The American Empire is collapsing

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:Nanotech is driven by math more than physics and chemistry, and some other things.  Made 798 of 800 on math and science part of SAT, know math and science very well.  That was before they graded on a curve for slow students.

So say I were to give you some function...

f(x1, x2) = 4 + (x1 - 6)^2 - (x2 -2)^2

And then I gave a constraint...

x1 + 8x2 = 3

How would you go about maximizing f(x1, x2) subject to the constraint?  I'm not asking you to actually do the work and solve this, but can you explain how you would approach solving such a problem?  

I think you can squash any doubt that any forum member may have here if you can just explain in simple terms (not some overly technical wikipedia-like explanation that could be copy and pasted) how you would go about setting up such a problem.

I apologize for the delay.  Just finished a 5 hour conference call regarding a $2.5 billion loan we sign on Monday and leaving Switzerland on Sunday to address that in London.  Will sort of be on the road for the next 2-3 months on some major projects.

Ok, would only debate how putting a negative number in the constraint field is maximizing anything but that is another subject.

If a simple function would be inputs and permissible outputs.  If your intent on defining the constraint regarding x1 is the same for the function and your constraint that would make x1 a negative number of -13.  That could sort of make your ‘maximizing f(x1, x2)’ another constraint or something that could limit any maximizing for that part of the function.  

Depends on what your objective would be.

If there is no ‘trick question’ regarding how you are using x1, solving for x2 could be done several ways.

Could solve directly if inputs are known, or solve by differential equation.  There is a way to do it with matrices, but is the long route.  There is also a way now to solve such with simple fractal iterations, easy for 2 domains, need computers if 4 or more domains and any codomains.

Your approach appears to be more geared to developing an algorithm, which is fine and done all the time in fractal geometry, fractal physics, differential geometry and topology.  Those are the areas of mathematics we focus on and your approach to setting up a function and asking to set a constraint is one of the ways to determine what we do in surface modification of nanostructures.  Sort of like learning to talk to atoms.

Most of the older scientists still do it with matrices and differential equations because they never took fractal or differential geometry.

You are welcome to poke and probe, up to a point.  I am internationally known as an expert in this field and a driving force of it.  That is why the USA has begging me for a second chance since March 2013 and I still have reservations about the nuthouse the USA has become.  317 million people, 317 million opinions and not one business plan in sight, and more than its share of vicious people.

http://www.rense.com/general82/karl.htm

I don't think you know what you are actually talking about.

quite irrelevant to me, tens of millions of others know otherwise.

My professors in university never could understand why I took Calculus 1, 2, 3, differential equations and matrices and aced them all.  They figured it out much later when just about every building we designed and built had new technology innovations.  I have been doing this a long time and could see nanotech coming as early as 1970.

in fractal geometry, differential geometry the only reason to have a negative in the field is if the end result depends on negatively charged electrons.  We use algorithms just as advanced as NSA.  We do not use them to spy, just to move matter in specific ways.  

Not about to debate with you or anyone else how we use even electric potential fields to control matter, and even mentally.  

We close Monday, implement, you folks can keep on debating.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Karl you could shut up some of the folks here by having your picture taken holding a Russian newspaper upside down. I believe you are who you say but that would convince some of the knuckleheads here.   Have a good day.

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:Nanotech is driven by math more than physics and chemistry, and some other things.  Made 798 of 800 on math and science part of SAT, know math and science very well.  That was before they graded on a curve for slow students.

So say I were to give you some function...

f(x1, x2) = 4 + (x1 - 6)^2 - (x2 -2)^2

And then I gave a constraint...

x1 + 8x2 = 3

How would you go about maximizing f(x1, x2) subject to the constraint?  I'm not asking you to actually do the work and solve this, but can you explain how you would approach solving such a problem?  

I think you can squash any doubt that any forum member may have here if you can just explain in simple terms (not some overly technical wikipedia-like explanation that could be copy and pasted) how you would go about setting up such a problem.

