especially the long ones, should be preceded by an abstract. ;-) Could you point me in
the right direction?
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group,
David Nyman wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Not at all. A bidirectional contingency is superfluous. The only
relevent contingency is: If the observed event will result in different
probabilities of survival for myself and for others observing me, then
our perceptions will be different
othesis our primary
perception of the world is first person.
Thus first person perception of the world comes about when our own
existence is contingent on our observation.
Third person perception comes about in situations when our own
existence is not continge
David Nyman wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Thus first person perception of the world comes about when our own
existence is contingent on our observation.
Hi George
I think I agree with this. It could correspond with what I'm trying to
model in terms of FP1 etc. Perhaps
1Z wrote:
George Levy wrote:
A conscious entity is also information.
I am assuming here that a conscious entity is essentially "software."
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are
d. The second one is a reflective
form probably necessary for consciousness.
The third statement taken seriously is intringing. If entity p thinks
that entity q is necessary for p's existence, then if p thinks then q
thinks. In other words all necessary condi
ntails q" reminds me vaguely of the Anthropic
principle. I am not sure what to make of this. My children think???)
George Levy
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
: a first
level would be as if your were talking to your grandmother; a second
level, talking to your kids (if they listen); a last level, talking to
your colleagues.
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
and finally with QM (MWI). As
science had progressed, the observer has acquired a greater and greater
importance. Extrapolating to the limit, I becomes central and its
existence anthropically defines (creates) the world where it resides.
George
Hi Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear George,
Could it be that Consciousness is more
related and identifiable with the "processing" of Information than with
Information itself?
I agree that consciousness is not just information. As you say,
conscious
is
important to avoid confusion.
George Levy
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group
eeds no
medium!" Marshall McLuhan got it all wrong!
:-)
George Levy
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 05-juil.-06, 20:36, George Levy a crit :
My background is more engineering and physics than
mathematics and I do share some of Norman misgivings. Some of it has
to do with terminolo
ss with (change in physical) substrate?"
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from th
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 23-juin-06, 07:29, George Levy a crit :
In Bruno's calculus what are the invariances? (Comment on Tom Caylor's
post)
Logicians, traditionally, are interested in deduction invariant with
respect of the interpretation. A typical piece
ll the implied logical meaning and/or axiomatic system: This
should cut through the Gordian Knot of the mind-body problem. We'll
have to refer to Bruno's work to flesh out this idea in a formal
fashion.
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are s
are taken into
account. Until then all data is subjective.
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
1 - 100 of 277 matches
Mail list logo
