<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span lang="DE-AT">16 shades
of order<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span lang="DE-AT"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span lang="DE-AT">Dear
Colleagues,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Thanks again to Marcus, who has shared with us, that there
are 16 distinct forms of energy, according to today’s knowledge. The number 16
is really important, as it is a part of a smoking gun, contributing evidence towards
the proof of a theory.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The theory is centred around order. The transmission of
genetic information – from the written form in the DNA into the expanded,
contemporary form in the realisation by the organism, and retour -happens only
under circumstances that are highly ordered. Even the smallest intoxication or
stress can cause a deviation from the usual-expected, a disorder, that leads to
disturbances in physiology with the result that reproduction is not possible. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Order connects the linear with the planar and the spatial. Order
connects the antecedent and the subsequent elements with the presently existing
elements. Order allows predictions about what shall come next: be this next a
next place or a next moment or a next property.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The subject being a fascinating one, the necessity was
evident to write a treatise bout the problem. The treatise introduces the
problem, discusses it, shows a/the solution, points out the limits of the
explanation. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Let me show in a table the parallels between the treatise
about speech and the treatise about order<span></span></p>
<table class="gmail-MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse:collapse;border:medium none" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border:1pt solid windowtext;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">pointing to objects and their
pictures in the brain and speaking about the exercise<span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:windowtext windowtext windowtext currentcolor;border-style:solid solid solid none;border-width:1pt 1pt 1pt medium;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">pointing to pictures of objects in
the brain as they are moving<span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext;border-style:none solid solid;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">establishing what is a language<span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext currentcolor;border-style:none solid solid none;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt medium;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">presenting the logical
primitives (centaurs)<span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext;border-style:none solid solid;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">clarifying what is a word<span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext currentcolor;border-style:none solid solid none;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt medium;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">demonstrating what are cycles<span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext;border-style:none solid solid;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">establishing the term structure<span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext currentcolor;border-style:none solid solid none;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt medium;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">establishing the term order
(succession)<span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext;border-style:none solid solid;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">type and position of words<span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext currentcolor;border-style:none solid solid none;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt medium;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">position is a consequence of
order<span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext;border-style:none solid solid;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">reference grid of meanings<span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext currentcolor;border-style:none solid solid none;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt medium;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">usual patterns<span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext;border-style:none solid solid;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">address of elements in the
reference grid<span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext currentcolor;border-style:none solid solid none;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt medium;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">expectations for next
coincidences<span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext;border-style:none solid solid;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">speaking comprehensively<span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="width:226.55pt;border-color:currentcolor windowtext windowtext currentcolor;border-style:none solid solid none;border-width:medium 1pt 1pt medium;padding:0cm 5.4pt" width="302" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">avoid speaking, show<span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The great difference to the tractatus on speech is that the
tractatus on order does not involve the reader into a dialogue. The less is
said by the archaeologist who uncovers Atlantis, the less trouble he will get
into with geologists, marine vulcanologists, archeobotanists, historians and
the more. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The picture presented to you is a Lied ohne Worte. We speak
of relations as such. Symbols can picture the picture, but the reader has to look
and find his own words for that what she sees. Using simple symbols, one can
engineer a nice model, name it a tautomat, because it produces tautologies, and
watch the patterns. It is one’s own decision, whether one uses the term “force”
or that of “predictability”. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The 16, what has been brought to our attention, is a key
part in the mechanism. The system works with optimal capacity, if the term: <i>“How many distinct properties among objects?”