I apologize for the delay.  Just finished a 5 hour conference call regarding a $2.5 billion loan we sign on Monday and leaving Switzerland on Sunday to address that in London.  Will sort of be on the road for the next 2-3 months on some major projects.

Ok, would only debate how putting a negative number in the constraint field is maximizing anything but that is another subject.

If a simple function would be inputs and permissible outputs.  If your intent on defining the constraint regarding x1 is the same for the function and your constraint that would make x1 a negative number of -13.  That could sort of make your ‘maximizing f(x1, x2)’ another constraint or something that could limit any maximizing for that part of the function.  

Depends on what your objective would be.

If there is no ‘trick question’ regarding how you are using x1, solving for x2 could be done several ways.

Could solve directly if inputs are known, or solve by differential equation.  There is a way to do it with matrices, but is the long route.  There is also a way now to solve such with simple fractal iterations, easy for 2 domains, need computers if 4 or more domains and any codomains.

Your approach appears to be more geared to developing an algorithm, which is fine and done all the time in fractal geometry, fractal physics, differential geometry and topology.  Those are the areas of mathematics we focus on and your approach to setting up a function and asking to set a constraint is one of the ways to determine what we do in surface modification of nanostructures.  Sort of like learning to talk to atoms.

Most of the older scientists still do it with matrices and differential equations because they never took fractal or differential geometry.

You are welcome to poke and probe, up to a point.  I am internationally known as an expert in this field and a driving force of it.  That is why the USA has begging me for a second chance since March 2013 and I still have reservations about the nuthouse the USA has become.  317 million people, 317 million opinions and not one business plan in sight, and more than its share of vicious people.

http://www.rense.com/general82/karl.htm

I don't think you know what you are actually talking about.

quite irrelevant to me, tens of millions of others know otherwise.

My professors in university never could understand why I took Calculus 1, 2, 3, differential equations and matrices and aced them all.  They figured it out much later when just about every building we designed and built had new technology innovations.  I have been doing this a long time and could see nanotech coming as early as 1970.

in fractal geometry, differential geometry the only reason to have a negative in the field is if the end result depends on negatively charged electrons.  We use algorithms just as advanced as NSA.  We do not use them to spy, just to move matter in specific ways.  

Not about to debate with you or anyone else how we use even electric potential fields to control matter, and even mentally.  

We close Monday, implement, you folks can keep on debating.

Can you explain the capital structure of Patmos Nanotechnologies?  That isn't sensitive information.   You can share that.  What does your capital structure look like?  What is your weighted average cost of capital?

Sal wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

You have the RIGHT to ask any question you want and I have the right to tell to EAT SHIT AND DIE, no commas.

Your RIGHTS stop where MINE START.

You American?  No, you IDIOT.

The sock seems to be losing some of its elasticity.

lol

Joanimaroni wrote:

Sal wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

You have the RIGHT to ask any question you want and I have the right to tell to EAT SHIT AND DIE, no commas.

Your RIGHTS stop where MINE START.

You American?  No, you IDIOT.

The sock seems to be losing some of its elasticity.

lol

LOL.....You would think a CEO who supposedly negotiates billion dollar deals could hold his shit together. Poor guy resorted to the "Eat shit and die comment."

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:Nanotech is driven by math more than physics and chemistry, and some other things.  Made 798 of 800 on math and science part of SAT, know math and science very well.  That was before they graded on a curve for slow students.

So say I were to give you some function...

f(x1, x2) = 4 + (x1 - 6)^2 - (x2 -2)^2

And then I gave a constraint...

x1 + 8x2 = 3

How would you go about maximizing f(x1, x2) subject to the constraint?  I'm not asking you to actually do the work and solve this, but can you explain how you would approach solving such a problem?  

I think you can squash any doubt that any forum member may have here if you can just explain in simple terms (not some overly technical wikipedia-like explanation that could be copy and pasted) how you would go about setting up such a problem.

I apologize for the delay.  Just finished a 5 hour conference call regarding a $2.5 billion loan we sign on Monday and leaving Switzerland on Sunday to address that in London.  Will sort of be on the road for the next 2-3 months on some major projects.

