[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 86, Issue 9. Humor and Ontology

Fri Feb 11 16:00:23 CET 2022

Dear Joseph,

We may or may not agree on many points, and I greatly respect your
thoughts. In your last message, however, I read a position which merits a
more declarative reaction, in my eyes. I will try to put it - in the spirit
of our present session - with as much humour as I can.

You write:

*In some approaches, such as Karl's, reference is not made to epistemology
as such, but to abstract entities of thought ("numbers") the rules for
whose changes and behavior capture, inefficiently, only a very small
fraction of real phenomena.*

*This is not scientific.*

Please allow me to debate two points:

1) *abstract entities of thought ("numbers") the rules for whose changes
and behavior capture, inefficiently, only a very small fraction of real
phenomena.*

If there is one thing that this person repeatedly and insistently tries to
tell you all, in the past 25 years, it is that he has found a way to use
these abstract entities ("numbers") in a *novel way*, by adding more rules
to the changes and behaviour of these abstract entities.

Due to these innovations, two things happen:

a) the changes and behaviour of the abstract entities capture the real
phenomena *far more efficiently; *and

b) the changes and behaviour of the abstract entities capture a *far
greater fraction *of real phenomena.

2) *This is not scientific*

It is hard to find anything more scientific than number theory. Scientific
means that

·       People are in agreement about what they discuss,

·       Hypotheses can be subject to verification,

·       The methodology of arriving at results is agreed on,

·       The experiments can be reconducted and will bring forth identical
results,

·       The start, the conduct and the evaluation of the results of any
experiment (hypotheses) are agreed to be factual truth

*Your statement* is, colloquially rephrased:

No use watching spectacles with agreed on units. The definition of units
and of methods guarantees that nothing new and surprising can come about
playing with abstract entities, specifically numbers. These are but our
inventions, and we have invented them so, that they can by their nature not
picture anything meaningful. Anyone who states otherwise is a charlatan.

*This humorous session* is a perfect background for my statement,
colloquially rephrased:

Watch ye all now! You will not believe your eyes! You would not have
thought this possible! The greatest miracle since the Sumerians!

Watch my paper and pencil. Let me draw snowmen for you. Let us talk about
dolls. That what you are about to experience now will hit you deep in your
unconscious. You need to re-learn what you have learnt at the age of 6
years. There is more to the romance of *(a,b) *than that sanitised, family
version of *a+b=c *where all goes well, which you were taught. We now show
what happens *in reality *(anyone interested in a contrast logic –
reality?) among the two: *(a,b). *Rivalries and more.

*Watch my tables* which here I generate with these 16 fingers of mine
(shows *anime *with many fingers on both hands).

We change the term “unit” for a “pair”. Like we do not count inhabitants
but married couples, each unit in our demoscopy consists of *one piece a *and
of *one piece b*. These are our *logical primitives (M. Abundis).*

Our logical primitives have a *habitat. *They have linear ranks, planar
places and spatial positions. We can order them by hand in any way we want
to, and we shall imagine their habitat to be axiomatically subject to *periodic
changes*. Periodic changes alter the appurtenance of a primitive to a
specific rank in a sequence, in accordance to the requirement posed by the
periodic change presently in force. If the linear rank has changed, so the
planar places will change with it, and the spatial positions, too. *Periodic
changes bring forth spatial movements.*

Now watch what these logical primitives do in their brand-new habitat! As
they are forced to move (first in rank, caused by this, on plane, caused by
this, in space), their movements create *paths (strings, filaments, cycles)**.
*You have seen migration paths of migratory animals. You have seen the
Rubik cube. Now what you are demonstrated here is the ultimate Rubik cube,
in the version Nature appears to prefer to use, with *136 *movable (pairs
of) elements. Our cube has *72 *edges, because we use *9 *properties of the
primitives, each once as the first, and once as a 2nd sorting criterium.
The path is given by the order imposed by the periodic changes, which
re-activates relationships among the primitives, by which they get
organised into cycles. You have to see the cycles in order to understand
that the term *periodic changes *implies as a logical consequence
*spatial-temporal
structures. *(A few sessions back, pictures similar to Youri’s were shared.
Biologic Geometry.)

