X-mass Carol
Gnaiger Erich. X-mass Carol. Body Mass Excess, mitObesity, and mitochondrial fitness. MitoFit Preprints. in preparation v0. |
Author ()
Abstract: Pre-preprint version 0 (v0) (2020-06-13) last update 2021-01-17
Humbug is a hot issue at a time of bugs and irreproducibility in science, fake news in social media, and a sense of mistrust in the solutions of the COVID-19 crisis, obesity pandemic, global warming, and destruction of biological and cultural diversity. Trust in research calls for a language that is understood and makes sense. Abstract terms are an extension of the real world into the abstracted imagined world of theoretical language and symbols. We encounter the real world primarily with our biological senses and push the boundaries of sensory resolution with more sensitive instruments for counting and measuring as tools to explore the real world. Interpretations of these experiences aim at describing the real world and thus create a mirror image of the real world in the abstract world of theories. Some central theories tell us, that we cannot generally trust our biological senses, nor our extended sensory tools, nor our intuitions that are frequently called 'common sense', since we remain biased, ambiguous, and unaware of some realities in our perceptions and interpretations. Paradoxically, our intuitions work practically and technically very well at the very basis of counting and measuring, but the formal analysis of counting and counting units lacks consistency even at the penultimate level of formalization in the International System of Units (SI).
In the second part of the present communication, the elementary concepts of counting and measuring are presented from an evolutionary perspective, with a fresh look at the cognitive processes involved in our perception of body mass and body count. The first part introduces the concept of body mass excess (BME), which removes a strong systematic bias of the body mass index (BMI) as a quantitative measure of body fat excess and obesity. The World Health Organization (WHO) presents some of the most fundamental data bases of body height and body mass in healthy reference populations, but the message of these data is ignored when the WHO purports the BMI as the index of obesity, ignoring the gender bias in the BMI due to a male perspective, the race bias due to a western white perspective, and the developmental bias due to an adult perspective. Replacing the BMI by the BME as an index of obesity represents not only a scientific advancement to higher accuracy, but a sociological statement to overcome the unfair burden of the Male-Adult-White-Including-Ageing medicine (MAWIA). Importantly, XXX-mass is MAWIA related to the mitObesity syndrome. The decline of mitochondrial fitness in overweight states provides a mechanistic link between common obesity and associated chronic comorbidities — such as diabetes, hypertension and chronic heart failure, neurodegenerative diseases and several types of cancer. Today mitObesity is the world-wide leading cause of deaths and early aging, which can be prevented by an active lifestyle with physical exercise and caloric balance. Overweight children of today charge tomorrow's degenerative diseases recalling MAWIA. This must be emphasized without neglecting the current dramatic incidences of starvation, which strike foremost on children, women, and the elderly — MAWIA. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the fragility of the world's health and economic systems, demanding immediate action, taking into consideration MAWIA. The mitObesity pandemic strikes less dramatically but by far more penetrating in today's societies all over the world. Scientists and politicians who did not listen to the predominant scientific advice should have received a lesson in the COVID-19 crisis. Today's societies must take a lesson to fight the mitObesity pandemic, challenge MAWIA medicine, global warming, and destruction of biological and cultural diversity, where MAWIA plays a MAW-dominant (Male-Adult-White) role. • Keywords: Amount of substance, Bit, BME, BMI, Body mass, Cell respiration, Buglish, Canonical and practical, Canonical ensemble, Concentration, Count, Dimension, Entity, Extroduction, Flow, Flux, Format, IUPAC, International System of Units, Isolated mitochondria, Living cells, Mass, Measure, MitoPedia, Molar mass, Normalization of rate, Object, Organism, Permeabilized cells, Publish, Sample, System, Unit, Volume
Preprints
in: Anastrophe XX Entity X and elementary unit x of A X-mass Carol
Antestrophe: Overview
- It is said that A Christmas Carol is the most popular book on Christmas besides the original story told in the bible. It is a carol in prose. But is it on Christmas? Like anything fundamental, it is on counting — ".. old Scrooge sat busy in his counting-house".
On counting houses
- Today the counting-house is a bank where you have your account. Or the modern counting-house is the scientific laboratory, where physicists count subatomic particles, electrochemists count the number of electrons in the elementary charge, chemists count the number of molecules in a mole, geneticists count the number of mutations since humans acquired Neanderthal genes, physiologists fight about counting the number of mitochondria in our body, and sport scientist count the number of steps, breaths, heart beats, and seconds in a 2-hour marathon run. And is the new counting-house of today the place, where old politicians disagree about the manipulated number of votes counted to empower their party? How many houses did we count?
- Counting is buried deep in human history with an eminent survival value for our species. Thus counting is 'good' — not in the past grave-religious or present merry-party sense of Christ-mass, but in evolutionary terms of survival and reproductive advantage. Importantly, counting is at the heart (or brain, or every vital organ) of quantification, and as such counting is the fundamental concept of science and mathematics. Counting is at the root of our quantitative and reproducible investigations into real things and abstract numbers — spanning the opposite sides of rational cognition between the realization in our mind and the real world beyond our mind, separated by zero counting and the unaccountable irrational. Without counting, we may operate practically very well in many 'normal' cases, but may more likely fail in contexts beyond the realm of evolutionary norms. Above all, A Christmas Carol is on values. Counting in any counting-house for the sake of numerical values is of no value. The abstract value of a count in the counting-house is an abstract number of lifeless monetary units, or the numerical value of a dead mass of gold. The message of A Christmas Carol is emotional and canonical: grumbling ghosts shatter the values of a "squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner" to reveal the meaning of values that normal and healthy children and many other people associate with good feelings. Even the blindmen's dogs not only know old Scrooge, but count, when they "wag their tails as though they said, 'No eye at all is better than an evil eye, dark master!'".
- " 'Bah!' said Scrooge, 'Humbug!' " Being rational people, we understand that old Scrooge said this in the defensive. Being defensive people, we denounce offensive news easily as humbug, or in short we just exclaim 'Bah!'. It is easier to see the bug in somebody else's system of mind, and others see more clearly the bug in our minds and in what we publish or buglish. The term bug may not be in 'humbug', since finding the bug in the system and debugging computer code relates to a story about the team of Grace Hopper working at Harvard University in 1947 on the Mark II Computer. Apparently they ran into a problem with the mainframe and searched for a solution in the software, until a member of her team discovered a dead moth blocking a relay on a main circuit board of the computer ^{[1]}. For successful debugging, we need to search on the right place to find the real bug.
- In the original novella A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens (1843), chapters are presented as 'staves'. In turn, the X-mass Carol is performed in strophes with some plasticity of the word (Yeung 2020 Palgrave Macmillan).
On mass
- X is the symbol for entity in the International System of Units (SI). The body of theoretical terms defined in the SI gains meaning and makes more sense, when we apply it to our own bodies. The Catastrophe in the XXX-mass does not refer to a problem with the mass of three entities X, but refers to the single body of one elementary entity. The body mass of the entire human population today is turning into a catastrophe for many reasons. The most fundamental problems for our populations are emphasized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as: (1) the sheer number of human bodies on earth; (2) the XXX-mass per elementary body; and — while the values of 1 and 2 are the products of a numerical value (represented by a number) and a unit (expressed as SI units and beyond) — there are not only quantitative numerical problems, but (3) qualitative value-problems: human bodies deteriorate with excessive body mass (BME) and suffer from human behaviors preventing equal access to high-quality health systems, limiting fair participation in a high quality of life, and endangering the natural and cultural heritage on our globe.
- Quality versus quantity provides anastrophic and metastrophic solutions to prevent a global catastrophe. Since the X-mass Carol is a scientific publication that should make sense, the Strophes turn back on quality versus quantity of scientific publications with reflections on publishing and buglishing in the spirit of Charles Dickens humbug.
- Catastrophe XXX introduces the concept of XXX-mass and body mass excess (BME) with the aim to replace the conventional body mass index (BMI) advanced by the WHO. The BME is shown to be a superior index of obesity defined as excess body fat, based on the same simple measurements of elementary body mass and height, removing the biases of the BMI for women and men, adults and children, and across ethnic groups. The BME is a fundamental contribution to overcome the white-adult-male syndrome of modern medicine and authoritative political systems. The association of obesity and decline of mitochondrial functional fitness provides a mechanistic link between obesity and comorbidities that account for the most fundamental worries of the modern health systems world-wide today, and more so in the future of the present children and aging societies.
- Anastrophe XX discusses entities X and introduces the elementary unit [x] in the elementary body mass. XX provides a practical-technical-theoretical-canonical understanding of the concepts of counting and measuring in a nutshell or NUCE: Numbers with Units for Counting of Entities X in a sample of an ensemble are obtained for counting and measuring, from which conclusions are drawn on concepts about the real world. How resulting conceptions of the real world shape our perceptions of the world is another question, that pops up when considering that the real world is contained in the world. The world of numbers is abstract beyond the real world, but the world of counts is real. Although the quantity 'count' forms the very basis of any kind of reproducible quantification with numerical values, the International System of Units (SI) provides a limited and incoherent account of this quantity. Starting with the questions when and where counting begins, the quantity and unit of the count are presented in canonical form, involving repetitions and variations on different levels and in various isomorphic forms. Canonical communication — if it happens – is the glue that holds these levels together, from medium to message to meaning. Canonically, this is the introduction.
- Metastrophe X is a series of canonical carols in the form of discussions and reflections on science, scientific publication, and communication at an X-mass party. Practically, this is the extroduction. The extroduction should provide a frame around the introduction, to induce a feeling for the topics of counting and measuring, to bring our mind into the mood of grasping something fundamental about counting, which is so deeply hard-wired in our practical performance and hidden in our genetically programmed behavior, such that the fundamental elements are not perceived by our conscious mind and are not well represented in the theories on our mind. Just think about the number of times a count is confused with a number. In this self-reflection the dragon bites its tail in the canonical form of the self-referential Ouroboros.
On X
- The frame of the extroduction should make us ready for easy comprehension of the following introductory summary on counting and units. Theoretically, everything can be counted with some uncertainty in the microscopic world of quantum physics. A sample of Christmas pudding can be counted in terms of atoms — theoretically. Practically, there are non-countable entities X, such as a Christmas pudding. It does not have natural, recognizable individual parts that can be counted (except for the two spherical decorations on top of it).
- But the pudding seen as a serving on a dish has been partitioned from a larger mass of pudding. The servings are partitioned according to an external concept of a serving unit, in contrast to an internal pattern of replicative items. After artificial partitioning and serving on plates of the entity type X = pudding, we can recognize the samples of pudding on the plates as countable entities. Then our sample is not a single big or small mass of pudding (such as the mass of pudding in the picture, which cannot be quantified in terms of countable parts), but the new and larger sample is the assembly of servings of partitioned pudding prepared for the entire X-mass party. In this sample the single individual — and hence countable — thing is defined as the single serving, without any reference to its parts. This type of sample consists of a number of servings, and the servings are the countable parts of the sample, the units of pudding served and enjoyed at the X-mass party. Talking about stone, units of stone (stones or puddings versus stone or pudding) are even harder to partition and to bite than X-mass pudding.
- Counting can begin only after defining the single individual thing (the Euclidean unit). Having defined the countable unit X as the Elementary entity U_{X} externally as step 1, the next step 2 is Sampling as the transfer into a counting system, followed by step 3 of Assembling into a counting list, and the last step 4 is Counting, starting with the first elementary entity in the counting list (N_{X} = 1·U_{X}) and adding sequentially item after item. In this case, you should read CASE backwards. The term 'item' derives from the Latin word item meaning 'also, moreover, likewise', and the present meaning in English stems from adding identical objects after the first one into a list, item after item. Since there was no counting before counting begins (ESAC), the single individual thing has not yet been counted — U_{X} is entirely different from a count of one. And with a single individual X-mass pudding on the menu, there is no X-mass party on the counting table — in the counting table.
- An ‘elementary entity’ is the real unit or Euclidean unit, which is tightly connected to a concrete object, to an individual thing (a single individual serving of pudding, a single block of stone, a single individual body). Thus the Euclidean unit is realized in the real world, and mentally realized as a formal quantity in a formal system of quantities and units, in the cognitive sequence of counting before counting can begin. Formalization requires the creation of a symbol coherent with the system of symbols for quantities and units. The SI symbol X for entity is not appropriate as the symbol for elementary entities, since not all entities X are in fact countable. The symbol of a count of entities X is N_{X}, which is absolutely inappropriate as the symbol for elementary entities, since the elementary entity has to be defined as a quantity before counting can begin. The elementary entity, therefore, is not a count N_{X}. The symbol U_{X} is given to the quantity 'elementary entity' (or unit X; Gnaiger et al 2020), to emphasize the single thing, the real unit of specified entity type X. On the other hand, the abstract unit kilogram [kg] expresses the quantity mass m of any kind of sample, in which the type of physical object does not even have to be known, because abstract units are detached from any real thing. A kg of pudding is a kg, independent of the recipe and ingredients, and a kg of body mass is independent of composition in terms of carbohydrate, protein and fat. If you carry too much fat or too many stones in your pocket, you have a body mass excess, albeit with different meanings. All abstract units ("aunits", e.g., kilogram, meter, liter, joule; with symbols kg, m, L, J) relate to anything that is measured as opposed to counting. In contrast, the Euclidean unit ("eunit") relates to a specific thing that can be counted. Comparable to all quantities that are expressed in abstract units (mass, height, volume, energy), the quantity 'elementary entity' U_{X} as a real unit (unit X; eunit) is expressed in the abstract unit (aunit) with the name 'elementary unit' and symbol x. The meaning of this symbol [x] is, that it has the numerical value of one, independent of the nature of X that defines the elementary entity U_{X}.
On X-mass
- The really exciting confusion of our perception of units comes at X-mass, when we combine an abstract unit (kilogram as the unit of mass) with an Euclidean unit (elementary entity of type X). The terms aunit and eunit sound very much as a humbug. These terms are not taken seriously into consideration, but as truly helpful mental tools to keep the abstract aunit and real eunit apart. Take a serving of X-mass pudding as your sample, which you put on a mass balance to measure its mass, expressed in the aunit kg. The mass balance shows 0.3 kg, or m_{pudding} = 0.3 kg. The non-countable entity X is pudding. It is clearly a mass of pudding, that helps to increase your body mass. Measure your body mass before and after X-mass. Stand still on your mass balance and take a reading: 69 kg or m_{b} = 69 kg. This is the mass of 'human body' b, X=b. Pudding (pudding), stone (s), and body (b) are per se non-countable entities X. Only the individual serving of pudding (P), an individual piece of stone (S), and the body of an individual person (B) are countable, elementary entities U_{P}, U_{S}, and U_{B}. Your mass balance is ignorant of any eunit U_{X}. Collect 69 pieces of stone and put them on your balance, such that the result may be: 69 kg or m_{s} = 69 kg. What is the average mass of the single individual piece of stone? Your mass balance does not give the answer to this simple question. You have to put the count N_{S} = 69·U_{S} into the equation, and divide the mass of your sample of stones by the count of stones: 69 kg/(69·U_{S}). What is the other formal end of the equation? The result is simply 1 kg/1 U_{S}, or more simply by dropping the 1 in the nominator and the 1 in the denominator, the result is kg/U_{S}. This is the result, but the other formal end of the equation is a general symbol for the elementary quantity "aunit/eunit". It is not only surprising, but a shattering observation, that the International System of Units does not offer a formal name nor a formal symbol for such an elementary quantity. It is just too elementary, too simple, too intuitive, too automatically recognized, too universally important for making it consciously into our formal system — it is in our genes. Thus it works practically and fast, without the need to burden our mind with canonical reflections on how it works. But science is about grasping how things work, not merely about making them work. And experience tells us, that we can make things work better, if we reflect and learn about how they work.