Ok, would only debate how putting a negative number in the constraint field is maximizing anything but that is another subject.

If a simple function would be inputs and permissible outputs.  If your intent on defining the constraint regarding x1 is the same for the function and your constraint that would make x1 a negative number of -13.  That could sort of make your ‘maximizing f(x1, x2)’ another constraint or something that could limit any maximizing for that part of the function.  

Depends on what your objective would be.

If there is no ‘trick question’ regarding how you are using x1, solving for x2 could be done several ways.

Could solve directly if inputs are known, or solve by differential equation.  There is a way to do it with matrices, but is the long route.  There is also a way now to solve such with simple fractal iterations, easy for 2 domains, need computers if 4 or more domains and any codomains.

Your approach appears to be more geared to developing an algorithm, which is fine and done all the time in fractal geometry, fractal physics, differential geometry and topology.  Those are the areas of mathematics we focus on and your approach to setting up a function and asking to set a constraint is one of the ways to determine what we do in surface modification of nanostructures.  Sort of like learning to talk to atoms.

Most of the older scientists still do it with matrices and differential equations because they never took fractal or differential geometry.

You are welcome to poke and probe, up to a point.  I am internationally known as an expert in this field and a driving force of it.  That is why the USA has begging me for a second chance since March 2013 and I still have reservations about the nuthouse the USA has become.  317 million people, 317 million opinions and not one business plan in sight, and more than its share of vicious people.

http://www.rense.com/general82/karl.htm

I don't think you know what you are actually talking about.

quite irrelevant to me, tens of millions of others know otherwise.

My professors in university never could understand why I took Calculus 1, 2, 3, differential equations and matrices and aced them all.  They figured it out much later when just about every building we designed and built had new technology innovations.  I have been doing this a long time and could see nanotech coming as early as 1970.

in fractal geometry, differential geometry the only reason to have a negative in the field is if the end result depends on negatively charged electrons.  We use algorithms just as advanced as NSA.  We do not use them to spy, just to move matter in specific ways.  

Not about to debate with you or anyone else how we use even electric potential fields to control matter, and even mentally.  

We close Monday, implement, you folks can keep on debating.

Can you explain the capital structure of Patmos Nanotechnologies?  That isn't sensitive information.   You can share that.  What does your capital structure look like?  What is your weighted average cost of capital?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT IS ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS OR ANYTHING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO EVEN ASK?

We are a multi-billion asset company and why we can secure large financing.  Other than that, none of your business territory.

Dreamsglore wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:Nanotech is driven by math more than physics and chemistry, and some other things.  Made 798 of 800 on math and science part of SAT, know math and science very well.  That was before they graded on a curve for slow students.

So say I were to give you some function...

f(x1, x2) = 4 + (x1 - 6)^2 - (x2 -2)^2

And then I gave a constraint...

x1 + 8x2 = 3

How would you go about maximizing f(x1, x2) subject to the constraint?  I'm not asking you to actually do the work and solve this, but can you explain how you would approach solving such a problem?  

I think you can squash any doubt that any forum member may have here if you can just explain in simple terms (not some overly technical wikipedia-like explanation that could be copy and pasted) how you would go about setting up such a problem.

I apologize for the delay.  Just finished a 5 hour conference call regarding a $2.5 billion loan we sign on Monday and leaving Switzerland on Sunday to address that in London.  Will sort of be on the road for the next 2-3 months on some major projects.

Ok, would only debate how putting a negative number in the constraint field is maximizing anything but that is another subject.

If a simple function would be inputs and permissible outputs.  If your intent on defining the constraint regarding x1 is the same for the function and your constraint that would make x1 a negative number of -13.  That could sort of make your ‘maximizing f(x1, x2)’ another constraint or something that could limit any maximizing for that part of the function.  

Depends on what your objective would be.

If there is no ‘trick question’ regarding how you are using x1, solving for x2 could be done several ways.