</i><span>is </span><i>16. </i>In fact, Nature makes use of a very slight distortion within,
inbuilt in the counting system. This little wiggle allows a whole screenplay to
come into existence. There is an accounting equivalence among the answers to<i> “How many?”, “Where?”, “What properties?”</i>,
specifically if the <i>How many? is ~ 66. </i>The
16 comes in extremely handy, as the necessary background combinatorics is
zeroed in on, actually, <i>17. </i>It will
hopefully charm a smile on your face, as you learn, that the two central
sentences of Nature are, both: <i>6+11=17</i>,
although their spatial coordinates are slightly out of whack relative to each
other. The banality of it all: <i>6+11=17. </i><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">If the model would bring you forth a previously unknown chemical
element, with properties as predicted, or a previously unobserved planet, with
properties as predicted, you would credit the idea and the engineering. Here,
we have the phenomenon called <i>gravity</i>
that appears with properties as predicted, based on sorting and ordering pairs
of natural numbers. The 16 kinds of logical entities that have been observed in
Nature support the credibility of the model, too.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">So much to 16, please forgive an old war horse which wakes
up as the trumpet calls 16.<span></span></p>
</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Sa., 9. Jan. 2021 um 20:32 Uhr schrieb Stanley N Salthe <<a href="mailto:ssalthe@binghamton.edu">ssalthe@binghamton.edu</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">
<p><span>Stan – I am not really sure how to respond to your note. In your short </span></p>
<p><span>paragraph you offer a catalogue of issues that lie far outside my view </span></p>
<p><span>of information science, and I believe, the view of most other careful </span></p>
<p><span>readers in information science.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height:1.5"> – ‘Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the same way’</span><br><span></span></p>
<p><span>> This argues that signal entropy and thermodynamic entropy are </span></p>
<p><span>identical.</span></p>
<p><span> S: I would not assert this! Signal entropy is variety of possibilities, while thermo entropy is possible diversity of locations of dispersed photons. So, formally there is a clear matching, although in thermo we see dispersion, while in information we see choice of one position from many possibilities. </span></p>
<p><span></span><br></p>
<p><span> I know of no other FIS member that agrees with this view. </span></p>
<p><span>Shannon and Weaver (1949) themselves referred to signal entropy</span></p>
<p><span>as ‘disappointing and bizarre’, bizarre expressly because it differs so </span></p>
<p><span>clearly from classic notions of thermodynamic entropy. </span></p>
<p><span> S: It is a formal matching only.</span></p>
<p><span></span><br></p>
<p><span>– ‘ . . . NOT problems for physicists’</span></p>
<p><span>> Again, careful readers in physics know well of many force-Energy</span></p>
<p><span>related issues. Dark energy and dark matter are wholly unexplained,</span></p>
<p><span>gravity is poorly understood, no Unified Field Theory exists to detail </span></p>
<p><span>force-Energy transitions or quantum-cosmic roles, matter/anti-matter </span></p>
<p><span>asymmetry is yet another open issue, etc., etc. etc. And then we</span></p>
<p><span>have thermodynamic energy as ONLY one of 16 accepted forms of </span></p>
<p><span>energy where the interrelations between those 16 is unclear. I have </span></p>
<p><span>seen three of four times where Richard Feynman during the course </span></p>
<p><span>of a lecture comments on how interesting the issue of force-energy </span></p>
<p><span>relations is . . . and then promptly walk off in an entirely different </span></p>
<p><span>direction – leaving that one question hanging. I chuckle every time I </span></p>
<p><span>see it.</span></p>
<p><span> S: I pass on this </span></p>
<p><span></span><br></p>
<p><span>In short, you seem to make my argument for me that ‘entropy’ is </span></p>
<p><span>a concept often misused and abused, not even differentiating </span></p>
<p><span>between signal and thermodynamics. Shannon in The Bandwagon </span></p>
<p><span>(1956) cautioned against reckless and excess of the concept </span></p>
<p><span>‘entropy’ – and here we are over 60 years later still dealing with this </span></p>
<p><span>issue. Odd.</span></p>
<p><span> S: I here stress conceptual similarity, not material difference.</span></p>
<p><span>Entropy is referred to in many different particular ways, depending </span></p>
<p><span>upon the application of the idea of dispersion -- in some cases we have</span></p>
<p><span>the process of dispersion (entropy production), in some choice of one</span></p>
<p><span>from many existing (e,g, already ‘dispersed’) possibilities (going the other way).</span></p>
<p><span>STAN</span></p></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="line-height:1.5">On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:00 PM Stanley N Salthe <<a href="mailto:ssalthe@binghamton.edu" target="_blank">ssalthe@binghamton.edu</a>> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">
<p><span>Stan – I am not really sure how to respond to your note. In your short </span></p>
<p><span>paragraph you offer a catalogue of issues that lie far outside my view </span></p>
<p><span>of information science, and I believe, the view of most other careful </span></p>
<p><span>readers in information science.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height:1.5"> – ‘Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the same way’</span><br><span></span></p>
<p><span>> This argues that signal entropy and thermodynamic entropy are </span></p>
<p><span>identical.</span></p>
<p><span> S: I would not assert this! Signal entropy is variety of possibilities, while thermo entropy is possible diversity of locations of dispersed photons. So, formally there is a clear matching, although in thermo with see dispersion, while in information we see choice of one position from many possibilities. </span></p>
<p><span></span><br></p>
<p><span> I know of no other FIS member that agrees with this view. </span></p><p><span style="line-height:1.5">Shannon and Weaver (1949) themselves referred to signal entropy</span></p>