- Think of your body mass. Without any Blah, blah on "aunit/eunit", you solved subconsciously the equation 69 kg/(1·U_{B}) = 69 kg/U_{B}. Without ever thinking of Euclid's definition of the unit (eunit), the 'body mass' is then simply reported as 69 kg. Nevertheless, you related the aunit of the ignorant mass balance [kg] to the eunit of your single individual self, when using the expression 'my body mass'. Our grammar does not reflect the division (per U_{B}), when we convert the short term 'body mass' into the longer expression 'mass of my body'. Both expressions make intuitively sense, since we see simultaneously the single individual body and the reading on the balance. But our grammar is oblivious to the division. What is intuitively understandable and even sounds correct in our perception, is incorrect as a conception. For obtaining a congruent representation of body mass, the expression 'mass of my body' has to be rigorously corrected on the basis of a physical and mathematical concept: The stone mass is m_{s} = 69 kg of a sample containing a count N_{S} = 69 Stones, which yields a mass per piece S of stone of 1 kg/U_{S}. On the same line, the body mass is m_{b} = 69 kg for a sample containing a count N_{B} = 1 Body, which yields a mass per piece B of body of 69 kg/Body. It is correct to talk about m_{X} [kg] as the mass of a sample containing entity or entities X. But after division of the mass of a sample by the count N_{X}, it is incoherent to talk about a mass of an elementary entity, since it is strictly a mass per elementary entity. When the mass of a sample is divided by the count of elementary entities in the sample, an elementary quantity is obtained: the 'elementary mass' M_{UX}, with the complex or mixed unit (aunit/eunit) kg/U_{X}. Since the abstract unit [x] applies to any elementary independent of X being stones or bodies, the elementary unit x can replace the elementary entity U_{X} to express the elementary mass M_{UX} in the simple abstract unit (aunit/aunit) [kg/x].
- The mass or volume of a sample of X have the symbols [units] m_{X} [kg] or V_{X} [L], respectively. The practical need for distinguishing between these extensive quantities m_{X} or V_{X} and their counterparts normalized for the elementary entity arises generally in applications ranging from physical chemistry, mitochondrial and cell physiology to sport and medicine, when the mass of an individual particle, cell, organism, or patient is of interest. Then the mass m_{X} [kg] of a sample of X is normalized for a count N_{X} = N·U_{X}, which means that m_{X} is divided by the number N. The pure number N is nondimensional [has no unit] and represents the numerical value of the count N_{X} [x]. But besides the number N, the symbol x of the elementary unit is treated as a mathematical entity (see SI 2019 p. 148 for abstract units). Therefore, the division does not only involve the number N, but also the unit x. Then the mass normalized for U_{X} requires a distinct symbol, M_{UX} = m_{X}·(N·U_{X})^{-1}, with the abstract unit [kg·x^{-1}]. The same applies for the extensive quantity volume V_{X} [L] normalized for U_{X}, which yields V_{UX} = V_{X}·(N·U_{X})^{-1} [L·x^{-1}] (see Tables 4 and 5 in Gnaiger et al 2020). Count, amount, and electric charge are elementary quantities Q_{X} with the abstract units u ('elementary unit' [x], mole [mol], and coulomb [C]) linked to the Euclidean real unit U_{X} by constants of nature. Normalization of an extensive quantity Q_{u} by an elementary entity U_{X} yiels an extensive elementary quantity Q_{UX} [u·x^{-1}], with M_{UX} and V_{UX} as examples.
- All this did not make sense to me before joining with 666 coauthors to prepare the preprint 'Mitochondrial respiratory states and rates' with multiple versions discussed over several years, which then was publish in Bioenergetics Communications under the title 'Mitochondrial physiology' (Gnaiger et al 2020). If M_{UX} = m_{X}·(N·U_{X})^{-1} makes more sense with X-mass from antestrophe to extroduction, then we might expect that the formal quantity 'elementary entity' U_{X} (the eunit) with ‘elementary unit’ [x] (the aunit) should be part of the most formal of all practical scientific systems, the International System of Units (SI). What do you expect? It is not. Is this not humbug? Resolving the incoherence of normalization by elementary entities unravels several ambiguities in our formal scientific terminology and reveals the isomorphic nature of elementary quantities, which then can be rationalized and understood more easily way beyond the topic of body mass.
Catastrophe XXX: XXX-mass Carol on BME and mitObesity
Prelude: From COVID-19 to mitObesity
- Catastrophes are the topic at the time of the COVID-19 crisis, in which the World Health Organization (WHO) plays a globally leading role. The COVID-19 challenge should make us skeptical in many ways far beyond the Corona virus, skeptical about our own behaviors, excessive life styles, and body mass excess, and skeptical about implementation of WHO standards relevant in addressing the obesity pandemic. In contrast to the communicable disease COVID-19, XXX-mass is a noncommunicable disease (NCD).
- The WHO defines overweight and obesity (retrieved from https://www.who.int/health-topics/obesity#tab=tab_1, 2020-07-05)
- "Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that presents a risk to health. A body mass index (BMI) over 25 is considered overweight, and over 30 is obese. The issue has grown to epidemic proportions, with over 4 million people dying each year as a result of being overweight or obese in 2017 according to the global burden of disease.
- The WHO defines overweight and obesity (retrieved from https://www.who.int/health-topics/obesity#tab=tab_1, 2020-07-05)
- The WHO provides the following key information on NCDs (retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases, 2020-07-05):
- Definition: "Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), also known as chronic diseases, tend to be of long duration and are the result of a combination of genetic, physiological, environmental and behaviours factors."
- Quantification: "Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) kill 41 million people each year, equivalent to 71 % of all deaths globally."
- Links to unhealthy lifestyles and obesity: "These diseases are driven by forces that include rapid unplanned urbanization, globalization of unhealthy lifestyles and population ageing. Unhealthy diets and a lack of physical activity may show up in people as raised blood pressure, increased blood glucose, elevated blood lipids and obesity. These are called metabolic risk factors that can lead to cardiovascular disease, the leading NCD in terms of premature deaths."
- Metabolic risk factors: "In terms of attributable deaths, the leading metabolic risk factor globally is elevated blood pressure (to which 19 % of global deaths are attributed), followed by overweight and obesity and raised blood glucose."
The topics of BME and mitObesity
- BME: The concept of body mass index (BMI) is controversial. Catastrophe XXX on BME and mitObesity introduces the 'body mass excess' (BME), which is an index of obesity and excess body fat that is superior to the conventional body mass index, is based on the same measurements as the BMI — elementary body mass and height —, and should globally replace the BMI.
- mitObesity: The WHO does not mention mitochondrial metabolic deficiencies. Catastrophe XXX on BME and mitObesity provides evidence, that the decline of mitochondrial metabolic fitness is the most fundamental mechanistic link between obesity and NCDs.
- mitObesity as a noncommunicable disease plays an important role in determining the outcome of the communicable disease COVID-19.
- Executive summary
- Healthy reference population
- Body mass index
- Height of humans
- Body mass
- Body mass excess
- Body fat excess
- BME cutoff points
- VO2max
- mitObesity - work in progress
- mitObesity drugs
Anastrophe XX: Entity X and elementary unit x
- Scientists have to be skeptical and build barriers against nonsense, hoax, and fraud (Figure H 1). This essential attitude of science creates a backlash not only against irreproducibility, fiction and religion, but in anterograde mode makes sceptical against innovations and hypotheses that counter the scientific, social, and political mainstream. With the greatest respect to the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures and the SI — and having been skeptical about the WHO standard 'BMI' in Catastrophe XXX — we should not hesitate to be skeptical about the International System of Units (SI) in relation to the universally most fundamental quantity count and it's elementary unit. The quantity count is not included in the list of SI base quantities (see SI figure on the left). A skeptical approach provides the basis for canonical innovation and optimization.
Prelude: The dragon bites its tail
- Scientists are trained to accept norms and operate under the laws of nature, such that it is in many scientist’s nature to follow the establishment, turn against revolution and ― in retrograde mode ― fight against innovation. Scientists fighting against innovation is paradoxical, since science is all about innovation. Yet it cannot be just about new, the 'new' has to be something that can be trusted (can you trust a new friend without her or him becoming an old friend?) and that has value (new nonsense?). Fighting aginst innovation is necessary not only to find the bugs (humbug) in the system, but is essential to get funded by governmental agencies. Then scientists can elaborate and publish those innovations that are not rejected by the scientific establishment. Nevertheless, the majority of scientific publications are irreproducible waste (see Publication efficiency), mainly as a result of the scientific system geared towards quantity rather than quality, to buglish what is accepted rather than publish what is new. How can we then find out, which type of science is pseudo-religious gibberish, lacking the rigor of canonical form, in contrast to the type of science which is science (Figure H 1)?
- In canonical form every term, symbol, and object has a consistent representation as a result of disambiguation. Disambiguation in the first place relies on the use of practically evolved language to define a term that is part of practically evolved language ― then the dragon bites its tail in a self-referential loop of romantic communication in harmony, that is despised of in classical linear logic. Alternatively, practically evolved language is used to define a newly diverted (or more dramatic: a newly invented) term ― then the dragon’s mouthful of gibberish does not even find its tail on the classical linear trajectory, when communication is what happens when two parallels meet at infinity. Successful disambiguation uses a diversity of media ― counting, measuring, text, symbols, equations, figures, colour, sound, videos, repeated experiments ― to obtain optimum redundancy and complementarity. The present attempt at disambiguation of fundamental terms ― from system, sample, object, entity, count, volume, body mass, to flow and flux ― taps into the richness and limitations of evolved common language, when an experimental biologist sees theoretical physical chemistry through the looking glass (Figure H 3). Measuring starts with counting. But when does counting begin?
Canon I: In CASE of counting: when, where, and why?
- Does counting begin at a count of one or zero? Which 'one' is the first floor — floor zero on the ground, or floor one after counting all the steps on your way up? A count of zero? What is counting? The definition of entity X makes the difference of counting floors or couting steps. The question on the first floor or the first step remains all the same. Counting is a stepwise process, adding elementary entities one at a time to somewhere. The count of zero is in the realm of nowhere. The 'nowhere' is not defined without aiming at a step. The 'somewhere' will be defined at another step.
- Counting is the process of assigning a number or numerical value N to the quantity 'count' N_{X}. For isomorphic comparison, measuring is the process of assigning a numerical value to an extensive quantity Q_{u}, such as mass, height, area, or volume.
When does counting begin?
- Counting cannot begin before defining an elementary entity. Not all entities X are countable or elementary entities U_{X}. The elementary entity is defined — not as a definition in the theoretical world of terminology, but in the real world of the experimenter — to be sampled for counting and perhaps for measuring, too. Sampling is the process of separating entities contained in an ensemble (the holode of entities) from the space called the environment (which is largely ignored during an experiment) to a confined or defined space called the experimental system, which is frequently referred to as the experimental chamber. Thus Counting begins after Assembling the Sampled Elementary entities (CASE). Counting begins after identifying the elementary entity U_{X} (in short, the term 'elementary' will be used synonymously with elementary entity). The elementary U_{X} is the realization of an elementary unit x. Realization of the defined U_{X} is a necessary condition even before the beginning of counting. If this is realized and accepted, then U_{X} is not counted, it is fundamentally defined as Euclid's unit (the single individual thing). Implicit in the definition of the elementary U_{X} as Euclid's unit is its conjunction with the 'abstract elementary unit' x: it is single, it is one, the elementary entity has the elementary unit x. In practical terms, we start counting immediately, with these complex preparations for counting done subconsciously, lile a reflex that does not pass our mind. This makes CASE starting from the Elementary entity difficult to reflect. Counting makes practical sense, whereas talking canonically about two units as the basis for counting — (1) Euclid's unit as the elementary entity U_{X}, and (2) the abstract elementary unit x with numerical value of one — does not make practical sense at all. A canonical introduction to the apparently opposite units is required, to grasp the dual meanings of 'unit' and to connect the two apparently opposite meanings to a unified concept: the holode of Ludwig Boltzmann. The elementary with reference to a real individual thing or event is defined in
U_{X} cannot be identical but must be equivalent with its unit, the elementary unit x, and the elementary entity U_{X} cannot be identical but must be equivalent with the first step of counting, yielding the numerical value of the first count N_{X,1} = 1·U_{X} [x].
Work in progress
Canon II: Canonical reviewer's comments on: Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (2019) The International System of Units (SI) 9^{th} ed.
- * Preprint released 2020-08-11 » Gnaiger MitoFit Preprints 2020.4
Canon III: In a nutshell — NUCE
- In CASE of little interest in a Counting, Assembling, and Sorting Experience, readers may jump across NUCE to Canon IIII, counting on the SI. Even there one finds the consequences of the notion that the nature of numbers remains an open question in modern philosophy. The SI uses a number (one) as the unit of a count. A count is the number of elementary entities. Various philosophical theories struggle with the separation of numbers from counts, perhaps beginning with Euclid's definition of a number as the multitude of units. Then number as a unit is the tail of a count which is devoured by the count as a number.
NUCE - a CASE from the beginning
- In CASE we are interested in exploring something, it all starts with definitions. We define the object or event X of the investigation.
- E: Entity X is out there. If it is only in your imagination, file it in 'File-X'.
- S: For investigation, take a defined Sample from all entities of type X existing in the real world, to study it more or less isolated from the rest of the world. Special care has to be taken, to isolate the sample of X completely from the imagined world. This is tough. The gold standard is the pure sample — without any contaminations from the imagined and real worlds. Sample separation is at the beginning of an experiment. That is why the real world is curious as to when Dr. Zen will start her experiment in the laboratory, while she is still concerned with purification from the imagined world (the alchemists called this putrification). If sample separation fails, it is the end (that is one of the hidden themes of the Ouroboros of alchemy). Think of isolated mitochondria, of a cristallized enzyme, of pure gold (Today there is a predominant interpretation, that alchemists had aimed at the transformation of low-value metals into gold; Dr. CG Jung explains: do not confuse the search for purity and reproducibility with the addiction to gold or obsession by impact factors. Dr. S Freud disagrees and adds some more obsessions). Sample perparation was at the beginning of the alchemist's experiment in the search for the pure substance, and most of them failed (this has not changed, as evidenced by the continuing reproducibility crisis). So did Newton's experiments on alchemy in his investigations of the chemical affinities of metals. Yet, these failures gave the inspirations for his biggest success, when changing X and turning from affinities of chemistry to the gravitational force of physics (Dobbs 1975 Cambridge Univ Press, White 1997 Fourth Estate).
- A: All this sampling requires a lot of Assembling, let it be celestial bodies, legal bodies, biological bodies, body parts, particles for static entities X call objects, or something that happens dynamically over time in association with some bodies to get dynamic X called events. After assembling starts quantification.
- C: Counting X-objects or X-events appears to be the simplest type of quantification, but it has its practical limits. First, counting needs quantization of objects or events in a sample of X. It was a long way from the 'elements' of Euclid of Alexandria and the atoms of Greek philosophers to the Boltzmann constant and Avogadro constant that deal with quantized elementary entities, which experienced their latest ground-breaking definitions on Unit-day in 2019-05-20. What is the meaning of counting quantized elementary entities of type X?
- In CASE we are interested in exploring something, it all starts with definitions. We define the object or event X of the investigation.
- Counting mitochondrial is hard, as all know with an interest in electron microscopy and stereology. Counting mitochondrial is controversial, as all know with an interest in fission and fusion. Mitochondria are entities X, but quantization of mitochondria is a problem. Quantification is another issue. Even harder problems of counting are encountered with much simpler objects of type X. While cell counters may give more or less reliable cell counts, how do we count the object or entity X = water in a sample of crystalline or liquid pure water?
- This is clearly a case of the Ouroboros: spinning the CASE backwards by way of ESAC brings us back to the beginning — entity X. However many File-X units we want to spin around, we have to pop out of the CASE loop, starting with entity X in a nutshell: NUCE.
NUCE - an advanced CASE in a nutshell
- Quantification of (4E) elementary entities of X as (3C) a count needs quantization into (2U) units U_{X} to obtain a quantity as a (1N) number of elementary entities per U_{X}. This was brief, fitting into a nutshell. Perhaps we need to break the shell for finding the meaning in the message NUCE, moving from backwards to forwards.
- The concept of (1N) number is elusive in the theoretical world of mathematics, philosophy, and even in the technical world of systems of (2U) units, where the SI is the most formalized of all systems in the world. The International System of Units (SI) deals with units, giving the quantity (3C) 'count' a unit with the number 1 expressed in the term 'unit' (uno, one). So what's the problem with NUCE? The problem is exactly in the unit with the numeral 1 expressed in the term "unit", and in the elusive quantity (4E) elementary entity U_{X} with the elementary unit [x].
- NU: A number N is not a unit U or u.
- CN: A count N_{X} is not a number N.
- EU: An elementary entity X (Euclid) is not a unit (SI).
- NE: A number N is not an entity X.