Could solve directly if inputs are known, or solve by differential equation.  There is a way to do it with matrices, but is the long route.  There is also a way now to solve such with simple fractal iterations, easy for 2 domains, need computers if 4 or more domains and any codomains.

Your approach appears to be more geared to developing an algorithm, which is fine and done all the time in fractal geometry, fractal physics, differential geometry and topology.  Those are the areas of mathematics we focus on and your approach to setting up a function and asking to set a constraint is one of the ways to determine what we do in surface modification of nanostructures.  Sort of like learning to talk to atoms.

Most of the older scientists still do it with matrices and differential equations because they never took fractal or differential geometry.

You are welcome to poke and probe, up to a point.  I am internationally known as an expert in this field and a driving force of it.  That is why the USA has begging me for a second chance since March 2013 and I still have reservations about the nuthouse the USA has become.  317 million people, 317 million opinions and not one business plan in sight, and more than its share of vicious people.

http://www.rense.com/general82/karl.htm

I don't think you know what you are actually talking about.

quite irrelevant to me, tens of millions of others know otherwise.

My professors in university never could understand why I took Calculus 1, 2, 3, differential equations and matrices and aced them all.  They figured it out much later when just about every building we designed and built had new technology innovations.  I have been doing this a long time and could see nanotech coming as early as 1970.

in fractal geometry, differential geometry the only reason to have a negative in the field is if the end result depends on negatively charged electrons.  We use algorithms just as advanced as NSA.  We do not use them to spy, just to move matter in specific ways.  

Not about to debate with you or anyone else how we use even electric potential fields to control matter, and even mentally.  

We close Monday, implement, you folks can keep on debating.

Can you explain the capital structure of Patmos Nanotechnologies?  That isn't sensitive information.   You can share that.  What does your capital structure look like?  What is your weighted average cost of capital?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT IS ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS OR ANYTHING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO EVEN ASK?

We are a multi-billion asset company and why we can secure large financing.  Other than that, none of your business territory.

You didn't even finish college and get a basic bachelors degree.

AmericanSwiss wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:Nanotech is driven by math more than physics and chemistry, and some other things.  Made 798 of 800 on math and science part of SAT, know math and science very well.  That was before they graded on a curve for slow students.

So say I were to give you some function...

f(x1, x2) = 4 + (x1 - 6)^2 - (x2 -2)^2

And then I gave a constraint...

x1 + 8x2 = 3

How would you go about maximizing f(x1, x2) subject to the constraint?  I'm not asking you to actually do the work and solve this, but can you explain how you would approach solving such a problem?  

I think you can squash any doubt that any forum member may have here if you can just explain in simple terms (not some overly technical wikipedia-like explanation that could be copy and pasted) how you would go about setting up such a problem.

I apologize for the delay.  Just finished a 5 hour conference call regarding a $2.5 billion loan we sign on Monday and leaving Switzerland on Sunday to address that in London.  Will sort of be on the road for the next 2-3 months on some major projects.

Ok, would only debate how putting a negative number in the constraint field is maximizing anything but that is another subject.

If a simple function would be inputs and permissible outputs.  If your intent on defining the constraint regarding x1 is the same for the function and your constraint that would make x1 a negative number of -13.  That could sort of make your ‘maximizing f(x1, x2)’ another constraint or something that could limit any maximizing for that part of the function.  

Depends on what your objective would be.

If there is no ‘trick question’ regarding how you are using x1, solving for x2 could be done several ways.

Could solve directly if inputs are known, or solve by differential equation.  There is a way to do it with matrices, but is the long route.  There is also a way now to solve such with simple fractal iterations, easy for 2 domains, need computers if 4 or more domains and any codomains.

Your approach appears to be more geared to developing an algorithm, which is fine and done all the time in fractal geometry, fractal physics, differential geometry and topology.  Those are the areas of mathematics we focus on and your approach to setting up a function and asking to set a constraint is one of the ways to determine what we do in surface modification of nanostructures.  Sort of like learning to talk to atoms.

Most of the older scientists still do it with matrices and differential equations because they never took fractal or differential geometry.