*We now come to the question of the cylinder and the rabbit*. I deeply
sympathise with a reluctance to spend time on a promised wonder, since the
subject knows that there is no way to produce a number theoretical rabbit
out of a number theoretical cylinder. Yet, exactly this is what is
happening here. The enormity of the breaking of taboos gives energy to your
conjurer who keeps telling you that this is indeed a mathematical act of
apparent creation and destruction.

The rabbit and the cylinder have a *background – foreground* relation to
each other. We know that we perceive similarities before a background of
diversities, and that we perceive diversities before a background of
similarities. The movements of the primitives come in two main types:
*similarity-related
and diversity-related*. Similarity-related are all those results (data,
properties) which are counted on such continuities which have identical
steps. (Like *N*) Of such continuities, there are *10 *in the life of the
logical primitives. These *10 *sorting order axes we stitch together into *two
*rectangular axed Euclid spaces (there go *6 *axes), which are crossed by *two
*planes more (the remaining *4 *axes.) The cylinder is a spatial grid in
two versions transcended by two planes. The rabbit is that what is not the
spatial grid, undergoing the remaining *62 *periodic changes. In this view,
the space is the background, being made up of identical units (of
distance), and everything else is the diversity in the foreground. Of
course, in a reading based on diversity, one observes that some primitives
want to stay close to each other (attracting each other or merging), while
some others’ proximity causes the creation of additional units measured in
similarity (that things repulse each other or explode).

This being a demonstration of accounting where nothing gets created and
nothing gets lost, what *has been a cylinder must become a rabbit and the
other way around*, otherwise the people will cry cheat. The great surprise
is that this is indeed possible. The metamorphosis happens by translating
the characteristic properties of both rabbit and cylinder into units of a
dimension of a measure, for which maybe *cohesiveness* would be a good
name. Eddington has shown that a cohesive assembly can have no more
than *{136,137}
*distinguishable object-level elements, which result is confirmed by the
limits on the number of (symbols most elementary of) the stories one can
narrate about the adventures of the logical primitives.

*The cohesiveness* is understood to be a Flexible Principle of Nature (a
sliding natural constant), here visible in its natural form caused by a
slight discongruence between two combinatorial functions. The discongruence
itself gives rise to the fundamental thought that things can be coherent,
consistent, cohesive to *differing degrees*. Old school thinking does not
allow for questioning the coherency of logical statements: either these are
congruent, coherent and consistent or they are not at all. The lack of the
traditional, extremely stable, invariant cohesiveness is the philosophical
reason for there being any two parts of the world, and be they logic and
reality, matter and space, similarity and diversity.

The fact of the matter is, that there is a loophole of roughly 340 % in one
direction and 350 % in the other direction through which loophole
transformations of alternatives into probabilities and certitudes can take
place. The same degree of cohesiveness can be defined to exist, if on
*n *logical
primitives *(q,w,Z,etc) *logical relations exist, and on a second set (or
later) the same *(q,w,Z,etc) *logical relations exist on *m *logical
primitives, maybe with a sliding proportion. Due to the slight
inconsistency in the answers to: *what is an object but a collection of its
relations? *in dependence of *n, *with matches in the density of relations
similar – diverse if the objects count *32, 97, *and mismatches with
opportunities to make a deal between similar and diverse if the objects
count *11, 66*, there is *a natural bazar open to exchange* form or space
for matter or energy, potential with certitude. The algorithms for
molecular geometry come from these terms of trade. *{Similar, diverse,
numerous} are interdependent.*

Narratives as such can consist of only one kind of descriptions,
similarity-related or diversity-related. Traditionally, we have only used –
in science – the narrative based on similar units. In actual Nature no
thing can exist of which the complete narrative contains only descriptions
of similarity, or only of diversity. The cohesiveness is a three-way
balance: how many things are how similar and how diverse relative to each
other?