<p><span>as ‘disappointing and bizarre’, bizarre expressly because it differs so </span></p>
<p><span>clearly from classic notions of thermodynamic entropy. </span></p>
<p><span> S: It is a formal matching only.</span></p>
<p><span></span><br></p>
<p><span>– ‘ . . . NOT problems for physicists’</span></p>
<p><span>> Again, careful readers in physics know well of many force-Energy</span></p>
<p><span>related issues. Dark energy and dark matter are wholly unexplained,</span></p>
<p><span>gravity is poorly understood, no Unified Field Theory exists to detail </span></p>
<p><span>force-Energy transitions or quantum-cosmic roles, matter/anti-matter </span></p>
<p><span>asymmetry is yet another open issue, etc., etc. etc. And then we</span></p>
<p><span>have thermodynamic energy as ONLY one of 16 accepted forms of </span></p>
<p><span>energy where the interrelations between those 16 is unclear. I have </span></p>
<p><span>seen three of four times where Richard Feynman during the course </span></p>
<p><span>of a lecture comments on how interesting the issue of force-energy </span></p>
<p><span>relations is . . . and then promptly walk off in an entirely different </span></p>
<p><span>direction – leaving that one question hanging. I chuckle every time I </span></p>
<p><span>see it.</span></p>
<p><span> S: I pass on this </span></p>
<p><span></span><br></p>
<p><span>In short, you seem to make my argument for me that ‘entropy’ is </span></p>
<p><span>a concept often misused and abused, not even differentiating </span></p>
<p><span>between signal and thermodynamics. Shannon in The Bandwagon </span></p>
<p><span>(1956) cautioned against reckless and excess of the concept </span></p>
<p><span>‘entropy’ – and here we are over 60 years later still dealing with this </span></p>
<p><span>issue. Odd.</span></p>
<p><span> S: I here stress conceptual similarity, not material difference. </span><span style="line-height:1.5">Entropy is referred to in many different particular ways, depending </span></p>
<p><span>upon the application of the idea of dispersion/multiplicity -- in some cases we have </span><span style="line-height:1.5">the process of dispersion (entropy production), in some </span></p><p><span style="line-height:1.5">choice of one </span><span style="line-height:1.5">from many existing (e,g, already 'dispersed') possibilities (going the other way).</span></p>
<p><span>STAN</span></p></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:57 AM Marcus Abundis <<a href="mailto:55mrcs@gmail.com" target="_blank">55mrcs@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Stan – I am not really sure how to respond to your note. In your short </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">paragraph you offer a catalogue of issues that lie far outside my view </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">of information science, and I believe, the view of most other careful </p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">readers in information science.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> – ‘Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the same way’</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">> This argues that signal entropy and thermodynamic entropy are </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">identical. I know of no other FIS member that agrees with this view. </p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Shannon and Weaver (1949) themselves referred to signal entropy</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">as ‘disappointing and bizarre’, bizarre expressly because it differs so </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">clearly from classic notions of thermodynamic entropy. </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">– ‘ . . . NOT problems for physicists’</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">> Again, careful readers in physics know well of many force-Energy</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">related issues. Dark energy and dark matter are wholly unexplained,</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">gravity is poorly understood, no Unified Field Theory exists to detail </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">force-Energy transitions or quantum-cosmic roles, matter/anti-matter </p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">asymmetry is yet another open issue, etc., etc. etc. And then we</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">have thermodynamic energy as ONLY one of 16 accepted forms of </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">energy where the interrelations between those 16 is unclear. I have </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">seen three of four times where Richard Feynman during the course </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">of a lecture comments on how interesting the issue of force-energy </p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">relations is . . . and then promptly walk off in an entirely different </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">direction – leaving that one question hanging. I chuckle every time I </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">see it. </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">In short, you seem to make my argument for me that ‘entropy’ is </p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">a concept often misused and abused, not even differentiating </p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">between <span style="font-size:14px">signal and thermodynamics. Shannon in The Bandwagon </span></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-size:14px">(1956) cautioned against reckless and excess of the concept </span></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-size:14px">‘entropy’ – and </span><span style="font-size:14px">here we are over 60 years later still dealing with this </span></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-size:14px">issue. Odd.</span></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Marcus</p></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
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.<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote></div>