- CE: A count N_{X} is not an entity X, even for a single elementary entity.
- CU: A count N_{X} is not an elementary unit x.
- The concept of (1N) number is elusive in the theoretical world of mathematics, philosophy, and even in the technical world of systems of (2U) units, where the SI is the most formalized of all systems in the world. The International System of Units (SI) deals with units, giving the quantity (3C) 'count' a unit with the number 1 expressed in the term 'unit' (uno, one). So what's the problem with NUCE? The problem is exactly in the unit with the numeral 1 expressed in the term "unit", and in the elusive quantity (4E) elementary entity U_{X} with the elementary unit [x].
NUCE - all CASEs in links
- N »Number
- U »Unit
- C »Count
- E »Elementary entity
Canon IIII: Count on SI
Relationships between isomorphic quantities of count
SI base quantities and units: adding count, elementary entity, and charge for comparison of isomorphic quantities linked to counting
- "The value of a quantity is generally expressed as the product of a number and a unit. The unit is simply a particular example of the quantity concerned which is used as a reference, and the number is the ratio of the value of the quantity to the unit" (SI 2019: Defining the unit of a quantity, p. 127).
Quantity Symbol for quantity Q Symbol for dimension Name of abstract unit u_{Q} Symbol for unit u_{Q} [*] elementary entity ^{*,$} U_{X} U elementary unit x count ^{*,$} N_{X} = N·U_{X} X elementary unit x amount of substance ^{*,§} n_{X} = N_{X}·N_{A}^{-1} N mole mol charge ^{*,€} Q_{el} = z_{X}·e·N_{X} I·T coulomb C = A·s length l L meter m mass m M kilogram kg time t T second s electric current I I ampere A thermodynamic temperature T Θ kelvin K luminous intensity I_{v} J candela cd
- [*] SI units, except for the canonical 'elementary unit' [x]. The following footnotes are canonical comments, related to iconic symbols.
- ^{*} For the elementary quantities N_{X}, n_{X}, and Q_{el}, the entity-type X of the elementary entity U_{X} has to be specified in the text and indicated by a subscript: n_{O2}; N_{ce}; Q_{el}.
- ^{$} Count N_{X} equals the number of elementary entities U_{X}. In the SI, the quantity 'count' is explicitly considered as an exception: "Each of the seven base quantities used in the SI is regarded as having its own dimension. .. All other quantities, with the exception of counts, are derived quantities" (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures 2019 The International System of Units (SI)). An elementary entity U_{X} is a material unit, it is not a count (U_{X} is not a number of U_{X}). N_{X} has the dimension X of a count and U_{X} has the dimension U of an elementary entity; both quantities have the same abstract unit, the 'elementary unit' [x].
- ^{§} Amount n_{X} is an elementary quantity, converting the elementary unit [x] into the SI base unit mole [mol] using the Avogadro constant N_{A}.
- ^{€} Charge is a derived SI quantity. Charge is an elementary quantity, converting the elementary unit [x] into coulombs [C] using the elementary charge e, or converting moles [mol] into coulombs [C] using the Faraday constant F. z_{X} is the charge number per elementary entity U_{X}, which is a constant for any defined elementary entity U_{X}. Q_{el} = z_{X}·F·n_{X}
N_{B} and n_{B} are the count and amount, respectively, of elementary entities indicated as entity-type B. L (or N_{A}) is the Avogadro constant.
- A canonical question: If we deal with a count of one entity B, then N_{B} = 1 x (entity B). If B carries the message ‘one single B’, then N_{B} = 1 x = B. Does the count devour the entity? Is B a count or an entity? Or is B a count if N_{B} = 1 x, but an entity-type if N_{B} > 1 x?
- Push down »International System of Units«
- Bioblast links: SI base units - >>>>>>> - Click on [Expand] or [Collapse] - >>>>>>>
- Entity, count, and number, and SI base quantities / SI base units
Quantity name Symbol Unit name Symbol Comment elementary U_{X} elementary unit [x] U_{X}, U_{B}; [x] not in SI count N_{X} elementary unit [x] N_{X}, N_{B}; [x] not in SI number N - dimensionless = N_{X}·U_{X}^{-1} amount of substance n_{B} mole [mol] n_{X}, n_{B} electric current I ampere [A] A = C·s^{-1} time t second [s] length l meter [m] SI: metre mass m kilogram [kg] thermodynamic temperature T kelvin [K] luminous intensity I_{V} candela [cd]
- Fundamental relationships
- » Avogadro constant N_{A}
- » Boltzmann constant k
- » elementary charge e
- » Faraday constant F
- » gas constant R
- » electrochemical constant f
- Fundamental relationships
- SI and related concepts
Concentration and density
Concentration and density in different formats
- Concentration is an extensive quantity divided by volume V, or a count divided by volume V. The elementary entities X (or B) or the sample type s have to be specified in the text or indicated by a subscript or in parentheses. Examples: cell-count concentration C_{ce}; count concentration of protons C_{H+}; molar concentration of protons c_{H+}. Density is not only 'mass density ρ, but is used for many extensive quantities divided by volume or area.
Concentration Symbol Definition Unit Note Count concentration C_{X} = N_{X}·V^{-1} [x·L^{-1}] The IUPAC term 'number concentration' should be replaced by 'count concentration' (or 'number of entities concentration'). Amount concentration c_{B} = n_{B}·V^{-1} [mol·L^{-1}] Amount concentration is a counting concentration, converting the elementary unit [x] into moles [mol] using the Avogadro constant. Charge concentration C_{QX} = Q_{X}·V^{-1} [C·L^{-1}] Charge concentration is a counting concentration, converting the elementary unit [x] into coulombs C using the elementary charge, or converting moles [mol] into coulombs [C] using the Faraday constant. Charge density in electricity is 'charge per volume'. Mass concentration of X C_{mX} = m_{X}·V^{-1} [kg·L^{-1}] Mass concentration C_{mX} is mass of entities X per volume V of the mixture. Mass density of S ρ_{S} = m_{S}·V_{S}^{-1} [kg·L^{-1}] Mass density ρ_{S} is mass of the pure sample S per volume V_{S} of the pure sample; ρ_{S} is the reciprocal of specific volume. Volume concentration of X C_{VX} = V_{X}·V^{-1} [L·L^{-1}] Volume concentration C_{VX} is the volume of entities X per volume V of the mixture. Volume density Φ_{X} = V_{X}·V^{-1} [L·L^{-1}] Volume density is equivalent to the volume fraction.
- Push down »Concentration«
- Bioblast links: Concentration and pressure - >>>>>>> - Click on [Expand] or [Collapse] - >>>>>>>
- Concentration
- » Volume
- » Activity
- » Concentration
- » Density
- » Mole
- » Molar mass
- Concentration
- Pressure
- Solubility = concentration/pressure
- General
- » Boltzmann constant
- » Energy
- » Force
- » Gas constant
- » Work
- General
- Related keyword lists
Canon IIIII: The Bit Assembled in the Highest-level system
- (1) Objects or (2) assemblies of objects or (3) groups of assemblies are counted in a sample obtained from (4) an ensemble and added to an experimental system. By adding a sample containing countable entities with the aim of relating to the count, (1) a homogenous experimental system is transformed into (2) a compartmental nested experimental system, which is contained in (3) the instrumental system, which is contained in (4) the real world including the experimenter and the ensemble. Since a sample is obtained from an ensemble with the aim of obtaining information on the ensemble, there is error propagation from (1) sampling, (2) filling the experimental system, (3) using the instrumental system for counting and measuring, and (4) drawing conclusions from counting and measuring on concepts about the real world.
Work in progress
Canon IIIIII: To publish or buglish — a pathway to perish
- Our "Age of Anxiety" is, in great part, the result of trying to do today's job with yesterday's tools — with yesterday's concepts. — Marshall McLuhan Herbert, Fiore Quentin (1967) The Medium is the Massage — »Bioblast link«.
- Communication and value of science has been based on paper, from the papyrus of ancient Agypt to the transformations that enlarged the pressure to publish and were brought about by the printing press of Johannes Gutenberg. Metal typesetting used fonts of different sizes with a fixed metal mass of each sort of type in a typeface. Today the body mass index of a printed character is called the weight of a font, which is the thickness of the graphical outlines divided by the height of a character. Pressing a button on a photocopy machine produces or rather consumes a lot of papers in the age of the xerographic (dry graphic) technology. In the modern digital world of the internet and pdf files we are still using the 15^{th} century vocabulary of the printing press when talking about a scientific paper that makes or breaks a scientific career in the service of impact factors, and we are still referring to the physical transport by courier services when spelling out pdf as portable data format. Scientists have to have the paper in press to make an impression on the scientific community. Even preprints give the impression, that printing is performed by application of mechanical pressure. The digital revolution has transformed the culture of scientific publication in physics and mathematics, but a fundamental liberation from a concept fixed on paper(s) is yet to be realized in the biomedical field (Gnaiger 2019 MitoFit Preprints Editorial).
- "No one knows how many scientific journals there are, but several estimates point to around 30,000, with close to two million articles published each year." — Altbach Philip G, de Wit Hans (2018) Too much academic research is being published. Univ World News retrieved 2020-07-14. — This makes close to 5 500 publications per day. If you are working during the week and reading during the weekend, then there are more than 19000 new publications per weekend day.
- Compared to browsing through publications in the (physical room of a) library, browsing through the internet and specifically PubMed has changed retrieval of literature fundamentally. Table 6.1 summarizes some examples relevant for the X-mass Carol.
- Our official culture is striving to force the new media to do the work of the old. — Marshall McLuhan Herbert, Fiore Quentin (1967) The Medium is the Massage — »Bioblast link«.
- Table 6.1. Publication overload: PubMed counts for publications in 2019 and 2009 on BMI and mitochondrial search terms individually (#1 and #2) and combined (#3). There was a 1.7- to 1.8-fold increase within 10 years in all three categories, indicating that growth in the more prominent research field BMI (mt/BMI=0.8) was as high as in the mt-research field. Only 0.43 % of all BMI-linked publications included the term mitochondria.
Search term # PubMed Search term Count 2019 Count 2009 Count per day 2019 Count per weekend day 2019 x x x/day x/weekend day 1 BMI or Body mass index 25310 13861 69 243 2 mitochondr* 19994 11583 55 192 3 1 and 2 108 62 0.3 1.0
- Highly simplified models of 'Meaningful-innovation-Publications' (MiP) provide guidelines for reflecting on and optimization of publication strategies.
Paradise lost — the static MiP model
- The number of published papers per unit of time (per year, per day, per weekend day) is N_{p}. The time unit has to be specified.
- The number of irreproducible publications N_{z} of zero positive but potentially negative value is high, with an irreproducibility ratio F_{z/p} = N_{z}/N_{p} ≈ 0.85 (Ioannidis et al 2014).
- Bayesian statistics provides a solid proof of concept, that it is irresponsible scientific commercialism, if confirmative publications are suppressed in so-called 'high-impact' journals, which promote conformity science. The immense value of methodologically sound confirmative communications requires full appreciation, as does the importance of reproducibly contradictory results. It is difficult but important to define the drivers of scientific commercialism among authors, editors, and businesses, and to distinguish re-search-oriented publishing of scientific literature from commerce-oriented buglishing in low- or high-impact journals which are predatory to the same extent. The underrating of methodologically and statistically rigorous confirmative and contradictory results promotes escape strategies of presenting 'conformative' results, which please the commercialism of publication by mainstream-delusion. These considerations justify an emphasis on reproducible publications N_{r} — including publications providing the test of reproducibility of published innovative results — and a simple discrimination between reproducible and zero-value publications, N_{p} = N_{r}+N_{z}. The reproducibility efficiency is F_{r/p} = N_{r}/N_{p}.
- The reproducibility crisis expressed by the low reproducibility efficiency F_{r/p} has to be put into the context of a hyper-exponentially growing inflation crisis of publication. The count N_{p} of all publications is split into a count of publications N_{a} that receive attention and meaningful interpretation, and a count of publications N_{n} that is neglected, N_{p} = N_{a}+N_{n}. If N_{p} exceeds N_{a}, then there is an inflation cisis of producing a paper mass excess (or publication mass excess; PME), as a process which diminishes the value of each elementary paper U_{p}. The inflation cisis results from a mismatch of all material that is published and the limited information-processing capacity of individuals, working groups, disciplines, and society at large. The inflation crisis is expressed by the low attention efficiency F_{a/p} = N_{a}/N_{p}. The concepts of PME and BME are not isomorphic, although they have some features in common: fast-print and fast-food, paper and food production in excess of output capacity, too much rancid fat in irreproducible publications and too much fat irreversibly accumulated in the body.
Figure 6.3. Decline of publication efficiency as a function of increasing irreproducible publications N_{z}* (left to right). Counts N_{X}* and efficiencies or fractions F* with the asterisc show the results of various levels of improvement from the baseline state with N_{z} of irreproducible publications and intermediary states with N_{z}* decreasing to the standard state with N_{z}° = 0 x (right to left). N_{p} is the total count of published communications at the current baseline. The reproducibility efficiency is F_{r/p}=0.15 at the current baseline (red arrow). As the number of irreproducible publications N_{z}* declines while the number of reproducible publications remains constant at N_{r}*=N_{r}, the total number of publications N_{p}* declines linearly with decreasing N_{z}* to a minimum fraction N_{p}*/N_{p}=F_{r/p} (dotted arrow). The reproducibility efficiency F_{r/p}* increases as a hyperbolic function of the declining N_{z}*. N_{z}*/N_{r}* can be understood as the relative inhibitor concentration with a hyperbolic (Michaelis-Menten kinetic) inhibitory effect on the reproducibility efficiency F_{r,p}*=N_{r}*/N_{p}* (Eq. 6.9). The attention efficiency F_{a/p}* increases as a hyperbolic function of the reduction of N_{z}* to a maximum F_{a/p}° = N_{a}/N_{r} = 0.33, due to the steady decline of the total count of published communications N_{p}* as N_{z}* declines to zero x. The target of optimization is the count N_{r,a}* or the normalized count F_{r,a/p}* = N_{r,a}*/N_{p}, which contains the quadratic term (N_{z/p}/N_{p})^{2}. F_{r,a/p}* demonstrates the primary importance of cutting down the number or irreproducible publications, which are identified as an inhibitory scientific output and as such not of zero value, but of negative value.
Figure 6.4. Dynamic strategies to increase publication efficiency as a function of decreasing irreproducible publications N_{z}* (right to left). Counts N_{X}* and efficiencies or fractions F* with the asterisc show the results of various levels of improvement from the baseline state with N_{z} of irreproducible publications and intermediary states with N_{z}* decreasing to the standard state with N_{z}° = 0 x. N_{p} is the total count of published communications at the current baseline. The reproducibility efficiency is F_{r/p}=0.15 at the current baseline (red arrow). As the number of irreproducible publications N_{z}* declines, the number of reproducible publications increases at half the rate of the decline of N_{z}*. The total number of publications N_{p}* declines less steeply than in the static model, whereas the reproducibility efficiency F_{r/p}* increases steeply in the early phase of the reduction of N_{z}*, transforming every two inhibitory N_{z}* into one constructive N_{r}*. The attention efficiency F_{a/p}* increases as steeply as F_{r,p}*, since more confirmative N_{r}* can be counted, which receive increasing attention and are quickly understood. Compared to the static model, the success of increased publication efficiency F_{r,a/p}* is immediately realized as N_{z}* are substituted at 50 % by N_{r}*, thus enforcing the motivation to get out of the r&i-crisis by fighting even more effectively against N_{z}*. At N_{z}*/N_{p} of 0.15, the target of optimization F_{r,a/p}* increases from 0.05 to 0.08 in the static model, but to 0.47 in the dynamic model, which is a 5.7-fold higher improvement due to positive feedback.
- The introductory analysis of the reproducibility and inflation crisis (r&i-crisis) of scientific publications is summarized in the following definitions and equations, all of which are oversimplified symbols of reality.