*To summarise:*

Simple symbols, like numbers, are extremely useful for checking whether one
talks nonsense. If one can’t relate the true-telling mechanism to the
subject of his research, one is not yet at the stage, where one can make a
reasoned hypothesis and check whether it is true. The attitude towards the
true-telling mechanism, that it is inefficient and only useful for a small
portion of questions, is understandable in view of the limitations of
true-telling machines in commercial use up to our days. Now, with the help
of computers, some patterns were discovered while looking into the
self-organisational, adaptive properties of the most simple symbols, like
numbers. The utilisation of these patterns to understand transformations
between *background – foreground – number of players – their predictable
positions – their properties – the properties of their surroundings – the
system of distances among players – etc. *is presently not yet widely done.
No problem, this rabbit – cylinder like matter – space interdependence,
rooted solidly in natural numbers, will find its way into the toolbox of
many professionals, and maybe there will be also some scientists among
those who are interested in *Rubik Sudokus*. You cannot lose a bet on the
idea that sorting, ordering and reordering simple logical tokens will turn
up unavoidable patterns and that these patterns will be interesting for
Physics and Chemistry.

With great respect:

Karl

Am Fr., 11. Feb. 2022 um 09:41 Uhr schrieb joe.brenner en bluewin.ch <
joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>:

