In article . net,
hanson wrote:

[hanson]
ahahaha......AHAHAHAHA.......ahahaha.........AHAH AHAHA...

Hey, hanson, I thought I'd join you.

heeheeheehee

We have a wonderful tradition in our group, "Lunch with nature". Booze is
prohibited in government facilities, so at least once per year we go off
site to the neighboring park where booze is illegal anyway, but none of
us is going to be fired from the Izaak Walton Nature Preserve. There was
some wine left over, and I was the designated non-driver, so I'm not sure
how much work I'll get done in what's left of today.

heeheeheehee

That's the other thing, I tend to giggle.

Well, there goes genius.


--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin

(Harry Conover) wrote in message . com...
(Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message . com...
P(n[IQ] q) = k for all C(g1,g2) where k - 0 when q - max(IQ
t=infinite)

The probability of there being more than one great intelligence
(genius) during a generation is near zero, and of course the
probability that two ro more intelligences coincide in time and place
out of an university is near impossibility. All instances of multi
genius generation can be explained sociologically by envy.

ROFL Not even a hint of a clue with this poster.

Harry C.

Why? If no why, not a valid reply...

Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:


Why? If no why, not a valid reply...

Because you are dead wrong that is why. There were dozens of seminal
geniuses in physics in the decade from 1900-1935, when quantum theory
was new. Of those I can reel off a few. Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger,
Jordan, Born, Dirac, De Broglie, Pauli. And that is just a subset of
the theoretical types that I can think of off the top of my head.

Quantum theory was not the work of single genius as was relativity
theory. Quantum theory is where the young boys went. They called it "Kid
Physics" in those days because of the young men who participated, many
in their twenties.

Look up Solvay Conference on Google and see who attended.

Bob Kolker

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message ...
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:


Why? If no why, not a valid reply...

Because you are dead wrong that is why. There were dozens of seminal
geniuses in physics in the decade from 1900-1935, when quantum theory
was new. Of those I can reel off a few. Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger,
Jordan, Born, Dirac, De Broglie, Pauli. And that is just a subset of
the theoretical types that I can think of off the top of my head.

Quantum theory was not the work of single genius as was relativity
theory. Quantum theory is where the young boys went. They called it "Kid
Physics" in those days because of the young men who participated, many
in their twenties.

Look up Solvay Conference on Google and see who attended.

Bob Kolker

So you haven't understand yet. The fact that there are many "workers"
in a field doesn't MEAN that there is not a single source. In fact,
all of them had a very genial idea, am I right? And they developed it
to create a whole field; each one contribuing an aspect. And the field
in a way is complete. But also, is there a hierarchy of ideas in their
ideas? That is, do you have a root idea from which stems another, and
until you have that one, comes the other, etc?

I guess not. So pyou are postulating that each one of them "suddenly"
had an intuition that appropriately matched the other aspects until a
complete field appeared... Like several people imagining a form and
when they compare their forms together a regular polyhedron is the
result... I don't think so. By Occam's Razor, which expresses the
fundamental economicity of of Nature, it is easier to accept there was
ONE MIND that had the WHOLE intuition, saw the parts AND their
relationships, and then propagated those aspects to other people to
work them... In this particular example it maskes sense to do that, as
each one can fundament each aspect more quickly than a single
individual. The result is an ALMOST complete field, which just
requires experimental corroborations and a few ideas that CTUALLY stem
from it. I believe it was Bohr the great Physicist...

Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

So you haven't understand yet. The fact that there are many "workers"
in a field doesn't MEAN that there is not a single source.

Nor does it mean that there is a single source.. You are basing a premise on a
very weak foundation.

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?

genial?

And they developed it to create a whole field; each one contribuing
an aspect. And the field in a way is complete. But also, is there a
hierarchy of ideas in their ideas?

...no, merely a common desire to learn and advance our understanding of how the
universe works.

That is, do you have a root idea from which stems another, and
until you have that one, comes the other, etc?

No. There are plenty of examples of scientists on completely different
continents coming up with the same breakthrough in science at about the same
time.. then it is a matter of who publishes first.. after which they sometimes
collaborate on refining their ideas.

Uncle Al wrote in message ...

[snip]

party. Campus Black activism loudly unconditionally demanded - and
got (amidst hushed laughter) - a purely Black dorm. Perhaps they
missed the lecture on the civil rights movement. Perhaps they had
merely risen to their level of competence.

You're ****ting me...well, mabey not. Life isn't supposed to imitate
comedy.

Not on the same scale, but just as ...amusing,

During my 2 years of middleschool, other than the fact it was crap -
one particular thing sticks out in my mind. Black kids fighting anyone
who wanted to sit in the very back of the bus.

[spit]

In article ,
(Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote:
"Morituri-Max" wrote in message
...
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

So you haven't understand yet. The fact that there are many "workers"
in a field doesn't MEAN that there is not a single source.

Nor does it mean that there is a single source.. You are basing a
premise on a
very weak foundation.

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?

genial?

I think he intends the word to be an adverb form of genius and
using it as an adjective.

And they developed it to create a whole field; each one contribuing
an aspect. And the field in a way is complete. But also, is there a
hierarchy of ideas in their ideas?

..no, merely a common desire to learn and advance our understanding of
how the
universe works.

That is, do you have a root idea from which stems another, and
until you have that one, comes the other, etc?

No. There are plenty of examples of scientists on completely different
continents coming up with the same breakthrough in science at about the
same
time.. then it is a matter of who publishes first.. after which they
sometimes
collaborate on refining their ideas.

Depends on the idea. Obvious ideas will be anticipated. Genial ones
belong to a single individual and may never be discovered again. You
have to refine your conception of knowledge. Mine is a tree.

We have been telling you that you are wrong considering it to
be a tree. If you superimpose a web connecting all nodes of
your tree, you will take a first step of understanding.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

"Morituri-Max" wrote in message ...
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

So you haven't understand yet. The fact that there are many "workers"
in a field doesn't MEAN that there is not a single source.

Nor does it mean that there is a single source.. You are basing a premise on a
very weak foundation.

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?

genial?

And they developed it to create a whole field; each one contribuing
an aspect. And the field in a way is complete. But also, is there a
hierarchy of ideas in their ideas?

..no, merely a common desire to learn and advance our understanding of how the
universe works.

That is, do you have a root idea from which stems another, and
until you have that one, comes the other, etc?

No. There are plenty of examples of scientists on completely different
continents coming up with the same breakthrough in science at about the same
time.. then it is a matter of who publishes first.. after which they sometimes
collaborate on refining their ideas.

Depends on the idea. Obvious ideas will be anticipated. Genial ones
belong to a single individual and may never be discovered again. You
have to refine your conception of knowledge. Mine is a tree.

wrote:
genial?

I think he intends the word to be an adverb form of genius and
using it as an adjective.

oh... roge that..

Morituri-Max wrote:
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

snips

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?


genial?

Never let an ESOL student use a spell checker or you will get really
silly output.

Actually, that might explain half of his posts.

Someone just started typing randomly and then ran it through the
spellchecker numerous times, randomly selecting words from the choices
lists presented when something ambiguous fails the spellcheck.

Sort of like a surrealism generator 'bot.

--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"