Dear Colleagues, it appears that the basic mechanism of the regulation at work in genetics has been found and the logic can be explained and made quite understandable - even for those who believe themselves to be challenged in numerical approaches.
There is Big Money in this, as the explanation allows predicting the role and function of genes. EU has set aside some extreme amounts of money (several hundreds of millions of Euros) under some restrictions. The most important of the restrictions is that there must be involved at least 3, but preferably 5-8 - distinct Member States' institutions in order to qualify for the project subsidy. I can mobilise some Austrian and Hungarian faces but it would help if there were more signatures and stamps on the formulars. So, if any of you can fill out forms and jump on a band-wagon, this is the time. In order to alleviate your fears that this is another spam coming from a bank in Nigeria promising you great richesses if only you pay up front some fees, I would like to outline the project proposal: the most important point is to realise why we were not able to open this puzzle so long. This was because we were instructed at school to disregard the differences between 2+2 and 1+3. The number and position of cuts is in reality as important as the number of continuities between the cuts. We use a custom-built Addition Table which orders the additions according to the number and position of the cuts as well as according to the properties of the continuities. It turns out that adding and removing cuts at liberty shows their function in ordering the multitude of additions. The aspects of additions - which type and number of cuts we use as ordering principles - impose specific orders on the multitude of additions. When changing the importance and relevance of the aspects which order the collection of alternatives of being fused or split we see reordering costs. Changes among principles of order bring forth differing transaction costs. We introduce a logical unit of "transaction cost" which comes from reordering from order A into order B. We find the unit extent of transaction cost and use this unit to express every other unit with. Then, extent, spatial place and properties become but different appearances of the basic unit "transaction cost of reordering". It turns out that sequenced and commutative - two and three-dimensional collections - are but differing aspects of one and the same wiggly-woggly accounting balance and that concepts of static order are but a special case. I am happy to send you a 10-pages summary of the ideas. Do drop me a few lines if you are interested. Best wishes Karl
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