(Eq. 6.1a) Publication count r-crisis: N_{p} = N_{r} + N_{z} (Eq. 6.1b) Reproducible publication count: N_{r} = N_{p} - N_{z}
(Eq. 6.2a) Publication count i-crisis: N_{p} = N_{a} + N_{n} (Eq. 6.2b) Attention publication count: N_{a} = N_{p} - N_{n}
(Eq. 6.3a) Reproducibility efficiency: F_{r/p} = N_{r} / N_{p} (Eq. 6.3b) Reproducibility in r-crisis: N_{r} = F_{r/p} · N_{p}
(Eq. 6.4a) Attention efficiency: F_{a/p} = N_{a} / N_{p} (Eq. 6.4b) Attention in i-crisis: N_{a} = F_{a/p} · N_{p}
Reflections on paradise lost
More details »Publication efficiency«
Metastrophe X: Xtroduction
- The X-mass canons aim at providing a new understanding of the concepts of counting and measuring, to crack the code for communication from physical and chemical sciences to molecular biology and mitochondrial physiology. Although we are familiar with the concepts of counting and measuring — or we are counting and measuring without feeling a need to be familiar with these concepts —, established systems of quantities, symbols, and units do not sufficiently reflect the fact that quantities for measurement of size (mass [kg], volume [L]) are opposite to a group of quantities that are strictly linked to counting (count [x], amount [mol], charge [C]). The units 'mole' for amount and 'coulomb' for charge are connected to the unit 'elementary unit' [x] for count by fixed stoichiometries, but [x] is not part of the International System of Units (SI).
- The X-mass canons are relevant to all areas of science and philosophy and all disciplines that are involved with counting and measuring. However, for strictly Practical-Technical realists PT, the X-mass Carol is too theoretical. For Technical-Theoretical gray matter TT, the X-mass carols are practically too green. You do not have to stay away from Theoretical-Canonical nerds TC, they behave anyway like an isolated system. If you identify yourself as a PTC — Practical&Technical-Theoretical&Canonical — then pop up to add your comments on the X-mass Carol.
- The X-mass canons are written in recursive form about recursive systems, where an experimental system is contained in an instrumental system, an extroduction introduces the introduction, and the quantity 'count' devours its own physicochemical unit [x]. Enjoy the X-mass Carol from beginning to end, to realize that the beginning is not in the introduction, and the beginning is not in the extroduction. The theme is: BAH! Humbug! The meaning of BAH! will be explained extempore, the retrograde and self-referential meaning of Humbug! is: back to Humbug ― the end and the beginning.
- This extroduction is the external or executive introduction to the X-mass Carol.
- Push down to »Extroduction«
- Push down to »Canonical - by Douglas R Hofstadter«
- This extroduction is the external or executive introduction to the X-mass Carol.
Prelude: X-mass carols on quantities, symbols, and units. Canons composed in the spirit of Douglas R Hofstadter
- While there exists only one single X-mass Carol, there is a potential maximum number of extroductory Canons set by the global number of counting human people. Babies are able to count before being taught to count and before talking, and the capacity to count is not restricted to the human species. For each group of persons and species a different pattern triggers counting. This trigger-pattern should be encoded into each specific extroductory Canon. Such a large number of Canons cannot be included within the X-mass Carol, since it would blow up its word count beyond a reasonable number of words allowed in a conventional scientific system of publication. The word-count expansion in the extroduction aims at introducing different PTC-audiences to the why should I open the box, and to the how to read it's contents. The Extroduction is the manual for the augmented X-mass Carol and diminuted BEC 2020.1. As usual, a manual for the X-mass Carol cannot be well understood without reading the X-mass Carol, which should be used as a manual for the extroductory Canons. BEC 2020.1 is another manual for the X-mass Carol. As always, read the manual first.
Canon E: Table of extroductory Canons
Canon H: Historical stories, novels and philosophical bestsellers. BAH! Humbug!
Figure H 1. Thomas Rowlandson Humbugging, or raising the Devil (1800), illustrating Charles Dickens and L. Frank Baum’s Bah! Humbug! - Source
- BAH! Humbug! ― is the theme of the X-mass carols on terminology that found its roots in Charles Dickens novella A Christmas Carol (1843) (Figure H 1) and L Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (Figure H 2). But first of all BAH is inspired by a canonical Carroll: Lewis Carroll’s novel Through the Looking-Glass (Figures H 3 and H 4), the sequel to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865) referred to by Douglas Richard Hofstadter in his book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. A metaphorical fugue on minds and machines in the spirit of Lewis Carroll (1979). MC Escher’s Dragon ― the Ouroboros (Figure H 5) ― is a canonical self-referential symbol that penetrates BAH from beginning to end and from the end to the beginning: when the Highest-level system H devours itself and becomes its own Body B, and backwards when Bit B creates its own system B, when the object Body B inflates into its own system Body B ― when the medium is the message. The book The Medium is the Massage (1967) was co-created by Herbert Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore (Figure H 6).
Figure H 5. Maurits Cornelis Escher Dragon (1952) – the Ouroboros
Canon T: Funny Table
- Subtle dualistic meaning of a term and a mix-up of context are at the heart of a good joke: the meaning of a term in one context takes us by surprise when pushed into a different box with a paradoxical result, and when we pop up we are laughing, mainly at our own cognitive selves. Recursive laughing is compassionate, terminating laughing is unconcerned. Did you get it: this was no joke? Please, sit down at a table, fill in a pint of beer, and fill in Table T, particularly if the joke was good, but you did not laugh.
- Table T. Fill in Funny Table T. — Manual to Table T: If you do not understand English or the English was un-understandable, but the joke was VERY good, then fill in "Good joke? Y" \ "Funny? N". Am I a joke and not laughing? The owner of this Manual declares not to hold any material, philosophical, or psychological responsibility for cases, when the joke was not good ("Good joke? N"), but you did laugh ("Funny? Y").
- In the Practical-Technical world, dualistic terminology is not perceived as a problem. It would be funny, if perceived as a problem. Laughing about Funny Table is funny only, if you see a problem when there is a problem. What is funny in the Funny Table is another question, but not a problem.
- In practical language we cannot but (1) use dualistic terminology, (2) remain vague about background and the environment, skipping accurate and lengthy definitions of context, and (3) give a sloppy representation of the hierarchy in nested compartments when pushing down and popping up confusingly between different layers. Practical language works very well, that is why it can be used with great confidence. Uncritical faith in the medium 'practical language' entails the danger of failure in linking the medium with the message, when communication is what has not happened. Lack of any faith in the prospect, that the medium and the meaning have anything in common, stops communication by an endless recursive loop of explanations of explanations. Does a term describe the object of our investigation? Or is the term an object, worthwhile of canonical investigation? Was it perceived as a joke, or should one explain the joke?
- A funny joke is funny, but why does the Funny Joke not laugh? Explaining a funny joke is not funny. Explaining a funny joke is a nagging problem in all cases, it is both boring and insulting. If you explain a joke to me, it is insulting because I am perceived as the one who does not understand, and it is boring because I am the one who (1) has understood, or (2) did not understand and is not interested in understanding. 'Funny' can be traced back to the verb fun with the original meaning "to cheat" or "to hoax", and is as such closely connected to "BAH! Humbug!
- It needs an extroduction to make me interested in understanding something that I do not understand. It is the inherent curiosity that makes me interested in finding out what is funny in something not perceived as being funny. Inherent curiosity is the fun of finding funny things instead of just laughing about a funny thing, creating a funny table instead of just finding a joke funny in the table, inventing an instrument and writing a manual instead of just using the instrument and not reading the manual.
- The extroduction to inherent curiosity is the evolutionary background that shaped inherent curiosity over millions of generations: without inborn inherent curiosity a species does not survive. That is why inherent curiosity is a necessary feature of healthy children. Whereas intelligent children enjoy telling a joke again and again, this attitude fades away as a system becomes mature. A good scientist enjoys running an experiment again and again, learning more about reproducibility, variability, and outliers, until the apparent outlier pops up as the greatest discovery. A good runner enjoys running again and again, until the experience of perfection in running replaces the experience of running. Loosing inherent curiosity is loosing health. This comes sooner or later with aging.
- Canonical form can be seen in the effort to explain and investigate a joke without end of explaining and investigating (Figure: Penrose Steps in MC Escher's Ascending and Descending). This is important, because a joke that is not only good but interesting has more than one layer. When I am laughing about a joke in a group of laughing buddies, perhaps different layers of the joke have been perceived by anybody laughing. Even if you are not laughing about an interesting joke, I cannot know if you are not laughing because the first layers were trivial and you did not get the deeper layers, or if you did not get any layer at all. In canonical form the problem is solved by slicing off layer by layer to see all the bits. This can drive everybody crazy or put us all asleep, if the practical aim is lost — if it is not fun.
- Is the fun in the doing, or in the objective of the doing? Like every form, canonical form needs context. Canonical form is inappropriate at an X-mas party, but is the whole meaning of the X-mass party. Canonical form is literally out of place in an Abstract or even in the entire publication, to keep it readable. But canonical form may be essential in a Manual, which makes it unreadable. Inherent curiosity keeps us going in canonical form in the context of a practical question. Canonical and practical may be seen as the opposites in a spectrum of practical-technical-theoretical-canonical regression. Inherent curiosity is lost, if the opposite ends are disconneted. Then you become either a practical-technical realo who stays away from the kids, or a theoretical-canonical nerd from whom the kids stay away. Playing children can be tremendously canonical, no matter if you are an Adult playing to be a child, or you are a Child playing. If their endless playing assumes the canonical nature of a closed-system, then we see symptoms of autism. If they stop playing at all and are reduced to practical tasks and lack of curiosity, then we see symptoms of autism. The unconnected ends of the personality spectrum have the same thing in common: they share the property of lack of connectedness. This is why autistic parallel lines can never meet.
- Extroductory Canons are all about dualistic terminology, mix-up of context, thinking Beer but talking Bottle, confusing system, compartment, ensemble, sample, and object. This is taken to the extreme when the object becomes its own object. Are you one of the 666 coauthors of 'Mitochondrial physiology' (BEC 2020.1)? Am I in a bad joke and laughing? Am I a joke and not laughing? When is a good joke not funny? How do you see yourself as an object? In the Looking Glass is the answer, but only if I can look at all. Let's look together, who we are and how we are, in the next Canon P.
Canon P: Are you Practical&Technical-Theoretical&Canonical with a bite of PTC-mood?
- The question is, who you are and how you are, when entering the jukebox of the X-mass Carol.
- PTC: Are you a canonical PTC who enjoys pushing and popping? Do you like taking things apart, finding new interests in the parts and pushing down further, without loosing the Assembly code? Are you not satisfied with exploring parts B when taking A Apart? Are you trained in the skill to perceive and store the Assembly code for popping back up to Assembly A and System H?
- TT: TT belongs to gray matter with a deeper-and-deeper Technical-Theoretical interest in pushing down from bodies to cells to bioblasts to molecules to atoms to quarks, without taking note of the canonical assembly code. GeTTing Practically lost, diving uTTerly deep into the grey medium to the limit of drowning. — 'Grau ist alle Theorie, doch grün des Lebens goldner Baum' (Faust I, Goethe).
- PT: A PT uses the computer in the best Practical&Technical way, but does not take it apart. The PT uses an instrument and software, without curiosity about software code, neither writing software nor reading assembly instructions. The PT-state is vitally important to complete an experiment. A PT does not read manuals — many times for good reasons — and does not look for the hair in the soup. If you switch to PTC-mood in the lab, the living cells on the bench will be dead cells before they reach a respiratory state. PTC is out of the lab or at late night in the lab; is out of the box early in the morning, at late nights, during parties, on weekends and holidays; is in the flow state at any time.
- TC: How a TC-nerd gets Practically lost, you find out when proceeding to the next extroductory Canons.
Canon X: Taking part in an X-mass party
- If you are Practically focused only on your body mass and BMI, without Theoretical interest in count, volume, and mass, you may skip Canon X and continue with Canon B. But don't mix with a biologist, a sport scientist, and a chemist (see Figure X 1).
Top-down on the way up: the mission in mind
Figure X 1. Top-down carolical Canon on parts of the X-mass party, introducing the Mitochondrial physiologist B_{MP}, Sport scientist B_{SP}, and Chemist B_{CH}.
Figure X 1a. Highest-level System H(10A[6B]): 6 Buddies B are Assembled per table A; 10 such Assemblies are together in the Hut. All B enjoy the special air in the hut and maintain healthy distancing with social contact (for explanation of dashed and full boundary lines see Figure X 2d). The Hut has a cosy temperature during the X-mass party, as felt when entering from the crisp fresh pure air of the mountains. When every Buddy pushed down from the hut to the valley, experimental System H(10A[6B]) disappeared and popped out as H(0) (straight to Panel 1d).
Figure X 1b. Highest-level System H(1A[6B]): A party-of-six Assemble in an Airway-car on their way to the X-mass party in the hut. The experiment was to find out, (1) if the body mass of System H(1A[6B]) might crash the Airway-car, and (2) if there was a Ghost in the system. After the party-of-six evacuated the system, the experiment was finished (see Figure X 2c for results), experimental System H(1A[6B]) disappeared and popped out as H(0) (straight to Panel 1d), and the party-of-six joined the party (Panel 1a).
Figure X 1c. Highest-level System H(1B): One Buddy with balanced Body mass used the prototype BUMM to measure their individual Body mass and Body mass excess: BME.
- An X-mass party pops up in the Highest-level Hut H with a capacity of 60 Bodies B, most of them Biologists and coauthors of BEC 2020.1. One cell biologist just finished a respirometric experiment with cultured cells. Since she wanted to express respiratory rate as O_{2} flow per cell I_{O2/ce} [amol·s^{-1}·x^{-1}] and O_{2} flux per cell mass I_{O2/mce} expressed in SI-units [mol·s^{-1}·kg^{-1}], she counted the cells for normalization by cell count, and measured the cell mass for normalization by cell mass. As a cell biologist and Mitochondrial phyiologist MP, she was trained to consider the cell count N_{ce} as the number of elementary entities of entity-type X = ce. And for measurement of cell mass, m_{X} = m_{ce}, she needed a pretty large number N_{ce} of cells. That's why pretty MP was in the latest group to join the X-mass party, where they were finally escorted to Table H(A_{10}[6B]).
