Yes incredible.

It seems nad doesn’t want to explain :)

This is also good:

Consequently one may suggest that the exclusion of possible interpretations can be made precise enough that it allows even for a “back-and-forth communication via masks/templates”.

I send you an html template and you send me a css template :)

]]>I hereby admit that I see here some parallels to quantum computing.

Haven’t seen that post yet –

nad may I ask what parallels do you see here? :) maybe something like quantum leaps in mandala efficiency? combined with quasar meditation on glucose-III-fructase?

]]>– and many mathematicians would feel uncomfortable if someone would use epsilon for a negative number! So epsilon is a “mask” i.e. it doesnt “allow” for other representations in an emotional sense, however it certainly does in a cognitive sense.

You forgot to remind of the fact that mathematicians know about these perceptional pitfalls and thus always write somthing like: For any epsilon>0 there exists…………..

]]>