Electron Configuration Worksheet Answers: Fill & Download for Free

BECAUSE NATHAN COPPEDGE MAY HAVE SOME IMPACT ON COMPUTERS, I HAVE EXPANDED THIS LIST TO INCLUDE ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS IN GENERALUpdate:Some potentially useful excel programs are available free for download from Google Docs that may beat many fake paid alternatives:Nathan Coppedge Excel FilesDo not edit the documents except for the fields marked for modification unless you download for your own use.…“It may be that our society as it stands, is ironically not yet exponential enough in some way. Which way this is will change, and only me, and those that follow and learn from me, and their intellectual forebears could tell. If this prophecy is untrue I shudder at what history will hold.”Response to Richard Daviault: Real experiment from that date. Some precedents in my own work. Already reproduced by one of my only collaborators. So far apparently untouched by scientists... IN 2021. Might make me feel a bit Egyptian, as far as the history is concerned. Better things to come I hope involving more people, no major plans yet.Of course, I don't make any major guarantees with my projects. Why would I? I don't control the markets, or not yet. But nearly anything not involving my work gets points off for bogus black swans unless it's legitimate cutting-edge science. I'm a pretty worthwhile easy road in my opinion, you might lose less money with almost zero expenditures if you're smart and connected.…EARLY PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES THAT MAY IMPACT COMPUTING:Perhaps my notes on 64- and 256-category deduction?I'm primarily known for perpetual motion machines and the Programmable Heuristics.I would not place a precise value on them at this point, but in my opinion those few pages belong in a museum.Connecting them with the known history of computing might be a challenge.New Material: Files that can be downloaded (Amazing USB): Nathan Coppedge's Website Might make a good party or business gift or even help with negotiations. You have my permission to change the doc files to txt if necessary as long as all content including the author's name is included.1Above: Important hierarchy (2009 - 2013).2Possible process for reaching the categorical deduction, the first objective knowledge method. However, I did not use the ‘not’ notation until later so dating this to 2013 is impossible.3Likely actual original process (2013) for ‘deducing the deduction' from the Essential Criticism folder (Essential Criticism was the originally-intended title for The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit that was modified for marketing reasons. The Toolkit was the first precedent for the Systems Theory, Coherent Systems, and Programmable Heuristics systems that followed).4Above: A later formulation (post 2013) eventually on track for a formula for answering all questions. This method is closer to my original categorical deduction.5Above: Formula for a problem according to previous.6Possibly early date circa (2013). Description of basic foundations of categorical deduction.7Above: Perhaps first (2013 - 2015) writing of the 16-category deduction in ‘standard' (linear, right to left, up to down), and modular (recursive at every set level) forms. Note the deductions are more complex than that, and have been reduced to a unified deduction due to the larger number of categories. Reduced and non-reduced exponentially-efficient forms exist for modulo-4 beginning at 16 categories. The above two formulas should be identical in every way, but depend on different methods of labeling. Note these formulas have not been fact-checked yet, but if correct may present a more simplified form than the usual answer for 16 categories.8Likely date 2015, description of categories in a kind of quantum fashion, thought to produce deductions which would work for any number of cstegories including perhaps odd numbers, by using a duality in each category, with the diagram showing a larger, more semantic logic, with the axis representing the deduction rather than oppositeness.9Above: Process for 64-category deduction circa (Jan 2015). Lays out clear method: deductions involve switching sectors B and D at every set level. Each set has two parts because it makes two deductions. Four sets means one more two-part deduction, equals 2 deductions ^ 3 set levels with deductions (deductions are performed on 4-category sets) = 8 final deductions. The number of deductions is just the square root of the number of categories, but the exact formula for deductions varies depending on the number of categories. The full set of deductions for 64 categories is abbreviated in the next image.10Above:Final deduction formulation for 64 categories in two dimensions (Jan 2015). Not necessarily in the prettiest order. Although the deductions are fixed, the order of them (1 - 8) is permitted to be arbitrary as they are all treated as equal, however some orders may be preferred for organizational reasons.11Beginning of an attempt to find standard deductions for 256 categories (probably 2016) with some miscellaneous bad or obscure math thrown in. At first I was attempting to show that there were only four deductions at every set level, but this proved ridiculous.12Above: Continuation of previous. Although this shows only 64 categories, it is likely an attempt to formulate deductions for 256, treating each of the numbers as a zero-level containing a simple deduction. The pattern outlined with a box is merely an attempt to show a pattern in exclusion which can be used to give a full list of 16 deductions for the 256 categories, often in abbreviated format referring either to the deduction levels or set levels. There is a small chance this was just an eccentric attempt at coherent math, the result would look very similar.13Above: Attempt at summarizing 4-d deduction (3-d deduction tends to have only one formula regardless of scale and number of categories).…Closest patent match I could find was (DAG): WO2002046980A2 - A method of configuring a product using a directed acyclic graph - Google Patents(I don't advise buying rights unless you know what it actually does. It's probably just a generalized legal defense)Insight into Nathan's theories on physics from August 2015 when he had just joined Quora:I think gravity is about mathematical manifold waves, which attract objects to extruded surfaces, including both surfaces with significant mass, e.g. those with dimension, this is similar to a Brian Green translation, and surfaces with significant energy, which is to say curvature.This kind of dual-model of gravity may be important in unlocking the secrets of a genuine theory.It is not just surface-dimension, or surface-curvature gravity (although that is the beginning point), but more efficiently energy-surface gravity and dimensional-density gravity. That's my theory, anyway.In addition, relativity is what causes the inward curvature of the manifold, due to symmetry with the curvature of the planetary body. In the case of the sun, therefore, it is more vertical, because there are vertical elements on the surface, and distant objects move horizontally due to the symmetry with the vertical elements and their own momentum.—Why is gravity such a mystery in modern day physics? Why can't we just nail this bitch down? I mean what are the fundamental blockades in unlocking a 'theory of gravity'?RIGHT: A letter from Museum of Appalachia in Tennessee thanking Coppedge for his donation of a plastic-bound clear cover book on perpetual motion machines.LEFT: Rejection letter by Harvard's Big Idea Group for perpetual motion inventions and other concepts.…SEE ALSO:The 8 Authentic SystemsUnique Standards DiagramsThe General Exclusivity TheoremWorksheet 2: Intermediate DimensionsIn surprise breakthrough, scientists create quantum states in everyday electronicsFavorite ProofsProgrammable Heuristics