- Table X 1. No problem on Table H(A_{10}[6B])
# Speaker Symbol Talk Push down 1 Mitochondrial physiologist MP My name is MP. Hello. Sorry for being late. Three more Biologists B are with me, and it's kind of you that you other two did not mind waiting a bit. kind, mind, bit 2 Sport scientist SP Servus, my name is SP. Nice to see you again, and I certainly remember your name MP. But your name is not MP. Hello. Never mind, we really did not a bit mind this kind of waiting. kind, mind, bit 3 Chemist CH CH is my name, good evening. Would you mind me pointing out, that this wating time was a bit too long? Now we cannot walk up to system H, but have to Assemble in an Airway-car of the gondola lift; otherwise the High-level Hut would close by the time we pop up there. kind, mind, bit 4 Sport scientist SP That's OK. We are all well trained at an average Body mass of 60 kg. So let's make an exception this night and pop up into the Airway-car A as a party-of-six, to pop up at the party in the Hut in time. party 5 Chemist CH As a Chemist I am not very well trained in physics, but I am sufficiently fit in the basic concepts to clarify, that there is no worry about the type of time we will arrive at the Hut, we will certainly arrive in (1) CEST time, (2) winter time, if we are not further slowed down until summer time, and (3) mechanistic time, if the Airway-car is not that fast to make us worry about relativistic time dilation. But realistically, do we all fit into a single system A? fit, type 6 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Easily! I just meausured my Body mass, and we are very similar, such that our body mass is only 360 kg. The Airway-car can take a weight of 4000 newton, we are a party-of-six Buddies B N_{B} = 6 x, therefore, our weight is just about 3500 N. Count, Mass 7 Sport scientist SP Wait - why do biologists talk about simple matters such that they cannot be understood? We talk about Body mass, not weight. Mass 8 Chemist CH I remember from physics, that weight G [N] is what matters in the Airway-car as the force F of gravitational attraction or the product of our mass and the acceleration due to gravity. It makes only sense to me if I express this in units for fore: N = kg·m·s^{-2}; divide by kg as the unit for mass, and you get the rate of acceleration: N·kg^{-1} = m·s^{-2}. On our earth this conversion factor between mass and weight is about 9.81 N·kg^{-1}. Mass 9 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Whereas on the moon the rate of acceleration is merely 1.62 N·kg^{-1}. This is why the terms wet weight and dry weight should be replaced by wet mass or dry mass as agreed during our previous X-mass party, now documented in BEC 2020.1. It is still disturbing, why the protonmotive force pmF is not expressed in newtons but in volts. But all authors agreed that this was beyond the scope of the MitoEAGLE 'States and rates' paper, and there was no more pressure on the debate about the force. There are ongoing discussions, however, if we should use wet or dry mass for our cells. Anyway, my living cells are dead when I measure their mass. Living cells, Force, Pressure 10 Sport scientist SP Your Body mass is certainly not dead when we measure your BMI. We are all fit, since our BMI is about 20 kg∙m^{-2}. BME 11 Chemist CH .. and we all fit into system A, let's pop up after all. I cannot wait until our party-of-six joins the party in the Hut. Extroduction 12 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Due to my cell mass measurements, we are the last Airway-car to arrive. Look here, this is the last empty table, the Hut is full, and the party goes on as a party of 60 with 10 parties of 6. party, table 13 Chemist CH This makes an X-mass party of 3600 kg body mass. Mass 14 Sport scientist SP Can you explain the meaning of X? Entity 15 Chemist CH Every scientist should know this. In the International System of Units, countable elementary entities get the symbol X. Entity, SI 16 Sport scientist SP Does that mean, that you make an X for YOU, when I measure your Body mass? Entity, Mass 17 Mitochondrial physiologist MP We should not get personal. Since the majority at our X-mass party are Biologists, we could use the symbol B for our Buddies, such that for you, her, and me we insert generally X = B. Entity 18 Chemist CH Wait 60 seconds. IUPAC defines the 'amount of substance concentration' as c_{B} = n_{B}·V^{-1} [mol·m^{-3}]. X = B then means, that we talk about substance B; entities X can be particles, ions, molecules, .. Entity, IUPAC 19 Sport scientist SP No problem. We are used to wait a minute. .. and a Body X = B .. SI 20 Mitochondrial physiologist MP .. and all my cells X = ce. Entity 21 Sport scientist SP Why do you say 'cells' and not 'cell'? Count, Elementary entity 22 Mitochondrial biologist MP Because I am counting the cells, I don't count a Cell. Count 23 Sport scientist SP I don't count Bodies, I just put you on my mass balance. Mass 24 Mitochondrial biologist MP That is your problem, not the problem of an ordinary balance. A simple mass balance measures, it does not count and does not know, if you have a single Body or many bodies in your sample used for mass determination. Take (1) a count N_{B} = 1 x, (2) put the counted sample on the balance, (3) measure the body mass m_{B} [kg], (4) calculate my Body Mass as M_{UB} = m_{B}·N_{B}^{-1} [kg·x^{-1}]. Then you have the mass per single or elementary Body. Again, don't take it personal, since I am single (on the balance); but I don't work with single Cells. Your B is a single Body, my ce are many many cells. In my cell mass m_{ce} of a few µg there are many cells. Count, single 25 Sport scientist SP But your Body mass is 60 kg. So your cell mass cannot be just a few 0.000001 kg! my Mass, Body and body 26 Chemist CH MP does not talk about her cells in her Body MP, as much as you don't talk about your mass balance, which is the balance of all mass going into your system S (input = food and drink and O_{2}) and out of your system S (output = .. let's not talk about it on the table). my mass balance 27 Sport scientist SP At least we can mention CO_{2}, and list all components of the mass balance in a Table. table 28 Mitochondrial biologist MP I don't want to be in your table. Of course, I had in mind my cells on my bench in my lab. table 29 Sport scientist SP Now you put everything on the table. So you push your cells out of your body MP and pop them up to your mass balance on your bench in your lab? table 30 Mitochondrial biologist MP You don't understand! With my cells in my mind, I am not talking about ce in system B (or in system MP for my own Body), nor about ce from system B (or from system MP for my own Body), but in my mind is a specific neuronal cell type X = ce, cultured in my lab. System, Entity 31 Chemist CH You better get your brain cells out of your mind. When I talk about my chemicals, it is those moles of substance B that are not in me nor taken from me but prepared by me. Mole 32 Sport scientist SP When I measure your Body mass, then I am looking at all those kilograms that are in your Body. Mass per Elementary entity 33 Mitochondrial biologist MP Can my Body mass be in my Body? Is'nt my body mass my Body? Can my Body mass be in my body mass? I thought we agreed that in 'my cell mass' and in 'my Body mass' the recursive "my" presents the problem. my my 34 Chemist CH That would be too simple. The mass m_{B} of my sample of substance B is not the Body mass of a single Bit of B. Mass of Entities 35 Mitochondrial biologist MP .. as my cell mass m_{ce} is not the mass of a single Cell. Mass of Entities 36 Sport scientist SP Everybody knows that your Body mass is the mass of your own Body. Why should I think of m_{B} as the mass of many Bodies? Mass per Elementary entity 37 Mitochondrial biologist MP We had this already on the way up, when we popped up into A. Then m_{B} was the mass of our bodies in the Airway-car, m_{B} = 360 kg. Mass of Entities 38 Chemist CH Back to the X-mass party, now all A popped up in system H. Now m_{B} = 3600 kg in the Hut. System 39 Sport scientist SP Now I want to push back to me: If I measure my Body mass m_{B} = 60 kg myself, then my Body mass is in system B and I am system B. This is confusing to me. I should have told you earlier, that I bought a brand new and fancy prototype Balanced Uni-Mass Monitor (BUMM) from the MitoEAGLE Company for Body Mass Analysis (from BMI to BME to BMA). It COST a lot, and the 44-page Manual that came with it was funny but not understandable, although the 666 coauthors must have tried very hard. Just take a glance at BEC 2020.1 and let me know if you agree. A softer approach is taken in the X-mass Carol. That's the one to look at first. But we should not get too technical at an X-mass party, therefore, look at Figure X 2b for my new BUMM. Entity, System 40 Chemist CH No more pushing an popping: you cannot push entity B into system B, nor pop B into B. Entity, System 41 Mitochondrial biologist MP Without reading the BUMM Manual, this sounds like my Body mass does not exist, since it does not fit anywhere — neither can it be pushed down nor popped up. Entity 42 Sport scientist SP This would be bad news for your BMI — there cannot be an Index without Body Mass, it would be the Ghost-Body Mass Index. But where is the problem? BME 43 Mitochondrial biologist MP There is no problem, but on our table we are talking all the time about it's solution. Look at the other Table (BEC 2020.1, Table 4) BEC 2020.1 44 Sport scientist SP ??? .. We need more beers for Canon B. Extroduction
- The Mitochondrial physiologist, Sport scientist and Chemist remember that they had joined these parties already six times, and always presented the X-mass carol. MP proclaims, that she brought 60 hard copies of BEC 2020.1, so for the first time they could all give a joint presentation in harmony. MP explains to System H, that an Extroduction is required to be able to fully enjoy the X-mass carol. But if you want to pop up straight, go ahead: »BEC 2020.1«.
Bottom-up on the way down: mind the mission
- If you pushed down again or stayed in System H, you will be interested to know, what they were chanting in their X-mass carol in the spirit of BEC 2020.1. Not to enter an endless loop at this node of the X-mass story, a pseudo-pop up to the X-mass carol is summarized in Table X 2 and Figure X 2:
- Table X 2. No problem on Table H(A_{10}[6B])
Term Symbol Units Definition What mass of entity-type X = ce m_{ce} [kg] The mass of all cultured cells of entity-type ce in the sample that was used to measure the cell mass, or in a sample popped up into the experimental System of the High-resolution respirometer. Entity mass of entity-type X = B m_{B} [kg] The mass of all Bodies of entity-type B in the party of N_{B} = 6 x, who entered the Airway-car A. m_{B} = M_{UB}·N_{B} = 60 kg·x^{-1} · 6 x = 360 kg mass per elementary entity of entity-type X = B M_{UB} [kg·x^{-1}] The mass per elementary entity U_{B} of entity-type B. M_{UB} = m_{B}·N_{B}^{-1} = 60 kg·x^{-1}
Figure X 2. Bottom-up canonical Carol on parts of the X-mass party
Figure X 2a. Highest-level System H(0): empty. The empty System H(0) has unique features. Depending on its bottom-up or top-down evolution, it has not yet gained or already lost it's internal identity: there are no countable objects, but also no H in the empty system. It does not contain any count. It contains emptiness and silence and darkness. It is full of vacuum (upon evacuation of the Hut or the Airway-car). But it would be wrong to say that it does not have any mass, since the mass of a system of vacuum is m_{H(0)} = 0 kg. H(0) is the Ghost and Soul S of the System H(N_{A}[N_{B}]) and System H(N_{B}), with N_{A} = 0 x and N_{B} = 0 x and no medium in H(0). The Ghost has no medium, no internal identity, but it has external extent. Without any count, with mass of zero kg, the empty System H(0) still has the volume of the ghost-experimental System: It has no sound, no count, no matter, no glare, no care — it has pure space, and space does not matter and does not care. When you empty the experimental chamber, you put a Ghost into your instrumental chamber. When you disassemble your instrument and remove the instrumental chamber, you are loosing the Ghost and Soul. The empty chamber on the shelf or in the recycling bin has no Soul. But keeping in mind the X-mass party on the top in the Hut, it is now clear that there is a friendly Ghost in the dark and empty Hut, which pops out when a party pops up, but the poor Soul withdraws when the hut collapses or burns down.
Figure X 2b. Highest-level System H(1B): The Buddies B got prepared for the X-mass party: a party-of-six indicated as Assembly A_{10}(6B) in an ensemble of 10 Assemblies of type A(6B) popped up to a mass balance, to qualify for an experiment planned with experimental system Highest-level System H(1A[6B]). But they did not pop up to a party-of-six balance. Instead, one of them used a new Balanced Uni-Mass Monitor (BUMM). A BUMM is a MultiSensor instrument. When a count N_{B} = 1 x pops up to the Highest-level System H(1B), the BUMM (1) has a detector, which converts a signal — indicating that BUMM contains the fully populated System H(1B) — into a count N_{B} = 1 x, and uses this information to block any uncontrolled overpopulation to a System H(N_{B} > 1 x) —, and (2) the BUMM has a sensor for measuring the difference of the mass of the full system minus the mass of the empty system. Then you have a BUMM with a Unit-Mass experimental chamber — elementary entity B with elementary Unit x is the Sample. System H(1B) contains the air around entity-type B, and since entity-type B is not a gaseous object, this mass of air is ignored in practical evaluations of the mass of System H(1B) — elementary entity B is in the balanced experimental System. Therefore, when elementary object B_{MP} popped up on BUMM, the mass of System H(1B) was 60 kg. When object B_{MP} pushed down from the BUMM, she did not cofuse the previously measured mass of System H(1B) — which now is an empty Ghost at m_{H(0)} = 0 kg (see Panel 2a) — with her non-ghostly living Body mass, M_{UB} = m_{H(1B)}·N_{B} = 60 kg·x^{-1}. — This is an unpaid advertisement for BUMM (Open Access, no patent pending). The author declares no conflict of interest.
Figure X 2c. Highest-level System H(1A[6B]): A party-of-six N_{B} = 6 x are an Assembly in an Airway-car on their way to the X-mass party in the Hut. While the party-of-six formed a group of loosely distributed particles B in front of the gondola lift, they popped up into System H(1A[6B]) when entering the Air-conditioned Airway-Car. System H(1A(6B)), therefore, is not Assembly A, but contains the single group A, N_{A} = 1 x, in the Airspace of the Airway-car. Nor is the Airway-car identical with System H(1A(6B)), since H(1A(6B)) is the contents without the glass of the windows and the steel of the walls of the container, whereas the Airway-car is the container enclosing System H. The Airway-car is the instrumental system, System H(1A[6B]) is the experimental System. The experiment was to find out, (1) if any Body entering H(0) can find the Ghost, and (2) if the body mass of System H (m_{B} = 360 kg) with a full group A (N_{B} = 6 x) did not exceed the crash-hold of the instrumental system Airway-car. The mass of the instrumental system was much higher than the mass of the experimental System H(1A[6B]), even after A pushes down on exit (near the hut) and System H(1A[6B]) is evacuated to H(0). Once the party-of-six pops up to into the Hut, the experiment H(1A[6B]) is finished, System H(1A[6B]) pops out of existence, whereas the Airway-car remains intact, and the Assembly A_{10}(6B) or party-of-six joins and enjoys the party. Summary of the experiment: (1) The First Law of Ghost-Thermodynamics says, that no Body can ever find the Ghost in the empty system when popping up into the system. (2) The working hypothesis was not stated clearly. (2a) The result may have been negative, since their body mass did not crash the Airway-car. (2b) The result was positive, since their body mass was maintained in a living thermodynamic state as an inclusion criterion for the X-mass party.
Figure X 2d. Highest-level System H(10A[6B]): 6 Buddies B are Assembled per table A; 10 such Assemblies are together in the Hut. An Assembly in the Hut is a permeable compartment containing assembled countable entities B as indicated by the dashed boundary lines, bound together in their seats around a table, sharing the same High-quality gaseous medium in system H with the other permeable Assemblies, since air is practically well mixed across Assemblies A in the Hut, whereas the Bodies B do not practically share their internal milieux enclosed by full circles (on the alp there is no sin). A are, but B are not in thermal equilibrium with H. Similarly, the Hut is well heated during the X-mass party, such that the internal High-quality gaseous medium of the Hut is not in thermal equilibrium with the outside world. In the terminology of canonical ensembles, this external part or compartment is called the 'heat bath', which in case of System H is neither hot nor a bath, but it is the crisp fresh pure air of the mountains. System H does not contain a pure sample, but a mixture of A containing structurally positioned elementary-units B. Before A_{10}(6B) popped up, System H(10_{9}A[B6]) was not full. When every Buddy pushed down from the hut, System H(10A[6B]) disappeared and popped out as H(0) (straight back to the Ghost story in Panel B 2a).
Canon N: Small samples of large Numbers
- .. we.. planned a study of the statistical intuitions of sophisticated researchers. We had concluded in the seminar that our own intuitions were deficient. In spite of years of teaching and using statistics, we had not developed an intuitive sense of the reliability of statistical results observed in small samples. Our subjective judgments were biased: we were far too willing to believe research findings based on inadequate evidence and prone to collect too few observations. .. Using a sufficiently large sample is the only way to reduce the risk. Researchers who pick too small a sample leave themselves at the mercy of sampling luck. .. I knew how to compute the sample size that would reduce the risk of failure to an acceptable level. But I had never chosen a sample size by computation. .. It was evident that even the experts paid insufficient attention to sample size. .. Naturally, you focus on the story rather than on the reliability of the result. — Kahneman Daniel (2011) Thinking, fast and slow
- In a heavy debate on numbers and counts at the X-mass party, there remained disagreement between those who considered numbers and counts on equal dimensionless levels, versus those who considered numbers to be generally abstract and dimensionless, but a count to be potentially real as a quantity with a real unit. How can a dimensionless number have a size, and be small or large without thinking of the artificial realization of the number as a numeral? A number can be short — such as 0.5 — or long — such as 0.111111111. But these short or long numerals have the same length in fractional notation: 1/2 and 1/9. The X-mass party came to a consensus, that the question "How large is the number?" does not make sense. It should be rephrased in canonical form as either: (1) "How high is the numerical value?", or (2) "How large is the numeral?". In practical language we favour to talk about high and low values, rather than big or small values, heavy or light values; hence the preference for heigth in the context of values.
- In contrast to 'numbering' stones or any object, counting stones or any elementary entities is the process of first defining the elementary entity, and then collecting elementary entities step-by-step to a count. A count is the sum of the individual counting steps. The magnitude of a count is independent of the size or length of the counting step. A count is strictly the number of added elementary entities, and entirely dependent on the definition of the 'elementary' U_{X}. For example, we can define separate pieces p as U_{p1} within the stone labelled as object #1. Then the count is 2 pieces in stone #1 (generally 2 x), since stone #1 is split into two pieces. Taking a larger sample of all pieces of stones shown in the picture is a re-definition of the elementary as U_{p} and yields a count of 3 x. Counting of labelled stones in the picture is another task of counting elementaries U_{s} = 2 x. Is the last count of 2 x larger than the first count of 2 x, because the mass of stones is larger? Is the second count of 3 x the same size as the third count 2 x because it is the same size of stones? Does a count have a size? A count relates to the question "How few or many?" but not to the question "How small or large?". A count of many things, in turn, is not a count of many numbers, but is a count with a high numerical value. However, if we count many numerals, then collecting numerals leads to a count of many numerals, which is a count with a high numerical value.
