I'm not quite sure why I am doing this but...
In a previous thread, spark said:
Rather than recap all the criticism, I think it would be more sensible to try and take things one step at a time. We still seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding/disagreement about your very first point.Now could you be so kind and make a post and recap all relevant criticism?
There are five children, ten sweets each, let's multiply...
You have five children, i.e. the dimensions are child.
Q1. Do you agree with this? If not, why not?
You have ten sweets each, i.e. each child has ten sweets or 10 sweets per child, i.e. the dimensions are sweet/child. (As many people have pointed out.)
Q2. Do you agree with this? If not, why not?
(5 child) * (10 sweet/child) = 50 child*sweet/child = 50
child*sweet/ child= 50 sweet.
Q3. Do you agree with this? If not, why not?
Before we go any further can you simply and clearly explain what you object to in this response, because so far you have just ignored or dismissed it.
After that, it may be possible to go on and discuss some of the other points...
[For the record, I created this thread because I was under the impression that spark wanted to continue discussion of his idea. It turns out that he was expecting me to make his case for him. That isn't going to happen, obviously, as everything I have seen from him so far is either incomprehensible or wrong.]