You are welcome to poke and probe, up to a point.  I am internationally known as an expert in this field and a driving force of it.  That is why the USA has begging me for a second chance since March 2013 and I still have reservations about the nuthouse the USA has become.  317 million people, 317 million opinions and not one business plan in sight, and more than its share of vicious people.

http://www.rense.com/general82/karl.htm

I don't think you know what you are actually talking about.

quite irrelevant to me, tens of millions of others know otherwise.

My professors in university never could understand why I took Calculus 1, 2, 3, differential equations and matrices and aced them all.  They figured it out much later when just about every building we designed and built had new technology innovations.  I have been doing this a long time and could see nanotech coming as early as 1970.

in fractal geometry, differential geometry the only reason to have a negative in the field is if the end result depends on negatively charged electrons.  We use algorithms just as advanced as NSA.  We do not use them to spy, just to move matter in specific ways.  

Not about to debate with you or anyone else how we use even electric potential fields to control matter, and even mentally.  

We close Monday, implement, you folks can keep on debating.

Can you explain the capital structure of Patmos Nanotechnologies?  That isn't sensitive information.   You can share that.  What does your capital structure look like?  What is your weighted average cost of capital?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT IS ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS OR ANYTHING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO EVEN ASK?

We are a multi-billion asset company and why we can secure large financing.  Other than that, none of your business territory.

You didn't even finish college and get a basic bachelors degree.

So what? I made the highest score in the entire Gulf States Region in 27

years on the hardest professional exam in the USA.

Drink a big cup of SHUT UP.

AmericanSwiss wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:Nanotech is driven by math more than physics and chemistry, and some other things.  Made 798 of 800 on math and science part of SAT, know math and science very well.  That was before they graded on a curve for slow students.

So say I were to give you some function...

f(x1, x2) = 4 + (x1 - 6)^2 - (x2 -2)^2

And then I gave a constraint...

x1 + 8x2 = 3

How would you go about maximizing f(x1, x2) subject to the constraint?  I'm not asking you to actually do the work and solve this, but can you explain how you would approach solving such a problem?  

I think you can squash any doubt that any forum member may have here if you can just explain in simple terms (not some overly technical wikipedia-like explanation that could be copy and pasted) how you would go about setting up such a problem.

I apologize for the delay.  Just finished a 5 hour conference call regarding a $2.5 billion loan we sign on Monday and leaving Switzerland on Sunday to address that in London.  Will sort of be on the road for the next 2-3 months on some major projects.

Ok, would only debate how putting a negative number in the constraint field is maximizing anything but that is another subject.

If a simple function would be inputs and permissible outputs.  If your intent on defining the constraint regarding x1 is the same for the function and your constraint that would make x1 a negative number of -13.  That could sort of make your ‘maximizing f(x1, x2)’ another constraint or something that could limit any maximizing for that part of the function.  

Depends on what your objective would be.

If there is no ‘trick question’ regarding how you are using x1, solving for x2 could be done several ways.

Could solve directly if inputs are known, or solve by differential equation.  There is a way to do it with matrices, but is the long route.  There is also a way now to solve such with simple fractal iterations, easy for 2 domains, need computers if 4 or more domains and any codomains.

Your approach appears to be more geared to developing an algorithm, which is fine and done all the time in fractal geometry, fractal physics, differential geometry and topology.  Those are the areas of mathematics we focus on and your approach to setting up a function and asking to set a constraint is one of the ways to determine what we do in surface modification of nanostructures.  Sort of like learning to talk to atoms.

Most of the older scientists still do it with matrices and differential equations because they never took fractal or differential geometry.

You are welcome to poke and probe, up to a point.  I am internationally known as an expert in this field and a driving force of it.  That is why the USA has begging me for a second chance since March 2013 and I still have reservations about the nuthouse the USA has become.  317 million people, 317 million opinions and not one business plan in sight, and more than its share of vicious people.

http://www.rense.com/general82/karl.htm

I don't think you know what you are actually talking about.

quite irrelevant to me, tens of millions of others know otherwise.

