Genady

Thank you for the clarification. Finally, a clear statement. What a relief! But what does it have to do with the relativistic formula for addition of velocities, which is the topic of discussion now?

Can you find a better reference than ? In my life, nobody ever said that and nobody ever found that.

Oh, yes, regarding the fourth person, As I said, they were Him being a famous person was not important for my examples. To avoid this confusion, I strike him off the examples and replace with Ramin Machmudzade. To summarize: You have claimed, and I gave you two counterexamples for each of these two claims: for the first claim, Robert Phelan, Vlad Asinov, for the second, Rosalie Arshak, Ramin Machmudzade. The counterexamples refute the claims.

Here is this notion: It can be an absolute unit of length in a homogeneous non-Euclidean space, but our physical space is non-homogeneous on smaller scales and might be Euclidean on larger scales, AFAIK.

Ignoring the references to "non-simultaneity", which I don't understand, my answer is: In the frame S, xA=0, tA=0, xB=10^6 km, tB=1 s. If the frame S' moves with velocity 100000 km/s relative to S, then in S', xA'=0, tA'=0, xB'=954594 km, tB'=-.118 s.

I'd rather classify those as illusions.

If I understand what you say, you are talking about two events, let's call them, event A and event B. In the frame S, the coordinates of the events are respectively: xA=0, tA=0 and xB=10^6 km, tB=1 s. I still have no idea what the question, "What is velocity of non-simultaneity?" means.

This makes it personal.

I've mentioned these three persons: Why do you call them "famous"?

I have no idea what it means.

Thank you for this update. He also has a pleasant style, in my taste.

What is it and where was it done? Give the reference.

Two more examples: for the first claim, Vlad Asinov, for the second, Rosalie Arshak.

Unfounded generalization based on a single example.

Immediate examples coming to mind: for the first claim, Robert Phelan, for the second, Richard Feynman.

This is factually incorrect. This is also factually incorrect.

What does prevent the molecules from collapsing to subatomic scales?

No, it should be 7, not 4.

Well, there is one more possibility, nCr(4,0) = 1. If you count all the 'mixtures', then, instead of summation as you did above, you better calculate a simple total directly, which is 2n as @John Cuthber has explained earlier. And if you don't want to count the 'empty mixture' nCr(4,0), then the answer is simply 2n-1.

LOL Yevgeny Prigozhin in fatal plane crash, Russian officials say | Financial Times (ft.com)

Russia should be divided between Norway and Mongolia.

I want to clarify that I am not very comfortable with my own example of Turing Machine. Calling the instructions, a 'software' there is already a stretch. I think that it was von Neumann's idea to have instructions in memory like other data. This was the birth of software.

Does it make it a "good intension"?

As in staying president after being democratically defeated.

No. No. Yes. Turing machine. The tape with cells, the head, the register -- hardware. The set of instructions -- software.