> Dear Pedro, Youri, Karl and All,
>
> As we move toward the more usual form of FIS discussion, there is one
> aspect that, at least for me, emerged from our recent exchanges: it is the
> concurrent evolution of three if not more somewhat incompatible lines of
> thought. I suggest this "co-emergence" needs to be looked more closely. As
> a start, I quote from Youri of Jan. 31:
>
> In this respect, I have the impression that an epistemological perspective
> on one's own activity is more conducive to a form of humour,
> relativity and makes people less rigid and therefore less aggressive ?
>
> I find throughout our discussion (and many others) an *under-emphasis *not to say neglect of ontological perspectives which are linked to science by their relation to the dynamics of thought. This dynamics is particularly visible in humor but the principle is much broader and applies to complex changes in general. One reason for the emphasis on epistemology is that ontology is often misdefined in a way that limits it to classification and categorization. In some approaches, such as Karl's, reference is not made to epistemology as such, but to abstract entities of thought ("numbers") the rules for whose changes and behavior capture, inefficiently, only a very small fraction of real phenomena.
>
> This is not scientific. The "equivalent of humor" that Youri correctly urges that we look for is for me in the non-computable, emergent processes of life and creativity. We are thus quickly back to art but also science and philosophy. The critiques made by Pedro and others of philosophy should be directed against not a synthetic philosophy that includes science (and a suitable logic), but against a largely epistemological philosophy that lacks an essential minimum of physics.
>
> One term used by Pedro captures almost everything I am trying to say: "inter-individual bonding". Change and an "science-philosophy" (the term is of Wu Kun) of change is immediately implied since such bonding like any real bonding is a dynamic process, with an ethical dimension 'built in'. The role of information, at the interface between ontology and epistemology, also appears in a more functional way. I hope that others may suggest other and better relations between these concepts.
>
> Best,
>
> Joseph
>
>
>    ----Message d'origine----
>
> De : pedroc.marijuan en gmail.com
> Date : 09/02/2022 - 14:16 (CEST)
> À : youri.timsit en mio.osupytheas.fr, fis en listas.unizar.es
> Objet : Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 86, Issue 9
>
> Dear Youri and FISers,
>
> Thanks for your reflections on humor.
> Curiously, within the crazy variety of themes my research group was
> focusing while I was active in IACS institute, laughter got our sustained
> effort (Jorge Navarro worked a lot on it).
>
> We approached it as an evolutionary phenomenon related to the extension
> and intensity of inter-individual bonding in social groups.
> We published a couple of papers, an introductory one:
> --"The Bonds of Laughter: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Information
> Processes of Human Laughter"
> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1010/1010.5602.pdf
> And a more polished version in Kybernetes journal:
> --"Laughing bonds: A multidisciplinary inquiry into the social information
> processes of human laughter"
>
> https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/K-02-2016-0026/full/html
>
> Given the highly peculiar sound structure of laughter and our
> neuroscientific hypotheses, we had contemplated its possible application as
> an auxiliary tool in the detection, diagnostic, and prognostic on several
> mental disorders (particularly in depression). We developed an ad hoc
> experimental methodology, applied to a competitive research project, and
> got the project and very promising applied results--with a stream of
> publications. For instance: "Validation of laughter for diagnosis and
> evaluation of depression". In: Journal of Affective Disorders
> <https://www.researchgate.net/journal/Journal-of-Affective-Disorders-0165-0327>
> 160(1–3):43–49 DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.02.035
> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.02.035>
> In spite of the dissolution of our group, the project is still potentially
> alive. There is an important hospital of Madrid willing to work on our
> methodology & software and finally develop , say, a "commercial" program
> and App. (Other partners would be very welcome!)
>
> About humor, I have always had a high respect for it; as being related to
> laughter mechanisms, it differs in the importance of language, meaning, and
> social context.
> Probably our main research hypothesis applies there, but it should have
> more development and sophistication. The evolutionary context of "play"
> becomes central.
> Humor appears essentially as a play with words (also images, or actions)
> that by the the act of playing "degrade" the usual serious thing to a
> childish or abstruse occurrence, making then a strong contrast. The
> difficult point is that it has to be solved "positively" out from a
> benevolent or distanced position. Otherwise it becomes sarcasm or just
> malevolent ridicule.
>
> Humor in science is not welcome as Youri comments. I think the enormous
> bureaucratization and technologization of our profession matters quite a
> bit.
> In any event, as long as playing is sufficiently maintained and welcome as
> a social attitude in adults too --and not condemned-- there is some hope...
>
> Best--Pedro
>
> El 06/02/2022 a las 16:31, Youri Timsit escribió:
>
> Humour, systems and information
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> All these discussions around humour could lead to the following question:
> Does humour in a given system contain information about itself and about
> the system to
