🚀 go-pugleaf

"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting@OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:ak3v009or613sdcgnesmum5eg25nh9h9n4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:38:40 GMT, "k p  Collins"
> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net>, apparently tired of ranting to
> those as cognitively diverse as he, chose to annoy newsgroups
> typically free of idiocy like his, with:
>
> } "Karl" <karlknoblich@yahoo.de> wrote in message
> } news:235b9607.0401210500.3ebedda5@posting.google.com...
> } > Hallo!
> } >
> } > I want to calculate the correlation dimension of a time serie.
> } >
> } > What I have done
> } > I calculated the correlation integral C(r) (number of point having a
> } > distance smaller than r) for different embedding dimensions. Taking
> } > the slopes of the curve of log C(r) against log r for the different
> } > embedding dimensions and plotting them against the embedding dimension
> } > should result in a limes of the slopes: the correlation dimension.
> } >
> } > My problem
> } > Which slope shall I take?
> } >
> } > In examples I saw in text books there is a nice limit of the slopes
> } > with higher embedding dimensions. In my data I do not know which slope
> } > I should take because the slope of the curve varies. If I take the
> } > slope at a certain value of log r I can not get a limes.
> } >
> } > My curves (log C(r) against log r) can be seen in
> } > http://karlknoblich.4t.com/korrdim.jpg
> } >
> } >
> } > What to do? Does anybody knows such data and how to handle it?
> } >
> } > Hope somebody can help!
> } >
> } > Karl
> }
> } What I will say has not yet been accepted by others,
>
> That's because you're about to prove to everyone not already aware of
> the fact that you're a complete moron. Watch:
>
> } You're missing some crucial data that cross-correlates
> } your 'time' series to the cerebellar topology.
>
> I couldn't possibly add anything to prove the point better.
>
> Please keep your imaginary mathematical pollution confined to your
> "consciousness" groups, although alt.usenet.kooks could use your
> input.
>
Far be it from me to provide succour for kooks or trolls but can I assume
from your above statement that you consider all research or discussion into
consciousness the sole 'domain' of kooks? If so, you are displaying 'kook
tendencies yourself. In that you stubbornly cling to a belief which is
demonstrably wrong. Consciousness must be part of the study of the Universe
since the Universe has apparently produced it as part of a natural process
and must be accounted for in any valid scientific theory of 'everything'.

I hope you were merely sloppy in your use of language and I am wrong in my
deductions.

O'Ryan Wells.