My professors in university never could understand why I took Calculus 1, 2, 3, differential equations and matrices and aced them all.  They figured it out much later when just about every building we designed and built had new technology innovations.  I have been doing this a long time and could see nanotech coming as early as 1970.

in fractal geometry, differential geometry the only reason to have a negative in the field is if the end result depends on negatively charged electrons.  We use algorithms just as advanced as NSA.  We do not use them to spy, just to move matter in specific ways.  

Not about to debate with you or anyone else how we use even electric potential fields to control matter, and even mentally.  

We close Monday, implement, you folks can keep on debating.

Can you explain the capital structure of Patmos Nanotechnologies?  That isn't sensitive information.   You can share that.  What does your capital structure look like?  What is your weighted average cost of capital?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT IS ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS OR ANYTHING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO EVEN ASK?

We are a multi-billion asset company and why we can secure large financing.  Other than that, none of your business territory.

You didn't even finish college and get a basic bachelors degree.

So what? I made the highest score in the entire Gulf States Region in 27 years on the hardest professional exam in the USA.

Drink a big cup of SHUT UP.

Dreamsglore wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:Nanotech is driven by math more than physics and chemistry, and some other things.  Made 798 of 800 on math and science part of SAT, know math and science very well.  That was before they graded on a curve for slow students.

So say I were to give you some function...

f(x1, x2) = 4 + (x1 - 6)^2 - (x2 -2)^2

And then I gave a constraint...

x1 + 8x2 = 3

How would you go about maximizing f(x1, x2) subject to the constraint?  I'm not asking you to actually do the work and solve this, but can you explain how you would approach solving such a problem?  

I think you can squash any doubt that any forum member may have here if you can just explain in simple terms (not some overly technical wikipedia-like explanation that could be copy and pasted) how you would go about setting up such a problem.

I apologize for the delay.  Just finished a 5 hour conference call regarding a $2.5 billion loan we sign on Monday and leaving Switzerland on Sunday to address that in London.  Will sort of be on the road for the next 2-3 months on some major projects.

Ok, would only debate how putting a negative number in the constraint field is maximizing anything but that is another subject.

If a simple function would be inputs and permissible outputs.  If your intent on defining the constraint regarding x1 is the same for the function and your constraint that would make x1 a negative number of -13.  That could sort of make your ‘maximizing f(x1, x2)’ another constraint or something that could limit any maximizing for that part of the function.  

Depends on what your objective would be.

If there is no ‘trick question’ regarding how you are using x1, solving for x2 could be done several ways.

Could solve directly if inputs are known, or solve by differential equation.  There is a way to do it with matrices, but is the long route.  There is also a way now to solve such with simple fractal iterations, easy for 2 domains, need computers if 4 or more domains and any codomains.

Your approach appears to be more geared to developing an algorithm, which is fine and done all the time in fractal geometry, fractal physics, differential geometry and topology.  Those are the areas of mathematics we focus on and your approach to setting up a function and asking to set a constraint is one of the ways to determine what we do in surface modification of nanostructures.  Sort of like learning to talk to atoms.

Most of the older scientists still do it with matrices and differential equations because they never took fractal or differential geometry.

You are welcome to poke and probe, up to a point.  I am internationally known as an expert in this field and a driving force of it.  That is why the USA has begging me for a second chance since March 2013 and I still have reservations about the nuthouse the USA has become.  317 million people, 317 million opinions and not one business plan in sight, and more than its share of vicious people.

http://www.rense.com/general82/karl.htm

I don't think you know what you are actually talking about.

quite irrelevant to me, tens of millions of others know otherwise.

My professors in university never could understand why I took Calculus 1, 2, 3, differential equations and matrices and aced them all.  They figured it out much later when just about every building we designed and built had new technology innovations.  I have been doing this a long time and could see nanotech coming as early as 1970.

in fractal geometry, differential geometry the only reason to have a negative in the field is if the end result depends on negatively charged electrons.  We use algorithms just as advanced as NSA.  We do not use them to spy, just to move matter in specific ways.  