> which it is addressed?
>
> In system, we can for example include religion, science or art or try to
> extend this
> reflection to any physical system and thus find an equivalent of humour in
> biology, physics, mathematics and information theory.
>
>
> Any system contains a series of rules and conventions that give it
> structure and maintain
> consistency. One might, at first glance, suggest that humour is an element
> that
> endangers the order of this structure. In one way or another, it questions
> and
> challenges certain rules, plays with conventions and thus undermines the
> established order in a given system.
>
> Of course, there are certainly different categories of humour... (I am not
> familiar with
> the philosophy of humour, nor with the work that has considered the place
> of
> humour in information theoryŠ)
>
>
> Let's take, for example, a play on words: a shift in meaning turns a
> discourse on its head,
> but also the entire semantics, the entire edifice of a language, and this
> is
> perhaps why it can make people laugh, it's associated with the vertigo of
> the
> order of a world that vanishes in a fraction of a second. What suddenly
> makes
> one laugh? the awareness that nothing holds together?
>
>
> Umberto Ecco, the great semiotician, placed humour - the laughter of
> Christ - at the centre
> of his novel 'The Name of the Rose'. He showed that religious orthodoxy
> left
> little room for humour, which could threaten its coherence and very
> existence.
>
>
> In Western music, another system based on multiple conventions ranging
> from the rules of
> harmony to bourgeois decorum in concert halls, humour has little place. A
> musical performance, such as a classical music concert or an opera, would
> be
> the place of a musical discourse of course, but also of a ceremony, a
> ritual
> even, intended to reinforce the established order, the social structuring
> of
> the Western bourgeoisie. It is very rare that humour and derision disrupt
> these
> ceremonies (see the movie of F. Fellini, Prova d¹orchestra).
> However, some composers have made a point of teasing out these
> rituals: Haydn, for example, broke with protocol in his 'farewell
> symphony',
> where the musicians leave one by one before the end of the piece... the
> opposite can be seen in the film The Concert (2009, Radu Mihaileanu),
> where the
> two trumpeters arrive late with large bags filled with jars of sweet and
> sour
> pickles at the Théâtre du Chatelet of Paris. These scenes create a comic
> effect that shakes up the order and rituals of the Viennese or Parisian
> upper
> middle class in a bittersweet way. The humour here carries a message: it
> disturbs, disrupts and questions conventions, but also the conventions
> associated with 20th century musical representations.
>
>
> Science, like religion, is not conducive to humour: the seriousness of
> scientific
> theories and the experiments that are supposed to demonstrate them do not
> tolerate humour. However, a scientific theory should be, Œin theory¹,
> refutable
> (Popper) and in this respect, ephemeral.... Being aware of the brevity of
> existence should however encourage a certain distance, humour and
> derision...
> but unfortunately, we rarely laugh at a scientific conference. Most
> researchers
> take themselves very seriously and it must be admitted that you don't come
> to a
> seminar to have a laughŠ
> I would dream of a congress where after the conferences, actors or clowns
> would take up
> our speeches by caricaturing them... this would create a more cordial
> atmosphere between researchers. David Lodge, in a "small world", also
> made fun of scientific rituals, we should make all students read it...
>
>
> With his Cantatrix Sopranica, George Perrec has
> made a mockery of scientific protocol! A magnificent parody of an article
> published in Nature, with colourful bibliographic
> references and a beautiful caricature of the scientific method that is both
> serious and grotesque. Serious and Grotesque are unfortunately the
> qualifiers
> that one could attribute to many articles published in "Great"
> journals... and that one finds retracted quite early (see the Lancet
> episode).
> The established order and the Narcissism of researchers (see Science,
> narcissism and the quest for visibility from Bruno Lemaitre; DOI:
> 10.1111/febs.14032) is a major obstacle to humour in research.
>
>
> Thus, one could hypothesise here that humour contains indispensable
> information: this
> information challenges and shakes up the rigid rules of a system and
> allows it
> to evolve.... If we extrapolate to biology, the appearance of a mutation, a
> sequence shift, would therefore be a form of humour... ? the humour of DNA?
>
> Youri
>
>
> Le 06/02/2022 12:00, « fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es on behalf offis-request en listas.unizar.es » <fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es on behalf of
> fis-request en listas.unizar.es> a écrit :
>
>
> Send Fis mailing list submissions to
> 	fis en listas.unizar.es
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	fis-request en listas.unizar.es
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	fis-owner en listas.unizar.es
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: [External Email] Re: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue
>      16--CLOSING (Loet Leydesdorff)
>   2. Re: [External Email] Re: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue
>      16--CLOSING (Francesco Rizzo)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2022 11:13:14 +0000
> From: "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet en leydesdorff.net>
> To: karl.javorszky en gmail.com, fis <fis en listas.unizar.es>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] [External Email] Re: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue
