[continued from previous message]   
      
   > it's a thing and that's what it is.   
   >   
   > Then, that they model each other, "in the limit", the differential   
   > systems and integral systems, about the differintegro and   
   > integro, rather like two limits at zero existing "from   
   > the left" and "from the right", here has that almost all   
   > developments in the field are about differential-systems   
   > and merely partial-differential-systems at that, as that's   
   > the mathematics as was popular at the time, while the fuller   
   > sort of account after the likes of Poincare about the   
   > analysis situs and what becomes algebraic _geometry_,   
   > there are many ways to write systems satisfying Lorentz,   
   > even those that the Lorentzian can't itself satisfy,   
   > since it's merely partial and incomplete.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > Of course it doesn't matter what _I_ say about these matters   
   > of mathematics and definition and scientific theories,   
   > they are what they are or "it is what it is". However   
   > I also say so. Then, for example, some of these recent   
   > threads like "T-theory ..." or "The fundamental joke ..."   
   > you can read, or for example dump them in their entirety   
   > into an AI reasoner and query it.   
   >   
   >   
      
   It's agreeable that this sort of reasoning   
   demands a very thorough and formal account.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)