Not about to debate with you or anyone else how we use even electric potential fields to control matter, and even mentally.  

We close Monday, implement, you folks can keep on debating.

Can you explain the capital structure of Patmos Nanotechnologies?  That isn't sensitive information.   You can share that.  What does your capital structure look like?  What is your weighted average cost of capital?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT IS ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS OR ANYTHING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO EVEN ASK?

We are a multi-billion asset company and why we can secure large financing.  Other than that, none of your business territory.

You didn't even finish college and get a basic bachelors degree.

So what? I made the highest score in the entire Gulf States Region in 27 years on the hardest professional exam in the USA.

Drink a big cup of SHUT UP.

Then why couldn't you finish college? You have no educational background. No formal education. That's puzzling and something that can be checked. It should have been a zip for you.

Sal wrote:I do think he's certifiable ....

Dot wrote:4 square on a funny assed day went like this......






Its the Best I can do for the masses who have ego problems

just enjoy

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:Nanotech is driven by math more than physics and chemistry, and some other things.  Made 798 of 800 on math and science part of SAT, know math and science very well.  That was before they graded on a curve for slow students.

So say I were to give you some function...

f(x1, x2) = 4 + (x1 - 6)^2 - (x2 -2)^2

And then I gave a constraint...

x1 + 8x2 = 3

How would you go about maximizing f(x1, x2) subject to the constraint?  I'm not asking you to actually do the work and solve this, but can you explain how you would approach solving such a problem?  

I think you can squash any doubt that any forum member may have here if you can just explain in simple terms (not some overly technical wikipedia-like explanation that could be copy and pasted) how you would go about setting up such a problem.

I apologize for the delay.  Just finished a 5 hour conference call regarding a $2.5 billion loan we sign on Monday and leaving Switzerland on Sunday to address that in London.  Will sort of be on the road for the next 2-3 months on some major projects.

Ok, would only debate how putting a negative number in the constraint field is maximizing anything but that is another subject.

If a simple function would be inputs and permissible outputs.  If your intent on defining the constraint regarding x1 is the same for the function and your constraint that would make x1 a negative number of -13.  That could sort of make your ‘maximizing f(x1, x2)’ another constraint or something that could limit any maximizing for that part of the function.  

Depends on what your objective would be.

If there is no ‘trick question’ regarding how you are using x1, solving for x2 could be done several ways.

Could solve directly if inputs are known, or solve by differential equation.  There is a way to do it with matrices, but is the long route.  There is also a way now to solve such with simple fractal iterations, easy for 2 domains, need computers if 4 or more domains and any codomains.

Your approach appears to be more geared to developing an algorithm, which is fine and done all the time in fractal geometry, fractal physics, differential geometry and topology.  Those are the areas of mathematics we focus on and your approach to setting up a function and asking to set a constraint is one of the ways to determine what we do in surface modification of nanostructures.  Sort of like learning to talk to atoms.

Most of the older scientists still do it with matrices and differential equations because they never took fractal or differential geometry.

You are welcome to poke and probe, up to a point.  I am internationally known as an expert in this field and a driving force of it.  That is why the USA has begging me for a second chance since March 2013 and I still have reservations about the nuthouse the USA has become.  317 million people, 317 million opinions and not one business plan in sight, and more than its share of vicious people.

http://www.rense.com/general82/karl.htm

I don't think you know what you are actually talking about.

quite irrelevant to me, tens of millions of others know otherwise.

My professors in university never could understand why I took Calculus 1, 2, 3, differential equations and matrices and aced them all.  They figured it out much later when just about every building we designed and built had new technology innovations.  I have been doing this a long time and could see nanotech coming as early as 1970.

in fractal geometry, differential geometry the only reason to have a negative in the field is if the end result depends on negatively charged electrons.  We use algorithms just as advanced as NSA.  We do not use them to spy, just to move matter in specific ways.  

Not about to debate with you or anyone else how we use even electric potential fields to control matter, and even mentally.  

We close Monday, implement, you folks can keep on debating.