> 	16--CLOSING
> Message-ID: <emba24b591-9376-42ee-bc49-0d7eff2db1b2 en pc2014>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Dear Karl,
>
>
> The Lecture by Youri has opened many approaches towards understanding
> the general concept of information, specifically in a biologic context.
>
>
> The concept of information, defined specifically in a biological context
> is for that very reason not the general concept of information. This
> confusion does not help for the understanding. In economics, for
> example, one should not work with a biological concept of information.
>
> Information can be measured in bits and bytes. I have not heard a single
> argument in this discussion of how the biological theorizing leads to
> (proposals for) the measurement of information. Without the beginning of
> an operationalization, the theory remains a pure philosophy. I don't
> think that one should go for a biological philosophy, including social
> darwinism etc.
>
> Best,
> Loet
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220205/31f158cf/attac
> hment-0001.html> <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220205/31f158cf/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:59:24 +0100
> From: Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.rizzo en gmail.com>
> To: Loet Leydesdorff <loet en leydesdorff.net>
> Cc: fis <fis en listas.unizar.es>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] [External Email] Re: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue
> 	16--CLOSING
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAEvKwyTCjpP63GCsbVK1pD00zU-725AMZd1y9JQAny3f0caMzA en mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Caro carlo e Cari tutti,
> nessuna scienza dell'informazione, compresa quella di Shannon, pu? basarsi
> sull'esattezza delle misurazioni delle variabili dei fenomeni
> che analizza e studia, figuriamoci l'economia. D'altra parte all'economia
> interessano pi? le valutazioni che le misurazioni. Cio? il prezzo
> o valore di mercato di un bene (capitale) pu? calcolarsi tenendo conto
> dell'affidabil?t? e della probabilit? dei dati della cosiddetta realt? di
> mercato e dei comportamenti  degli operatori economici (acquirenti e
> venditori) che, fra l'altro, stabiliscono un rapporto di complementarit?
> con i beni economici medesimi.. Nascono cos? i valori normali dal punto di
> vista soggettivo, sottesi. da un'economia quantistica.
> Questo per?, come economista, non mi ha impedito  di elaborare una teoria
> del valore basata sulla legge dell'informazione in uno con
> il processo  produttivo di tras-in-formazione, di cui la Fis si ?
> (pre)occupata in passato.
> La legge generale e universale dell'informazione  consiste nel prendere o
> nel dare forma a tutto e a tutti: alle persone, alle idee e alle cose-.
> Sulla base di questo procedimento che, in maniera interattiva e
> relazionale  coglie il relativo valore delle differenze, ? possibile
> esprimere
> giudizi di valore, pi? o meno attendibili. Quindi v'ha una sola legge
> dell'informazione, ma infiniti modi di misurarla-valutarla.
> Spetta alle diverse discipline teoriche o alle pratiche operative darsi le
> norme o regole ad-atte alle proprie specifiche misurazioni o valutazioni.
> Ad es. gli economisti matematici, che  a partire dal diciannovesimo secolo
> hanno incominciato ad applicare il calcolo infinitesimale al fine di
> quantizzare-quantificare le variabili della produzione e della
> distribuzione della ricchezza, sono in irreversibile crisi, in grande
> sfacelo, fuori strada,
> perch? incapaci di comprendere e vedere-leggere la realt? economica
> capitalistica.
> Vi chiedo scusa se sono stato pi? lungo di quanto volevo essere.
> Un abbraccio
> Francesco
>
>
>
> Il giorno sab 5 feb 2022 alle ore 12:13 Loet Leydesdorff <loet en leydesdorff.net> ha scritto:
>
>
> Dear Karl,
>
> The Lecture by Youri has opened many approaches towards understanding
> the
> general concept of information, specifically in a biologic context.
>
> The concept of information, defined *specifically *in a biological
> context is for that very reason not the *general *concept of
> information.
> This confusion does not help for the understanding. In economics, for
> example, one should not work with a biological concept of information.
>
> Information can be measured in bits and bytes. I have not heard a single
> argument in this discussion of how the biological theorizing leads to
> (proposals for) the measurement of information. Without the beginning
> of an
> operationalization, the theory remains a pure philosophy. I don't think
> that one should go for a biological philosophy, including social
> darwinism
> etc.
>
> Best,
> Loet
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing listFis en listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACI?N SOBRE PROTECCI?N DE DATOS DE CAR?CTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
> por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la informaci?n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter
> -personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si est? suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicaci?n en el momento en que lo desee.http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220205/af424ae2/attac
> hment-0001.html> <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220205/af424ae2/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing listFis en listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Fis Digest, Vol 86, Issue 9
> **********************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing listFis en listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Libre
> de virus. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <https://rich-v01.bluewin.ch:443/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220211/ff63ad61/attachment-0001.html>