- During a tea break the sport scientist, chemist, and mitochondrial physiologist took this opportunity to join at a table.
- Table N 1. Sample size at X-mass
# Speaker Symbol Talk Push down 1 Sport scientist SP I enjoyed your talk on respiration in PBMC and platelets. It is great how much information you as a mitochondrial physiologist obtain from these collections of small blood cells. And your comparison with those other small cultured cells was intriguing. No wonder, that you have to fight with small sample size. size of sample 2 Mitochondrial physiologist MP It is a pity that I had this frustrating experience the other day. Another experimental cell culture crashed, so I could run experiments only on the controls and in the primary blood cells serving at another control. Therefore, I could present in my talk today only a small experimental sample size, besides lots of controls. sample size 3 Chemist CH The broader audience is interested in the message. Small sample size goes into the methods section on statistics — that's for your fellow-specialists. ignore sample size 4 Sport scientist SP Large sample size is at the heart of my results, demonstrating a strong association between body mass excess and the risk of cardiac failure. Running in the mountains provides a better protection against this risk than running experiments. BME 5 Mitochondrial physiologist MP In fact, we study the mechanistic link between mitochondrial fitness and obesity-related degenerative diseases. For such an important conclusion, you really need a large sample size. large sample size 6 Sport scientist SP You are completely right. Some of them have more than 100 kg with a BME even higher than 0.7! BME calculator 7 Chemist CH What do you mean by higher? In your brilliant lecture this morning you explained, that the BME takes away the severe bias of the BMI as an index of obesity, when body heigth is changing. Does a higher BME or BMI relate to taller people, and a bigger BME or BMI to larger XXX-mass? higher or larger 8 Mitochondrial physiologist MP My small sample size is not related to the fact that our cells are not tall and their mass and volume are small. sample size 9 Sport scientist SP You mean small sample counts .. Count 10 Chemist CH .. small or large counts of samples of small or large size? Sample 11 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Sure enough, my samples of small cells have a large cell count. In the case of fibroblasts I use 200000 to 500000 cells, and 100 million platelets due to their very small size. Living cells 12 Sport scientist SP Then none of us should be worried about small sample size. At an X-mass party participants should rather stay away from the large size with excess body mass. size 13 Chemist CH But X-mass is not only about body mass. In tomorrow's program there are parallel sessions on entities X and elementaries U_{X}, and the number of abstracts in the X-sessions is very large, whereas the U_{X}-sessions have a high number of abstracts. Elementary 14 Mitochondrial physiologist MP It is amazing how they could organize such a big program for this year's X-mass party, despite all the logdown. big 15 Sport scientist SP Can you hand me over your program? I just realized that I left mine in the lecture theatre. 16 Mitochondrial physiologist MP No problem — here it is. 17 Sport scientist SP This program is so small — I need my glasses to read. program 18 Chemist CH Just have another glass of beer. glasses 19 Sport scientist SP Now I see how they could fit this large scientific program into such a small program: The printing size gets smaller with every consecutive page. That saves a lot of paper. paper 20 Mitochondrial physiologist MP And all papers could be accepted for the program. That makes our X-mass parties so efficient. Publication efficiency 21 Chemist CH As are the point and counterpoint discussions announced for the coming session after the tea break. The abstract is in the program with a low page number, where the printing is large and still readable. low number 22 Mitochondrial physiologist MP I saw it. Dr. Zen will moderate the discussion of Dr. X with Dr. Mass. X-mass 23 Sport scientist SP And the topic is "Large samples of small Numbers". Number 24 Chemist CH Counts or numbers? Let's go and enjoy a good discussion. The small sample of beer was good. Count
- People have erroneous intuitions about the laws of chance. In particular, they regard a sample randomly drawn from a population as highly representative, that is, similar to the population in all essential characteristics. The prevalence of the belief and its unfortunate consequences for psychological research are illustrated by the responses of professional psychologists to a questionnaire concerning research decisions. (Abstract) — Tversky Amos, Kahneman Daniel (1971) Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin 76:105–10.
Canon S: The hair in the Soup
- The highlight of any X-mass party is the gala dinner when participants can meet. As always, the Mitochondrial physiologist MP, the Sport scientist SP, and the Chemist CH, who are regular X-mass participants, grab the seats at an empty Table S 1 and are now looking forward to an exquisite X-mass dinner, introduced by a Gallery S. Brussels sprouts.
Gallery S. Brussels sprouts or 'Where is entity X?'
- Table S 1. Brussels sprouts
# Speaker Symbol Talk Push down 1 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Glad we found a table where we can sit together, which is quite a challenge at our X-mass dinners. I wish we could make advance reservations. reservation 2 Chemist CH We should do that next time, since I saw several tables with reservations. reservation 3 Sport scientist SP But these are exclusively for the invited guests and the X-mass Committee. They want participants to mix with new faces and particularly students. mix 4 Chemist CH We were lucky to find this table. mix 5 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Look how fast they are in serving the soup already. soup 6 Chemist CH Which kind of soup is it? I better read the manual — I see, it's Brussels sprouts B. manual 7 Sport scientist SP I never look into the manual. I prefer the real thing. I see it in the bowl right in front of me. real 8 Chemist CH But I do not see B in my bowl. There I just see a bowl containing a homogenous mixture. The manual shows even a picture of B. One 9 Sport scientist SP This picture does not make sense. You can smell B in your bowl, but not in the manual. sense 10 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Now you pushed down to a different sensory organ, from eye to nose. We can suggest to the manufacturers to add the odour of B into the manual. And those who can't smell a manual can still see B. smell 11 Sport scientist SP Here comes a clear solution. Look, they serve a dish of roasted Brussels sprouts for us to add to our bowls. I love it. May be I can go ahead and take some B for my soup? solution 12 Chemist CH I though we have B soup. Why should I add B into my B soup? You can add B plus B. But you cannot add B into B. Anyway, I prefer the homogenous mixture B without the roasted B. X=B 13 Mitochondrial physiologist MP I like to see the B there on the extra plate, but I hate the smell of B. I will ask the technicians, if they can prepare the broth without any B for me. medium 14 Chemist CH The you have the mixture at infinite dilution of B solution 15 Sport scientist SP And you still call it a mixture of B when there is no B? I just call it an empty soup. empty 16 Chemist CH When there is no B in the bowl, and the bowl is full of broth, then emptiness is not in the bowl but in the soup — it's a clear soup. clear 17 Mitochondrial physiologist MP This makes everything clear. I was always wondering, what it means, when the manual gives the signal "Calibrate with an empty chamber". The clear medium is the message: Fill the chamber with empty medium. The emptyness is in the medium, which contains no sample B. The manual has to be updated! medium 16 Chemist CH The manual is perfectly right. If you add broth containing B into your bowl, then you add B into your bowl. If you add broth containing emptiness with respect to B into your bowl, then you add emptiness into your chamber. Now you can calibrate. empty 18 Mitochondrial physiologist MP You mean, if I add medium without sample into an empty chamber, then I add emptiness into an empty chamber? medium 19 Sport scientist SP Just enjoy the soup while you empty your bowls, and dont mix up all the different kinds of emptiness. empty 20 Chemist CH If the manual says "B-soup", then we can only talk about B-emptiness. — The sample is the message. sample 21 Mitochondrial physiologist MP But I emptied the browth in my bowl from these smelly B. If I now empty my bowl, then I switch from B-emptiness to broth-emptiness. — The medium is the message. medium 22 Chemist CH This is intuitively clear as usual. But at an X-mass party you cannot use practical language. The broth is an aqueous medium containing more or less dissolved oxygen and more or less B as your sample. As you empty your bowl, and instead of emptying it you add the fullness of O_{2} in air intoo your chamber. fullness 23 Mitochondrial physiologist MP O_{2}-emptiness is difficult to achieve, it tends to leak back into any simple chamber. This difficulty is shared with all kinds of emptiness. emptiness 24 Sport scientist SP Not true for the kind of emptiness in my bank account. empty 25 Chemist CH Like your account, every experimental Chamber is (1) placed in an environment that is defined by the instrumental chamber (which is the bowl) within the instrumental system set up in the environment of a laboratory, and (2) in contact with or separated from the environment by the System boundary of the experimental System (which is equivalent to the experimental Chamber with the soup or emptiness in the bowl). chamber 26 Sport scientist SP I understand — since the world is full of fake news and irreproducible results, and my account boundaries are a bit leaky, then my empty account is actually full of Humbug, and fake-emptiness is difficult to achieve. Humbug 27 Mitochondrial physiologist MP This is a very accurate and canonical description of the real world. canonical 28 Sport scientist SP Back to the reality of our X-mass dinner. On account of what I see in my bowl, I cannot possibly empty it — there is a hair in the soup! empty 29 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Even in the best laboratory, manual, or publication, hair-emptiness is difficult to achive. empty 30 Chemist CH This is entropy — the universal Thermodynamic Law of Humbugy. However hard we try to find clear solutions to publish, we can't win the fight against the entropic pressure to buglish. buglish
- The B-soup was the introduction of the X-mass dinner, continued by the methods section and the main course. After desert, there will be the usual presentation of the X-mass carol. The hair in the soup finally explains, why there were so many versions of the canonical X-mass carol. Everybody wonders, which version will be presented this year.
Canon F: Take Five while Zen unexplains the identity of X and System H
- Music and dance are vital elements of any X-mass party. This year's musical theme was the quintuple meter. This meter is one of the favourite canonical flows with implicit counts of strong, medium, and weak beats. The quintuple meter is ignored entirely in the SI system of units, where it appears to be forgotten, that the quintuple pattern has its roots not only in antient Greek music but is found in traditional cultures of all continents, emphasizing the International Harmonization at the X-mass party. Everybody understood, when Paul Desmond's Take Five popped up, presented by the Dave Brubeck Quartet (1959). Having been introduced to the new concept of the canonical base quantity 'elementary entity' U_{X} in the previous session, the discussion continued on Table F 1.
- Table F 1. Take One
# Speaker Symbol Talk Push down 1 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Take Five X comes as a reminder, that elementary entities U_{X} are not limited to physical objects but include single countable events. objects and events; U_{X} 2 Sport scientist SP Sure, we see X not only as countable running Bodies B, but similarly as countable steps or Beats B taken in a run. Beat 3 Chemist CH Beats B is the rhythmic sound not only from Take Five, from your running steps or your beating heart, but similarly from events that you may not hear, such as molecular collisions, emissions, decays, celestial cycles, parties .. Events 4 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Why don't you listen to Take Five? They play it almost too loud for me to hear, and parties are countable objects. This year it is the 6th X-mass party. Party 5 Sport scientist SP And here we are a party-of-five on our table, which is not full since one Buddy is missing, and I can hear your discussion very well. Party 6 Chemist CH Parties are events. When you count, how many parties you joined per year, then you have a frequency. This frequency — equal to events per unit of time [x·s^{-1}] — is too low for you to hear. Don't tell me, parties are loud objects — parties are events at a low frequency that nobody hears. Events 7 Mitochondrial physiologist MP We are here at this year's X-mass party, and this is certainly One party. I wonder, if they could play Take One after finishing Take Five. One 8 Sport scientist SP I never heard Take One. To avoid divergence into a world of arguments on the impossibility to deduce a frequency from a single Beat (Take One is not music in general, and not canonical music in particular), the present X-mass Carol should be restricted to systems containing countable physical objects (X = parties, bodies, organisms, cells, molecules, atoms, particles). Let's go for a dance; you all can Take One from the other table and enjoy a dance together. One
- Our party-of-five A(5/6B) returns to their table after enjoying a full dancing experience with the strong-weak-medium-weak-weak pattern of the quintuple meter. While Take Five was exciting and Take One appeared to be impossible in music but enjoyable in the formation of a dancing Assembly, Table F 2 Take None is full of mysteries and empty of dancing. But first they remember the most peculiar poster presentation ever at an X-mass party. A famous scientist was invited as an honorary guest lecturer. Zen accepted the invitation under the condition to give the oral slots to the non-invited investigators and present a Poster Gallery F.
The emptiness of System H
- Poster Gallery F. Zen unexplains the vanishing of entity X and emptiness of System H
Poster F 3. Highest-level System H(6B) is full with 6B. A(6B) popped up to Highest-level System H(6B) containing 6B. Assembly A unexists in H(6B), but H(6B) is the spirit of A and homoforms into A(6B). The experimental System is now not defined as the Hut, but as the Assembly at one table, or A has taken over the Hut, H = A.
Poster F 4. Highest-level System H(1B): A hermit B contemplates in the Zen Hut H(1B), with a single-seat table 1B, about the unexistence of Assembly A (Poster F 3) and the identity of BAH. If A unexists, does BAH unexist? — — Poster discussion: The Sport scientist mentions the magic instrument BUMM and invites Zen to visit her lab for a Body Mass Analysis. Zen would be the singular object B on the Balanced Uni-Mass Monitor BUMM presented at the X-mass party (Figure X 2b). Zen with a smile: "As long as you don't run me on the BUMMER".
Poster F 5. Highest-level System H: Then let B pop up ― like H(1A[6B]) popped up to H(6B) ― from H(1B) to H — the Highest-level System H has devoured the object B, but as the dragon Ouroboros, B re-appeared in its purest form B. The alchemists have always used the Ouroboros as the system H, Biting its tail B, in a process of purification of the lowest form of matter to the highest form of pure H = B. As B is swallowed up and vanished, pure B pops up or crops up. — — Poster discussion: The student asks Zen: Master, how do I gain mastership? Zen unanswers: Vanish. — — SP comments: H looks empty compared to H(1B). Zen: On the contrary, H is even fuller of B. B has homoformed to the medium of H. — — CH doubts: Since H = B, then the Highest-level System B is identical to it’s medium B? Zen: The medium is the message of the System. — — MP asks: If H = B is the System fullest of B, which system is the one most empty of B? Zen: Compare System H that is empty of B, with System H(0B) containing no B. Next.
Poster F 6. Highest-level System H(0B): No single entity of B. — — Poster discussion: CH: Finally we have an empty System H(0B)? Zen: The System if full of not-B. Even the medium is not B. To "Be" or "not-to-Be". H(1B) contains one B suspended in Medium M. As you approach H(0B) from H(1B), B is infinitesimally diluted, until M contains effectively no B. — — SP: Does that mean, a System cannot be empty? Zen: Next.
Poster F 7. Highest-level System H(0): empty. Zen has nothing to say about an empty System — it is just a Ghost. — — Poster discussion: MP: Now this ghostly H(0) has nothing inside, and it does not even have ― in common with all experimental Systems ― a wall. Perhaps it is not a System, it is just nothing? Zen: System N does not exist. It is an elusive concept without any place in the real world. H(0) is not nothing, it is an empty experimental System. It is full of emptiness. You may say that a volume of vacuum has been added as a sample into System H(0), separated from the vacuum of the rest of the real world by the system boundaries. It is pure Euclidian space, filled by the Ghost of nothingness. — — SP: To get to System Nothing, then just take the volume away. Zen: Wow – then the Ghost devoured the System boundary, pushed it into nothingness, and popped out. Now my stomach feels really empty. Let’s chase away this ghost and get some desert. — — End of Poster discussion.