Can you explain the capital structure of Patmos Nanotechnologies?  That isn't sensitive information.   You can share that.  What does your capital structure look like?  What is your weighted average cost of capital?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT IS ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS OR ANYTHING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO EVEN ASK?

We are a multi-billion asset company and why we can secure large financing.  Other than that, none of your business territory.

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

AmericanSwiss wrote:Nanotech is driven by math more than physics and chemistry, and some other things.  Made 798 of 800 on math and science part of SAT, know math and science very well.  That was before they graded on a curve for slow students.

So say I were to give you some function...

f(x1, x2) = 4 + (x1 - 6)^2 - (x2 -2)^2

And then I gave a constraint...

x1 + 8x2 = 3

How would you go about maximizing f(x1, x2) subject to the constraint?  I'm not asking you to actually do the work and solve this, but can you explain how you would approach solving such a problem?  

I think you can squash any doubt that any forum member may have here if you can just explain in simple terms (not some overly technical wikipedia-like explanation that could be copy and pasted) how you would go about setting up such a problem.

I apologize for the delay.  Just finished a 5 hour conference call regarding a $2.5 billion loan we sign on Monday and leaving Switzerland on Sunday to address that in London.  Will sort of be on the road for the next 2-3 months on some major projects.

Ok, would only debate how putting a negative number in the constraint field is maximizing anything but that is another subject.

If a simple function would be inputs and permissible outputs.  If your intent on defining the constraint regarding x1 is the same for the function and your constraint that would make x1 a negative number of -13.  That could sort of make your ‘maximizing f(x1, x2)’ another constraint or something that could limit any maximizing for that part of the function.  

Depends on what your objective would be.

If there is no ‘trick question’ regarding how you are using x1, solving for x2 could be done several ways.

Could solve directly if inputs are known, or solve by differential equation.  There is a way to do it with matrices, but is the long route.  There is also a way now to solve such with simple fractal iterations, easy for 2 domains, need computers if 4 or more domains and any codomains.

Your approach appears to be more geared to developing an algorithm, which is fine and done all the time in fractal geometry, fractal physics, differential geometry and topology.  Those are the areas of mathematics we focus on and your approach to setting up a function and asking to set a constraint is one of the ways to determine what we do in surface modification of nanostructures.  Sort of like learning to talk to atoms.

Most of the older scientists still do it with matrices and differential equations because they never took fractal or differential geometry.

You are welcome to poke and probe, up to a point.  I am internationally known as an expert in this field and a driving force of it.  That is why the USA has begging me for a second chance since March 2013 and I still have reservations about the nuthouse the USA has become.  317 million people, 317 million opinions and not one business plan in sight, and more than its share of vicious people.

http://www.rense.com/general82/karl.htm

I don't think you know what you are actually talking about.

quite irrelevant to me, tens of millions of others know otherwise.

My professors in university never could understand why I took Calculus 1, 2, 3, differential equations and matrices and aced them all.  They figured it out much later when just about every building we designed and built had new technology innovations.  I have been doing this a long time and could see nanotech coming as early as 1970.

in fractal geometry, differential geometry the only reason to have a negative in the field is if the end result depends on negatively charged electrons.  We use algorithms just as advanced as NSA.  We do not use them to spy, just to move matter in specific ways.  

Not about to debate with you or anyone else how we use even electric potential fields to control matter, and even mentally.  

We close Monday, implement, you folks can keep on debating.

Can you explain the capital structure of Patmos Nanotechnologies?  That isn't sensitive information.   You can share that.  What does your capital structure look like?  What is your weighted average cost of capital?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT IS ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS OR ANYTHING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO EVEN ASK?

We are a multi-billion asset company and why we can secure large financing.  Other than that, none of your business territory.

Sorry for the delay in response.  You will have to forgive me.  I'm on my private jet at the moment and my butler gave me the wrong drink.  Had to sort that out.  I also just signed a contract worth billions of dollars that will result in the creation of all sorts of crazy shit that I am conveniently not at liberty to share any details about.  Anyhow, in response to your post...wait, what was I saying?