studiot

Shouldn't this be in speculations and shouldn't you be providing more background and justification, even references, for your assertions?

What a good idea, +1, shame it doesn't work on my PC. However you have prompted me to look further. Hold the windows key down and hit the letter R.Type charmap.exe into the runbox. Choose your symbol(s) Choose copy Paste them in here. ∆ √ Note you can also then select and increase font size, as I have done to 36 in the examples.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-41135081 Is this the way forward to future freedom?

Like both the sober detail from Mordred and the tongue-in-cheek soundbyte from MigL. +1 apiece. Long may the double act continue.

An interesting formula to brighten your weekend for all those who periodically post strange threads about pi and all things circular. What is the following limit? [math]\mathop {\lim }\limits_{k \to \infty } \pi k\left( {\exp \left( {\frac{r}{k}} \right) - \exp \left( {\frac{{ - r}}{k}} \right)} \right)[/math]

77 replies and 725 views of this subject........... about 10 views per reply. No I don't believe that either swansont or HypervalentIodine have downvoted you, that that is obviously possible. and by the way, yes you are new, and if you had taken the time to look around you might have noticed that HypervalentIodine is in fact a Lady who tutors Phd chemistry students. Lots of members have passed through, look and say to themselves "Do I want to deal with this poster" You should reflect upon the answer to that. I have already told you why I have continued to bother with this thread. You have not picked up on that or asked anything about this. It is a fact that many apparently unconnected physical phenomenon appear in abstract mathematical group theory. I have retired and am not interested in further glory, as I have a dozen or more scientific papers to my name. If I have prompted you in that direction and it bears fruit, you are welcome. It will have advanced science. But note that this thread has made its way to the trash can for other reasons.

First time I have seen this, can you offer more detail? Yes the new 'improved!' format leaves much to be desired.

You are just reacting you are not thinking and you are certainly not reading what is written. I have no idea and no way of finding out who is downvoting you. It has been at least two years since I last gave a negative vote, I try to only use positive ones for encouragement. And I have a personal policy of stating the reason in my next post any time I vote up or down for anybody. I have never been ashamed of my opinion (which is what that is). But I have already told you that I have not voted in this thread. No I was not referring to swansont.

You are distracting from the science... this is on the homepage? I've answered your questions... clearly. Yes you have answered some of my questions clearly, but wrongly. Would you like a list? Within 5 minutes of my post you reproduced as fact that which another member with an impeccable academic pedigree has told you was 'incorrect'. Why?

Yes you are being rude, very rude. This thread is littered with fallacious statements by you. Each time one is pointed out by someone ( not all by me ) you carry on as though they had not posted. Perhaps that is why others (again not me) have been downvoting you. I am only pursuing this now because the partial match between the two sequences is interesting and I wonder how far it can be taken or if there is anything in modern abstract maths that would apply here (perhaps group theory). You asked for help yet seem unable to accept any or conduct a rational discussion progressing to a better conclusion that the initial hypothesis.

So you are saying you really don't know what a prime is then if you don't know if 1 or 2 are prime numbers. Here is a page full of explanations as to why 1 is defined to be not a prime number, but 2 is. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&q=why+is+1+not+a+prime+number&oq=why+is+1+not+a+prime+number&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4.1146.7187.0.7734.27.27.0.0.0.0.186.2609.18j9.27.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.27.2595...0i131k1.8w-IHVK9a4Q But what matters is that the first number in the prime gap sequence is 0 But the first number in the electron sequence must be a 1 You are continuing to avoid the question. When you have paired electrons you can guarantee one of each spin so you can choose a set of all one spin. But if you have a single extra electron it could have either spin and you cannot know which. Last time you avoided the question by telling me that it does not matter because the spins are the same.

Yes I agree with this because relativity is another way to postulate that spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic. Many have sought to support this view but no one has yet offered any way to overcome several practical serious and fundamental observations that demonstrate differences between electrical attractions and gravity.

It's omitted because there is no gap between 1 2 3 gaps = 0 0 so you could write 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 1 is not a prime number. So there is only one zero in the prime gap sequence. That does not explain why you feel entitled to omit it. Zero is a valid number. So your sequence does not match at the very beginning (there are no atoms with zero electrons). You still have not answered my question about arbitrary spin allocation to atoms with odd numbers of electrons

Yes I agree with this because relativity is another way to postulate that spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic. Many have sought to support this view but no one has yet offered any way to overcome several practical serious and fundamental observations that demonstrate differences between electrical attractions and gravity. The fact that they cannot logically be linked should tell you something if you were really smart! The definition of force as that which requires force to counteract it is circular and therefore not useful. The point of Newtonian mechanics is that it provides a clear definition of force, as well as the apparatus to analyse it. Einstinian relativity does not. It does not even deal with force. Note that even in Newtonian mechanics there are more complicated agents than force such as stress and strain. Furthermore you can have stress without strain and strain without stress, again obviating your force countering definition. I will treat the invective in the rest of your text with the contempt it deserves.