Take None
- Table F 2. Take None
# Speaker Symbol Talk Push down 1 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Take Five X is great to dance. When you come to the weak beat, it just does'nt feel to be a full step, it's like X-mass without mass, and that makes it even more exciting. full 2 Sport scientist SP This is like returning to our table for an Assembly of six B, A(6B). With only five of us, A(6B) is not a full Assembly. The excitement is the open state A(5/6B) — who will fill the empty position? empty 3 Chemist CH A physics and mathematical guru should join us. But I dont't mind to stay among us five. We could move to this empty table over there, which has five seats. Then Assembly A(5B) would be full, if all of us five will sit down there. full 4 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Contrary to the impossible Take One to play at a defined frequency, an Assembly of one A(1B) is possible, if one B wants to sit alone on a small table with one seat, or even retreat to a tiny Hut with a single table for one. Hermits always take one. one 5 Sport scientist SP I thought that hermits take none. Perhaps he would have liked to take one, but she was not in the mood for an Assembly of two. But how can the term Assembly fit to one B? A "B" is a "B", without any Assembly into a "1B". Party 6 Mitochondrial physiologist MP Your mindset is always with Body mass. The X-mass Carol should harmonize our concepts. An entity-type X (or B) is not a single "one X" (or elementary U_{B}), it is "type X" (or type B), whereas "1X" (1B) is written in canonical form as something special, like a hermit, U_{B}, with the singular count N_{B} = 1 x. An Assembly A(N_{B}) is not prevented from being a hermit-type Assembly A(1B) for N_{B} = 1 x. When you talk 'Body mass', you should think of Hermit-Body mass or Elementary Body mass, like on your famous Balanced Uni-Mass Monitor BUMM. With Hermit substituting for Uni, it would sound rather empty: BHMM — not good for the business. From U_{B} to user experience U_{X} 7 Mitochondrial physiologist MP ## One 8 Sport scientist SP ## One
- Take five Bits and add them into Assembly A as defined above. Then we have a system that is not full. The property ‘not full’ is an option for all systems except for system B. System B loses its identity if entity B is removed from the system. The actual presence of 1 x U_{B} in the experimental system is required to define it as system B. System B cannot be empty, otherwise an existence of a unit U_{B} would be postulated of entity type Ø, but Ø is not a countable elementary entity, thus an empty System B cannot exist in the world of counts. In the hierarchical sequence from BAH to BA to B, B is a singular case, since empty systems A and H do exist. Accepting B as a singular case at the lower end of the hierarchical sequence, it is of interest to ask about the other end defined by the Highest-level system H.
Canon B: To drink or not to drink Beer
Drinking modes and drinking moods
- You drink a bottle — Practical PT-mode.
- You drink out of a bottle — Technical PT-mode.
- You drink the contents of a bottle out of a bottle — Technical-Theoretical PT-mode.
- You drink a count N_{B} = 1 x of non-countable entity-type Beer contained in a full emptyable Highest-level System H supported by an instrumental system R (Refillable glass bottle) — simplest possible form in Theoretical-Canonical TC-mood.
Canonical Manual B with step-by-step instructions
- Do you want to drink a beer? If Yes, next.
- Do you want to drink a number of Beers that may exceed N_{B} = 1 x ? If Yes, next.
- If N > 6 x, pop up at the next brewery. If N ≤ 6 x, next.
- Get hold of a 6-pack Holder H, that contains an Assembly A of a number N of 6 entities B. If unclear, next.
- Get hold of a 6-pack Holder H(1A[6B]), that contains a number N_{A} = 1 x of Assemblies A(6B) containing a number N_{B} = 6 x of entities B. If clear, next.
- Push down a number N_{B} = 1 x of entity-type B to render the previously full System Holder H(1A[6B]) partially filled or partially emtpy as Holder H(1A[5_{6}B]). Next.
- The Highest-level System is now H(1B), which is closed. Open.
- Experimental System H(1B) is supported by the instrumental system R (Refillable glass bottle). Use R as an instrument to empty its contents H(1B) either into a beer glass (indirect operation procedure IOP), or into your mouth (standard operation procedure SOP). If Yes, next.
- To keep Canonical Manual B free of any complications, follow the SOP.
- Push down and follow instructions 'Open system R', and pop up to Canonical Manual B with an open System H(1B) in your hand. This is a hands-on experimental demo.
- Observe, what is in your hand, open system R or open System H(1B)? If No, next.
- The answer 'No' was correct, since opening an open bottle is a No-go. If Yes, next.
- Observe, what is in your hand: the open system R or the open System H(1B)? If Yes, next.
- Your hand holds on to the glass of system R, which separates System H(1B) from your hand. The answer 'Yes' was correct, since you hold both, the container and its contents in your hand. What is the contents? If Yes, next.
- R contains System H(1B). System H(1B) does not contain the glass wall of chamber R, the contents does not contain the container. System H(1B) contains the contents of System H(1B), but System H(1B) is more than the 0.5 L B. System H(1B) has a spacial property that is independent of B but its form and magnitude depend entirely on R. This partial B-independent quantity of H(1B) is the volume V_{H} that is smaller than the volume V_{B} of sample B in System H(1B). In addition to V_{B}, the System contains a small volume V_{G} of a gas space that is rich in CO_{2}. Observe the specification on the label of R: e 0.5 L. The e certifies, that the sample type B contained in R is typically 0.5 L but minimally 0.485 L. Not to get disappointed later, therefore, assume V_{B} = 0.485 L. Nothing is explained about the non-sample volume of the gas phase. Never mind. If yes, next.
- Since the System is open, the next task is to initiate an external flow, I_{e,VB} < 0 L·s^{-1} of sample B to the system's environment. From your perspective, this external flow would be considered as a positive input. For the bottle, it is negative. If negative, next.
- The volume balance of aqueous B is constructed.
- State 1: V_{B,1} = 0.5·0.97 = 0.485 L; H(1B) is 97 % full relative to reference volume of 0.5 L, in compliance with e 0.5 L.
- State 0: V_{B,0} = 0.5·0.02 = 0.01 L; 2 % of the referenbce volume of 0.5 L remain unconsumed in H(1B) due to incomplete sampling.
- Total dynamics as seen by bottle from State 1 to State 0: ΔV_{B} = V_{B,0} - V_{B,1} = -0.475 L
- Inernal transformation dynamics due to evaporation: Δ_{int}V_{vap,B} = 0.5·-0.01 = -0.005 L; B(aq) → B(g)
- External transfer dynamics due to drinking: Δ_{ext}V_{d,B} = ΔV_{B} - V_{i,B} = -0.475 + 0.005 = -0.47 L; the volume of B consumed by drinking from System H(1B), amounting to only 94 % recovery from the reference volume of 0.5 L.
- This Canonical Manual BB is really missing in the international and national certificate regulations, leaving the consumer alone and desparate in the task.
- Resolution for PT-mode: Drink and don't think.
- Suspended state in TC-mood: Luckily, the bottle is still closed. The Canonical Manual BB is great, but incomplete. Volumes are a function of temperature. The 6-pack is still in the fridge. How to keep temprature constant following the SOP? We have to use a Peltier-temperature regulated beer bottle. Furthermore, the Manual has to be extended by two points:
- This Canonical Manual BB is really missing in the international and national certificate regulations, leaving the consumer alone and desparate in the task.
- 23. Keep temperature constant by drinking fast.
- 24. Re-read the Manual for potential corrections and possible extensions.
- Resolution for TC-mood: To drink or not to drink.
Canon L: Sorry I miss your Lecture
- A Teacher and Student talk on skype the day after the X-mass party. They are looking forward to the next one and celebrate a great success. But the Student missed the lecture (Table L 1).
- Table L 1. What did the Student miss in the lecture?
# Speaker Symbol Talk Push down 1 Teacher T Hello, how are you? Did you enjoy last night's party? I had to leave early to prepare for this morning's lecture. You must have stayed late, since I did not see you in the audience. wake up 2 Student S I am really sorry that I missed your lecture, which I always try to attend. But I am sure, you have a video recording, such that I can catch up. Last night you missed the X-mass carol. It was a bit long, that's why I was late this morning. But it was right on line of the topic of the manuscript that I should update according to the X-mass carol. Some sections of that Canon were quite difficult to understand. Perhaps they should have been more canonical, but then I would have missen even our skype call this afternoon. Why did you call me? catch up 3 Teacher T Actually to tell you great news. The manuscript you referred to was submitted and accepted today for publication in this high-impact journal. Congratulations, you are one of the coauthors. great 4 Student S Well, that is really great news for my career and your next grant proposal. But the X-mass carol said, some terms that we used were really misleading. question 5 Teacher T Sure I know. I am one of the 666 coauthors. BEC 2020.1 6 Student S I am so glad to hear this. Then you have certainly made these updates already before submission. And following all this great Open Science stuff, sure you have posted it as a preprint, such that the entire X-mass party can take a look at it and send you their comments. feedback 7 Teacher T I prefer the X-mass party to see our title in the high-impact journal and cite our paper, not sending comments. high-impact 8 Student S Well, since you updated the manuscript, the X-mass party does not have to send comments, except for congratulations. feedback 9 Teacher T Sure, some have sent me already their congratulations about the high-impact journal, never mind the contents. I have not updated the contents. high-impact 10 Student S You have not what? what? 11 Teacher T We need acceptance by the reviewers. I had to stick to practical language that everybody understands. Talking about mitochondrial residual oxygen consumption, mt-Rox, is too theoretical-canonical. Just leave it as non-mitochondrial respiration, which everybody uses for correction in the general context of cell respiration .. general 12 Student S You mean, the term is used for correction? So why did you not correct the term? the term 13 Teacher T .. such that practically everybody understands, particularly our reviewers. don't interrupt 14 Student S But recently you published in a high-impact journal on mitochondrial monoamine oxidases. As you explained in a recent lecture — which I did not miss — this mitochondrial enzyme may make a significant contribution to residual oxygen consumption Rox. high impact 15 Teacher T This was in a different high-impact journal with little impact on my last lecture. Don't mix these up. Today I was teaching about basal cell respiration corrected for non-mitochondrial respiration. At that time, the X-mass carol was in your ears, not in my and my student's minds. More important is the correction of maximal rate for basal respiration for evaluation of spare capacity. You should not have missed this. miss 16 Student S I should not have mixed this? Subtracting ROUTINE-respiration from ET-capacity gives an estimate of the apparent ET-excess capacity. higher impact 17 Teacher T This canonical terminology is not even covered in the X-mass carol you heard last night. It is in preparation for next year's version, as discussed in many COSTly events already. COST 18 Student S Why then did you not teach those terms, symbols, and units? MitoEAGLE 19 Teacher T Because I have to finish my lecture in time and must not confuse my students. practical 20 Student S But sure, the reviewers would understand. high impact 21 Teacher T The reviewers of high-impact journals are the best. They know what everybody knows. They know that what we publish is not correct but readable. What use is it to be correct but unreadable? That does not generate high-impact. practical 22 Student S Teacher, does that mean, that you teach things that everybody knows already, or you teach these wrong things, of which everybody knows that they are wrong? Teacher, why do you teach? everybody knows 23 Teacher T 24 Student S Glad I did'nt miss the X-mass carol. BEC 2020.1
Canon W: What a BUMMER
- Some time ago first preliminary results have been reported on applications of a prototype Balanced Uni-Mass Monitor (BUMM) at a memorable X-mass party. This sparked an enormous interest in the field of Body Mass Analysis (BMA - BME - BMI), since many key opinion leaders replaced their simple body mass balances with the new and fancy BUMM. The real breakthrough, however, came with the combination of the BUMM and the classical Ergometric Respirometer (ER) for measurement of basal metabolic rate and maximum O_{2} consumption. This revolutionary equipment ― well known now as the BUMMER ― is available with two software versions.
- The expensive type PRAC measures the extracorporeal oxygen consumption rate (ECOC) and is very simple (to use), whereas the more sophisticated version CANO measures normal oxygen flux, called highly normalized respiratory rate (HNRR). CANO is rather complex, such that introductory and advanced workshops are offered on canonical terminology. The best approach is to use both types for the BUMMER.
- That is what the Principle Investigator and the Practical Investigator did. To avoid terminological conflict between the self-evident PI and pI acronyms, the pI is called Student Investigator SI in the present context. The PI is a classical cell biologist. The SI received a prestigious International and Canonical Harmonization Scholarship, to extend her training as a sport scientist to mitochondrial physiology. Now PI and SI prepare their presentation for the next X-mass party and are eager to submit some manuscripts first (Table W 1).
- Table W 1. The separate worlds of PRAC and CANO
# Speaker Symbol Talk Push down 1 Student SI Can you give me some advice, how I should start writing the manuscript. I just finished the last experiment with the BUMMER. Both software versions worked really fine. The PRAC is simple, but the CANO allows you to play and is lots of fun. fun 2 PI PI To keep it simple, why don’t you prepare two separate manuscripts? MS#1 for the audience familiar with PRAC; MS#2 for the CANO community. simple 3 Student SI These will be ready soon for your approval. Actually, I was thinking of a third MS, to compare the two. manuscript MS 4 PI PI But how would you do that? The PRAC and CANO terminologies are continents apart. It would be only confusing to mix them up. simple 5 Student SI This is really a big problem. But I just received this great International and Canonical Harmonization Scholarship. At the last X-mass party they presented an X-mass carol on canonical harmonization. BEC 2020.1 6 PI PI I heard about it, but I had to leave early to prepare my grant proposal for a second BUMMER. BUMMER 7 Student SI Should we give it a try? Then MS#3 could connect these different worlds in canonical harmony. Anyway, it is the same raw data. The PRAC and CANO versions just use two different terminologies. MS#3 8 PI PI Don’t forget the units. Once you are used to data expressed as ECOC with units [pmol/min] all is very simple. But you loose half the audience, when talking about normal respiratory rate or HNRR. BUMMER 9 Student SI HNRR means Highly Normalized Respiratory Rate. HNRR 10 PI PI Sounds all normal to me. Since the BUMMER has a Balanced Uni-Mass Monitor Module (BUMMM), it gives you both, (1) a measurement of Body Mass, and (2) a count of Body Number. The Body Counter makes the BUMMER so expensive. BUMMM 11 Student SI That’s why I was so excited to use it. HNRR 12 PI PI The PRAC software then makes the BUMMER even more expensive. But it’s really posh. You just push and plug it in, and it resolves all these complications automatically. You get the beautifully simple ECOC [pmol/min] ― basta. ECOC 13 Student SI We can convert to [pmol∙s^{-1}]. second and first 14 PI PI Why should I? ECOC 13 Student SI SI, respected PI. It’s the SI units. At X-mass they all want to get SI units. They love it. We can list the data in two Tables for comparison. That's what they call hetero-canonical harmonization. SI 14 PI PI I agree with your simple solution. But then leave it there. Any further complications with normalization would just upset the reviewers. unit 15 Student SI But Body Mass Index is an accepted concept. The normal audience is also familiar with V_{O2max} normalized for Body Mass. There you don’t even have to convert to seconds. V_{O2max} is expressed per minute. I am quite fit. I have 60. VO2max 16 PI PI 60 what? 60 seconds per minute? 60 17 Student SI No, my V_{O2max/M} is 60 mL O_{2}∙min^{-1}∙kg^{-1}. It is the respiratory rate normalized for Body Mass. VO2max 18 PI PI BAH! You talk about SI units and use not only minutes but even mL O_{2}? 60 19 Student SI That is different. Sport scientists would never change. If you change, then 60 looses all the meaning. Although our cells consume dissolved O_{2}, we are all terrestrial Bodies breathing air as a gas. The SI tolerates hesitatingly the liter as a practical unit for volume [1000 L = 1 m^{3}]. Respiration per Body, I_{O2/X}, is further normalized for Body Mass, J_{O2/M}. VO2max 20 PI PI Why do they call their annual conference an X-mass party? I understand the party. I can also understand the mass, although this makes the topic very lean. But why the X? Entity 21 Student SI This very X is the great thing. They had a long canonical discussion about the term X. The entity X brings us all together. As Cell biologist, you subsitute for X = ce. Sport scientists and all the medical people deal with Bodies, X = B. As an aspirating Mitochondrial physiologist I am just learning more about the Bioblasts, then X = B. AnyBody can join the party X = B (Buddy). Later in the party again X = B (Beer). It is really multidisciplinary with a universal scope. Entity 22 PI PI Then you think of another MS to compare pmol and mL O_{2}? MS 23 Student SI This would be great for my PhD-thesis. But it is more complicated. The volume V_{O2} that we breathe has nothing to do with the V_{O2} in the V_{O2max}. There, volume is expressed at STPD (standard temperature and pessure dry), otherwise the conversion from volume to amount of O_{2} would depend on the actual experimental conditions. The conversion constant of 0.7443 (µmol O_{2}∙s^{-1})/(mL O_{2}∙min^{-1}) is listed in Table 6 (BEC 2020.1), but the X-mass carol does not even give a separate Catastrophe to this canonical topic. Entity 24 PI PI Let’s stick to three MS for now. Bridging the gap between the minute-audience and second-community is a sufficiently challenging task. MS 25 Student SI SI does not accept the minute. Although this is pushed as a minute little argument, the second community will claim to pop up first. 2nd 26 PI PI You students behave like kids, always playing. MS 27 Student SI Playing is the key to discovery. 2nd 28 PI PI So what did you discover? MS 29 Student SI It’s all about the BUMMER. I wish you cell biologists would have a Cell-BUMMER. Yet you still use old-fashioned separate cell counters, which may not even give comparable results and thus render different studies irreproducible. A cell counter would be integrated into a Cell-BUMMER. As soon as the BUMM counts ‘one Body’, it stops further Bodies from entering and starts with the measurement of Body Mass, and the BUMMER completes the Erogmetric Respiratory test. 2nd 30 PI PI Not even a muti-well respirometer can measure respiration of a single cell. Anyway, the PRAC has solved numerous problems by skipping the cell number. It must have taken long to solve this software problem, hence we accept that it is very expensive. MS 31 Student SI My discovery is not instrumental but theoretical. Just thinking of X. 2nd 32 PI PI The party comes later. MS 33 Student SI After we are done with the Minute-Second MS (finally I understand the meaning of the symbol MS; it should be added to the canonical Table 8 on terms, symbols, and units in BEC 2020.1), we proceed with harmonizing the PRAC and CANO software. The BUMMER allows the complex CANO to normalize and gives flux per Mass, J_{O2/M} [pmol∙s^{-1}∙mg^{-1}] and flow per Number of X, I_{O2/X} [pmol∙s^{-1}∙x^{-1}]. In contrast, the BUMMER allows the fancy PRAC software to simplizise and gives the slick I_{O2} [pmol∙s^{-1}], if we ask for an extended PRAC-SI version. 2nd 34 PI PI That is a great business model for the BUMMER, selling it with additional SI-software versions. I will include this in my grant proposal. MS 35 Student SI The two expressions I_{O2} and I_{O2/X} generated by PRAC and CANO created the two parallel worlds of scientists who never meet. To speed up the progression to infinity where even parallels meet, we apply the X-mass carol for canonical harmonization. 2nd 36 PI PI How will the BUMMER work at infinity? MS 37 Student SI Not how but why: because it is the Balanced Uni-Mass MultiSensor Ergometric Respirometer. The Body-Count is restricted to N_{B} = 1 x. The Cell-Count is restricted to N_{ce} = 1 x. The X-Count is restricted to N_{X} = 1 x. This makes the PRAC and CANO worlds numerically equal. 2nd 38 PI PI Can you give an example? Say 60. MS 39 Student SI Here is the elegant solution with 60, but it works for any positive integer number, and it works for all types of X: For any N_{X} = 1 x, I_{O2/X} = I_{O2} ∙ N_{X}^{-1}. Then: - PRAC: I_{O2} = 60 [pmol∙s^{-1}]
- CANO: I_{O2/X} = 60 [pmol∙s^{-1}∙x^{-1}]
They are totally equal! When I saw this last night with closed eyes, I woke up and knew that this was a great discovery.
