[AntonioLao]

Not boa constrictors. In 1930, P.A.M. Dirac (1902-1984) stated in the preface to the first edition of his first book, the Principle of Quantum Mechanics, that the arrival of symbolic transformation theory was long overdue. In contrast to usual coordinate representations of quantum mechanics (QM), for examples, Schrödinger’s wave mechanics and Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, he chose to use the unusual bra and ket vectors, symbolizing abstract invariants of physical observables (particles, waves, and fields). Kets are used to describe the time evolution of a particular state vectors. However, to quantize it to a local infinitesimal region of spacetime, it must be constricted by its dual state vector called simply as the bra vector. Without any doubts, these word constructs came from breaking the word ‘bracket’ with the ‘c’ reserved for symbolizing complex or imaginary linear operators. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_notation

Dirac bracket notations clearly suggested the dual yin-yang structures of all quantum fields. Further improvements of the underlying topologies could then allow a complete description of spacetime quanta or spacetime charges. The discoveries of quantized intrinsic spins and elementary antiparticles were necessary steps to a complete independence on differentiability of any order or any linearity. Planck had already accomplished the transition from continuous integration to discrete sums for energy quanta. So, it is now the proper moment for initiating the transition from continuous differentials to discrete singular square Hadamard matrices H+ and H-. The almost perfect topological structures for these descriptions are the abstract ring structures (see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ring.html). In contrast, the preferred structures, so far, were abstract Lie groups (see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LieGroup.html). The differences for Hadamard matrix rings are the nonexistence of inverses. These give determinant zeros with scalar power factors of ring multiplication.

[Profpat]

I kind of liked it in the 60's when the women burnt their bras and went topless. Ah yes the good old days. When women were women and men were becoming women.

[AntonioLao]

Did they thought that size matters? So, rather than being called tiny they cut it off? The smallest things are usually the most powerful things, for examples, bacteria and viruses.

[Profpat]

True enough Antonio. I believe they will inherit the earth. They might have to share it however with cockroaches.

[AntonioLao]

In the distant future, the men populations will die out first, then the women populations will rule the universe. Some say that all living things were female at conception and a process of genetic denial produces male genes.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao In the distant future, the men populations will die out first, then the women populations will rule the universe. Some say that all living things were female at conception and a process of genetic denial produces male genes.

I guess the y chromesone is the little guy. And that intelligence is passed through the x. Which means women will always be smarter than men because they will get their IQ from who ever is smarter. Men just get it from their mothers.

[AntonioLao]

A woman is always behind every successful man. This is more true in politics than in any walks of life.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao A woman is always behind every successful man. This is more true in politics than in any walks of life.

And a man is behind many women. This is most true in politics. i.e. Clinton, Kennedy, Spitzer. Kilpatrick, Hmmm All democrats.

[AntonioLao]

Is this a suggestion that donkeys or mules are the most active sexual creatures of the universe?

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Is this a suggestion that donkeys or mules are the most active sexual creatures of the universe?

How about Jackasses. Like Kwame Kilpatrick.