That's what I said, but sum on its own is insufficient. You need information about what to sum, and the full notation contains this. for example the following tells us to form n increments alpha to an angle theta, take the sine, and add up the total generated at each stage to form a grand total. [math]\sum\limits_{r = 0}^{r = n - 1} {\sin \left( {\theta + r\alpha } \right)} [/math]

What you are calling an equation is the expression for the 'sum to n terms' of some (perhaps infinite) sequence that can be found in and closed expression for n For instance the sum to n terms for the fourth power of the positive integers is [math]\sum\limits_1^n {{r^4}} = n\left( {n - 1} \right)\left( {2n + 1} \right)\left( {3{n^2} + 3n - 1} \right)/30[/math] In this case yes you must generally do it in stages as you suggest since there must be a first term an a further (n-1) terms to make the formula true. Although it is written with an equals sign it is really a formula for calculating the sum rather than an equation to be solved for something. But the sigma may also be used for other purposes, without starting at 0 or 1. For instance [math]\sum\limits_{i = 10}^{i = 20} {{a_i}x_i^2} \quad means\quad {a_{10}}x_{10}^2 + {a_{11}}x_{11}^2 + {a_{12}}x_{12}^2 + ....... + {a_{15}}x_{15}^2 + .......{a_{20}}x_{20}^2[/math] Again this is a formula for calculating something Here it means take the square of the 10th variable x10 and multiply it by the 10th coefficient a10 then do this for the 11th variable and coefficient all the way up to the 20th variable and coefficient. You might do this when calculating a line in a large sparse matrix.

As a furthr matter of interest, Why did you omit the first prime? This would have started your gap sequence with a zero.

I am more mystified than ever. The sigma (notation) is not an equation it is an instruction to add something(s) up. That something must be a n expression involving the indexing given by the start and stop points attached to the sigma. You don't solve this you follow the instructions. You solve an equation. There is something called a recurrence relation which you can solve for the nth term.

I know you mention sigma, but the context suggests you might be thinking of mathematical iteration, computer (programming) iteration, linear combinations even simultaneous equations. Can you provide some more detail?

Is that so? It's not what it says here

I'm sorry I think all of this is an off topic red herring. Spin up and spin down are differentiated for a reason. I suggest you look up enantiomers, chirality and plain old handedness. The crux of the matter is that you have avoided dividing atoms with an odd number of outer electrons by 2 by arbitrarily assigning a particular spin to them. Free Lithium has one outer electron, not one electron. Free hydrogen is the only atom with just one electron, monatomic hydrogen certainly exists. Note, according to Wikipedia, in fact it is the most abundant substance in the universe

That doesn't make sense to me. If spin up and spin down are one and the same why divide by 2? I don't think you mean quite this, perhaps you would like to rephrase?

Here is a prime (smile) example of why we should have a numbering or indexing system on the posts like previous versions of this forum used to. danking you are having trouble quoting. (me too) One thing I have discovered with this new improved presentation of the forum is that if you highlight (select) a portion of text and right click, then a black 'quote this' balloon appears. Click on that and you get the quote as above. I wanted that quote because whilst playing with a spreadsheet this afternoon to compare sequences I realised the following problem with your derivation of your sequence. You have divided the electron population in half to obtain the up spin electrons for entry into your sequence. But This will only work for paired electrons. Every unpaired electron will be automatically undecided as it could be up or down. You cannot arbitrarily chose it to match the spin of the rest of your electrons. Every other element in the table will have an unpaired electron, and some will have more.

Thanks for pointing that out. So we are both wrong. I was wrong because the table does indeed show that for potassium and calcium the 4s orbital does indeed fill up before electrons enter the 3d orbital. You were wrong because the table also shows that the 3d orbital fills up before any electrons enter the 4p orbital and remains full as the 4p orbital fill up (as also happens with the 4d and 5p orbitals). I don't yet see a correct 3D drawing of an s orbital from yourself.

And I told you three times that your electron configuration sequence is incorrect. I also showed that your prime sequence does not match the correct electron sequence. Further I noted that although you have put a substantial amount of work into your drawings, some of this work is also incorrect. However you can take heart from the fact you are in good company. Mendelev and Newlands also got the order wrong first time round.