Re: Quantum Gravity 218.6: The Excluded 3 Rule in Combinatorics Compared to Our PI Rule


"OsherD" <mdoctorow@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:26805e22-692d-4e50-b765-2f6ba94a2830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From Osher Doctorow

Einstein's exclusion of higher derivatives than second order in his
Field Equation(s),

Wrong, not excluded, he did not need them.

and our exclusion of higher polynomial orders than
2 in y in dy/dt equations (yielding Riccati Differential Equation

Wrong, no Riccati Cheese needed

) and
the exclusion of higher polynomial orders in t than 2 in coefficients
of Generalized Exponential Function (GEF)

Wrong, no such thing as a GEF, dude.

suggests that "something is
wrong with 3 or more" across several disciplines with physical
applications.

Wrong. 3 is OK. Trust me on this one. If you can't do 3, then you will
never get to 4.
then your stuck. On 2.



Tanya Khovanova in arXiv: 0712.3509 math-CO 21 Dec 2007, "9 divides no
odd Fibonacci",

If that were true, how come 3 can? and 3*3 is 9 ???


does in fact that something is wrong with 3 or powers
of 3 in odd Fibonacci numbers which are of course obained from the
FIbonacci series or sequence which in turn is strongly related

wrong again, your "Probable Causation/influence" theories have been erased
on the chalkboard of time.
Dudley did it.

to
Probable Causation/influence because it corresponds to "memory" unlike
almost trivial "1 step Markov chain" memory and 0 memory of
Independent Probability-Statistics.

Wrong, no Markov chain in Fibonacci numbers


Khovanova poves that odd numbers n such that no Fibonacci number is
divisible by n are:

<snip Causation Redundant Anti-Physics (CRAP)>


Osher Doctorow



.

Quantcast