number 40 PI PI But still the PRAC and CANO worlds are separated by the magic unit [x]. You told me that this is the canonical elementary unit for the count N_{X} [x], compared to the SI unit mole for amount n_{X} [mol]. MS 41 Student SI Exactly! The 'elementary unit' [x] and the 'mole' [mol] are the comparable units for the quantities count and amount. These are isomorphic quantities in canonical terminology, related by a fixed 'stoichiometry', which is the universal Avogadro constant. This is at the heart of the redefinition of the SI units as of May 2019, marking one of the largest overhauls in history of scientific units. unit 42 PI PI Can you pop up back to our practical problem? MS 43 Student SI I am right there, since here comes the SI like a magician, using a great trick referred to as Humbugging in the historical terminology of the original Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. The SI has declared in its publication of 2019-May-20, celebrating the centennial of IUPAC, that the elementary unit for the count — whoop — does not exist. Even more magically, they cast a spell over the unit [x] and transformed the poor unit into a number: x is devoured by the number 1, which finally is made to vanish altogether ― it is popped out. 2nd 44 PI PI Problem solved or dissolved? MS 45 Student SI An infinite solution — from PRACTICAL to Technical-Theoretical to CANONICAL. We just pushed into PTC-mood .. PTC 46 PI PI Pop up, please. Back to SI-mode. SI 47 Student SI For your example of 60: - PRAC SI-module: I_{O2} = 60 [pmol∙s^{-1}]
- CANO SI-module: I_{O2/X} = 60 [pmol∙s^{-1}]
Now they are really the same ― BINGO!
48 PI PI But this cannot be! Why did I pay for two different versions, PRAC and CANO, if they are the same? MS 49 Student SI I am so sorry. We could have spent this money better at an X-mass party and invite them all for many Beers per Body, N_{B/B} » 1 x∙x^{-1}. This is a nondimensional ratio, such that canonical and SI are in complete harmony, N_{Beer/Buddy} » 1. Beer 50 PI PI This cannot be! If they are the same, we cannot publish three MS. MS 51 SI & PI PI & SI What a BUMMER! How can CANONICAL ever be PRACTICAL? PTC
Canon U: Sink the ship in the canonical Battle of Units
In CASE of a battle
- Before entering the canonical Battle of Units, where the big battleships are seen as little nutshells (NUCE for Number, Unit, Count, and Entity), there are scientists who are concerned to introduce properly such a dramatic CASE. At that time, it was all about Counting, Assembling, and Sampling of Entities. As in any battle, it was about who counts first, and who is sunk to the ground first. Numerical cognitition scientists give the number sense a high priority (Kadosh 2015 Oxford Univ Press). However, assembling and disassembling is one step ahead of counting. Entity types are assembled, before numbers and counting make sense.
- Look into the System H-face and start counting. If you agree, that the number value of four makes little sense (take one: one picture; take two: to types of contours in the face; take three: three entities in the face; take four; four graphical symbols in the picture; take five: four graphical symbols in the picture plus the picture; take six: include the figure legend), then — without any battle — there is no first-level number sense.
- First (1) entities are selected, and second (2) sampled (into a cognitive system), and third (3) assembled (eyes; things that are recognized to be similar) and disassembled (mouth versus eyes) into representative simplified Highest-level Systems (face with different things in it). One system H(A_{E}[2E]) contains the assembly of eyes, another system H(A_{M}[1M]) contains the assembly of mouths. Ready to count? By no means, and before the battle. Counting cannot start before another decision is made instinctively, that means without even learning and recognizing the decision process. Number sense or even counting sense have to stand by until these questions are answered:
- Should I count the number of assemblies, that is the number of entity-types? — NO
- Should I count the number of elementary entities of entity-type E? — YES
- Last (4) Count: I see two elementary entities of entity-type E, N_{E} = 2 x.
- It is up to the specialists of numerical cognitition to test, if the concept of number sense is to be replaced by the integrated CASE sense. This CASE may explain, why even in the most formal system of all systems in our world — the International System of Units (SI) — the component concepts of entities, sampling, assembling and counting are instinctively intertwined. It is a hard battle to consciously and formally force our mind to separate the single steps towards obtaining finally such a simple count of two eyes, since the CASE separation does not make practical sense. If all works very well without asking and answering questions on entities, sampling and assembling, why should we ever care about these lengthy, tiring, hence boring canonical loops in the X-mass Carol?
- Here is an example how it works practically with problems of communication: "The number of ethnic groups in our sample of a number of 2400 obese patients was 66 ethnicies, and the number of sexes in each group varied from two to three." Ambiguities of the concept entity X are practically avoided in applications, where the entity-type is specified in detail. Even without details of context, the number of 2400 obese patients is clearly understood as the count of individual, elementary persons of type obese, with the elementary entity recognized as a single individual obese body. The number of 66 ethnic groups is the count of assemblies distinguished as different ethnicies, with the elementary entity defined as a single distinct ethnicy, containing individual bodies. But duality of meaning kreeps gradually in with the use of more general terms. Two simple examples serve to construct the emergence of a problem out of context: the "number of blood cells", the "number of subatomic particles". Get prepared for the battle.
- If the count of blood cells or the count of subatomic particles has increased, does it mean that we have more types of blood cells in our sample due to differentiation, or more subatomic particles due to groundbreaking discoveries at CERN? Or did we simply sample a larger volume of blood to increase the cell count in the experimental chamber for obtaining a higher resolution of cell respiration? Without any CERN and innovation, I can predict with stubbern certainty, that the number of subatomic particles is higher in a mass of five kg potatoes compared to one kg potatoes. Every couch potatoe knows this. The real problem of dualistic ambiguity strikes fully when neither context nor specification of entity X are provided. In such an abstract and formal context of zero context with the world of things, the ancor securing hold on firm ground of real objects and real events is floating adrift. This is the theoretical battlefield, where a formal system is taken to the test.
- If there is no rescue, then push down, sink the ship of the formal system with its crumbled navigation power, let it crash, and construct something new from its broken pieces. The naval battle is in the wake.
- Usually, new formal things are insufficiently tested and are not trusted. The new is probably worse than the good old wreck on which the masses drift along or are stuck in the sediment of conventional publications. The more convicts assemble on the survival wreck, the stronger the distrust and desinterest in the surfacing innovation. The innovation at stake in our CASE is the very simple, singular elementary entity U_{X} of the good old entity-type X that tore apart from the good old count N_{X}. The elementary entity U_{X} with elementary unit [x] is perhaps the most elementary quantity in the entire formal system of quantities. The elementary entity U_{X} gives the quantity count N_{X} a new definition:
N_{X} = N·U_{X} [x]
- where N is the numerical value or nondimensional Number in the quantity 'count' expressed in the elementary Unit x that gives the Count its defining Elementary Entity U_{X}. Now the battle is on NUCE.
- In the drama of the battle, the strategically experienced Lord Count N_{X} realized immediately, that he was faced with the superior might of the two new invadors, Elementary Entity Lady U_{X} (LUX) and Elementary Unit x (EUX). Instead of a straight counterattack, Lord Count launched an intrigue to turn the two invaders against each other, seconded by his mate the Number. This clever attack was striking hard: Lady LUX and little EUX, you claim territory on the clear waters of Sails International (SI). If you win, how will you split the bounty? You present yourself as two formal things. This is Humbug. Aren't you one and the same formal unit, without any difference even canonically speaking? One of you will overthrough the other in no time, since you can be simplified to just one elementary unit. Therefore, I offer one of you to join my force, and Lord Count N_{X} will protect you against the other. Thus the shocked Elementary Entity Lady U_{X} and Elementary unit [x] turned against each other in a fight on:
- (1) Simplified CASE 1: N_{X} = N [x]
- Lady LUX is out. [x] wins. The count is simply a number of units x, like the volume is a number of liters, and mass is a number of kg. But where does the pure number N get the unit x from? If the number is unitless, then simplified CASE 1 suggests, that the count is just a number. That is exactly the line of argument in the SI, but the primary battle was to sink the ship and build the new unit [x] from the broken pieces. Let [x] stay alive in the:
- (2) Simplified CASE 2: N_{X} [x]
- U_{X} strikes back. Wherefrom does the count get its identity? Lord Count N_{X} and Lady U_{X} have the same unit [x]. Elementary Entity Lady U_{X} that has a unit [x] cannot at the same time be her own unit [x]. This is formally clear, as long as we do not enter numbers. Multiplication or division by 1 here or there does not change a thing, such that an elementary entity of 1 can be sunk to the ground without anybody noticing. That may be the end of Lady LUX. If Lady U_{X} and Lord Count N_{X} have the same unit [x], what then prevents U_{X} from being cicked overboard by Lord Count bringing up the
- (3) Simplified CASE 3: U_{X} = N_{X} = 1 x
- So forget about elementary entity U_{X} and simply say: the elementary entity is a count with numerical value N = 1. End of the battle? Well, before going overboard, Lady U_{X} took a deep breath and this should not be her last. Struggling back to the surface, Lady LUX cries: You cannot just count! Lord Count's definition has made me empty of things. But wait a second, I have to be first. I as U_{X} have to sail the formal waters first to conjugate as number 1 with mate pure number N = x, where x is the nondimensional numerical value (if mate N wants to discretely hide behind an x). Count on me, I as Lady U_{X} then give birth to Lord Count N_{X} coming second!
U_{X} · N → N_{X}
- Before the upset Lord Count N_{X} can even take into account the meaning of the message, Lady LUX continues: Give me just the chance to recount your simplified CASE 3: "The elementary entity (U_{X} !) is a count (BAH! Humbug) with the numerical value N = 1. My not-the-CASE extension is: "The elementary entity U_{X} is a count N_{X} (second) of U_{X} (first) with numerical value N = 1. Since U_{X} is the first count ever, LUX is neither just a count nor a number, Lady U_{X} is the one-and-only singular elementary entity U_{X} as the quantity that has to be defined, before counting can even begin. Ss such LUX is the most elementary of all elementary quantities (Figure).
Supplement Canon O: Assembly of canonical X-mass carols on the Oroboros Ecosystem
- Push down to »Canonical Carol Canon O«
Epistrophe
- The X-mass Carol is composed for a Technical-Theoretical audience with a Practical mindset and a Canonical curiosity that accepts recurrent PTC-loops. The resistance against trust or even interest in a novel concept increases in a PTC-system as an exponential function of the theoretical scope — from BMI to SI. A PTC-loop is a cognitive Dynamic Open Canonical Ensemble (cognitive DOCE). If you are strictly a Practical-Technical PT with little Theoretical clout ― start and stop with the Epistrophe and return to your experimental PT-ensemble. If you are a strictly Theoretical-Canonical TC-nerd, you have arrived here by mistake ignoring the Antestrophe ― skip the Metastrophe and the rest. If you are happy with your Technical-Theoretical skills ― play more of the same gray T-thriller, not wasting T-time with a Catastrophe. So much for the instructions to a non-PTC audience to stophe away from all this BAH! Humbug!
- Continuing, you are a B in the PTC-Band. Pop up from the Audience to the Highest-level Stage ― join this PTC-canonical coral giving it your voice: welcome in the cognitive DOCE (quod erat demonstrandum: DOCE latin imperative means ‘you should demonstrate’). PTC sets the stage. The Stage is the Highest-level System H, in which the Band and Audience are playing. You are B in A and pop up to Stage H in a PTC-loop. Up here, the canonical ensemble DOCE strives for a yet higher-level Stage as the Highest-level System, for All to pop up on Stage together, from B in A up to H. In how many cata-, ana-, metastrophes of the canonical carol DO you open the DOCE, until you shout BAH! Humbug! Strive to Catastrophe XXX.
- The X-mass Carol just happened. 'Just happened' is used just at the time of release in the meaning of 'very recently'. It is used in the meaning of 'merely' to say, that it was not planned, that it happened, as the X-mass party was dragging on, as another Canon stepped in, and more levels of meanings popped up. It also means that it is open to what will happen next.
References
Bioblast link | Reference | Year |
---|---|---|
Bureau International des Poids et Mesures 2019 The International System of Units (SI) | Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (2019) The International System of Units (SI). 9th edition:117-216. ISBN 978-92-822-2272-0 | 2019 |
Cohen 2008 IUPAC Green Book | Cohen ER, Cvitas T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor HL (2008) Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry. IUPAC Green Book 3rd Edition, 2nd Printing, IUPAC & RSC Publishing, Cambridge. | 2008 |
BEC 2020.1 doi10.26124bec2020-0001.v1 | Gnaiger E et al ― MitoEAGLE Task Group (2020) Mitochondrial physiology. Bioenerg Commun 2020.1. https://doi.org/10.26124/bec:2020-0001.v1 | 2020 |
Hofstadter 1979 Harvester Press | Hofstadter DR (1979) Gödel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. A metaphorical fugue on minds and machines in the spirit of Lewis Carroll. Harvester Press:499 pp. | 1979 |
Kadosh 2015 Oxford Univ Press | Kadosh Roi Cohen, Dowker Ann, ed (2015) The Oxford handbook of numerical cognition. Oxford Univ Press:1185 pp. | 2015 |
Kahneman 2011 Penguin Books | Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Books 499 pp. | 2011 |
Wilkie 2015 Front Psychol | Wilkie James EB, Bodenhausen Galen V (2015) The numerology of gender: gendered perceptions of even and odd numbers. Front Psychol 6:810. | 2015 |
- ↑ Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-term-debugging; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper 2020-07-30
Preprints for Gentle Science
» MitoFit Preprints - the Open Access preprint server for mitochondrial physiology and bioenergetics
Labels: MiParea: Instruments;methods, mt-Awareness
Preparation: Intact organism, Permeabilized cells, Homogenate, Isolated mitochondria, Enzyme, Intact cells
HRR: Theory