The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 535
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
where, please show me.
I only remember that you spoke out against an estimate of the age of the universe of 13 billion years, but if you are against such a figure, state your own.
That's the wrong way to put it. It's a kind of duality. But you try to imagine that figure might not exist at all.
This is the wrong way of putting it. It's a kind of duality. But try to imagine that figure might not exist at all.
Aha! So you're saying the universe has always existed. Then my deductions about the infinite number of intelligent species in the universe are all the more true, which is what you were trying to argue.
But I never said anywhere that the universe never existed before the BW, I didn't talk about the big BW at all. I adhere to cosmological theories in which the evolution of the universe is cyclical.
Aha! So the universe has always existed. Then my deductions about the infinite number of intelligent species in the universe are all the more true, which is what you were trying to argue.
It's only one possibility. We don't know the truth. Neither you know. Neither do I know.
This is only one possibility. We don't know the truth.
Are you suffering fromdenialism? It's your right. Everyone is entitled to suffer from something. By the way, denying the inevitability of your strategy's drain is based on denialism: a claim you will naturally deny as well.
But I'm not criticizing, rather stating it.
Are you suffering from denialism? It's your right. Everyone is entitled to suffer from something. By the way, denying the inevitability of your strategy is based on denialism: you will naturally deny that statement too.
But I'm not criticizing, rather stating.
Here you are wrong. But perhaps, in time, you will perceive what I have said differently.
That's the end of our discussion.
ss
By the way, look carefully at the definition you link to. And get into the gist of it. Surely you must have meant something else.
It's just another newly politicised tool for witch-hunting, persecuting andpersecuting the undesirable, etc.
Well, naturally, what you don't want is nonsense. Just one thing - relic radiation was predicted as part of BW theory. Then there's the NP for its detection
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Большой_взрыв
Are you suffering fromdenialism? It's your right. Everyone is entitled to suffer from something. By the way, denying the inevitability of your strategy is based on denialism: you will naturally deny that statement too.
But I'm not criticising, rather stating.
By the way, look carefully at the definition you link to. And get into its essence. Surely you must have meant something else.
It is just another newly politicised tool of witch-hunting, persecution and persecution of the undesirable, etc.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Большой_взрыв
Don't make up your own history of science
1. By the way, look carefully at the definition you link to. And get to the bottom of it. Surely you must have meant something else.
2. it's just another newly politicised tool for witch-hunting, persecuting and persecuting the undesirable, etc.
1. I meant exactly what I linked to.
2. I'm sorry, but are you out of your mind...?
Here's my post, I'll put it in bold just for you:
it seems that such a small percentage of mutations in bacteria is due to the balance between division rate and population size... very interesting. If there were more mutations, there'd be an increased chance of colony collapse and death.
for organisms whose reproduction rate is low (such as humans), more mutations are required, as the authors of the film assert in humans it is 10-15%.
In artificial environments, such as optimization of functions and processes, as practice shows, the best value turns out to be 30-40% of mutations (maximum speed for best results) under condition that the "reset" mechanism is provided, that is, the random process shaking or "fresh blood" injection that does not allow population to stagnate on one side and forces to develop, and on the other side does not allow to be stumped by one of dead-end development branches.
it is a pity that human society cannot be "shaken up" in the same way, but that would be too inhumane.
that's all I wanted to say, from personal experience.
1. I meant exactly what I linked to.
2. I'm sorry, but are you out of your mind...?
Here's my post, I'll put it in bold for you:
it seems that such a small percentage of mutations in bacteria is due to the balance between division rate and population size... very interesting. If there were more mutations, there would be an increased chance of colony collapse and death.
for organisms whose reproduction rate is low (such as humans), more mutations are required, as the authors of the film assure us it is 10-15% in humans.
In artificial environments, such as optimization of functions and processes, as practice shows, the best value turns out to be 30-40% of mutations (maximum speed for best results) under condition that the "reset" mechanism is provided, that is, the random process shaking or "fresh blood" throwing in, does not allow population to stagnate on one side and forces to develop, and on the other side does not allow to catch up with one of the dead lines in development.
it is a pity that human society cannot be "shaken up" in the same way, but that would be too inhumane.
that's all I wanted to say, from personal experience.
Once again, you don't get what I'm saying. Watch your train of thought.
And I'm talking about this :
Andrey Dik#:Denialism