Author: Till

Hi together,

and again an inimitable meal from my family haze circle. I have a Turkish sister-in-law and she makes the best Turkish pizzas in the world. They are in no way comparable to those you get in Turkish snack. Through her sister's daughter, I was able to find out the recipe. I imitated it and prepared Turkish pizzas in the oven. I didn't manage 100% for the first time, but I'm perfectly aware of what's missing and how to do it right, so here's the recipe:

Ingredients

Dough:
1kg flour
1 fresh yeast or two Dr. Oetker dry yeast
Salt, sugar
lukewarm milk

Minced meat:
1kg minced meat (beef chopped)
4 large onions
3-4 cloves garlic
1 green pepper
1 red pepper
1 bunch parsley
Tomato paste, paprika paste
Sunflower

You start and prepare the dough. It works almost like the pizza dough I described here. Take one kilogram of flour and fill a large enough bowl. Now you add two packets of Dr. Oetker dry yeast. Then salt the dough neatly and add a good pinch of sugar to compensate.

Now fill the whole thing with lukewarm milk (get out of the fridge and leave it) until the dough has a proper consistency. Now you knead approx. 10 minutes what the stuff holds. Let the finished dough rest for 30 minutes.

Meanwhile, you can take care of the minced meat mixture. Take four large onions, which you have cut small before. Then add the garlic cloves, also cut into small pieces. The red and green peppers are also cut and freed from the white seeds inside. You also chop a bunch of parsley. Now you add a bit of tomato paste and, if possible, paparic paste and fill it into a blender (caution is limited, you need a blender attachment that cuts coarser). Now you give a dash of fat in the form of three to four tablespoons of sunflower oil.

Chop the herbs, onions and peppers in the blender and then mix with the minced meat. Of course, you have to season the minced meat: here, as with Bulletten, it is better to spice up a bit than to be thrifty, because that still absorbs when frying. For the seasoning, salt, pepper, peppers are well used. If you have only picked up beef chopped, I recommend to taste it with Maggi soup powder, e.g. clear broth or vegetable broth. Then the beef tastes like pork.

Now you always take a piece of the dough, about the size of a mandarin, and roll it out. Then spread the minced meat evenly on it.

With circulating air and medium rail, now slide into the oven at preheated 220 degrees. Per baking sheet with baking paper you get 4 Turkish pizzas. Now wait for the minced meat to become brownish. Don't leave it in the oven for too long, otherwise the Lahmacun taste like chips 😉 (That was one of my mistakes the first time).

Good appetite and you never need to order Lahmacun in Turkish snack ingesands again, then just doesn't taste any more 🙂

Dear greetings
Your Till

Hi together,

I am going to republica14 this year in May. republica is a leading trade fair with panels of leading internet giants. Last year, even Daimler CEO Zetsche was there. He brought me to Kurt Gödel, for which I am very grateful to him. Kurt Gödel was a german-Jewish mathematician in the einstein era. And every single work of him really shoots the bird. He has set up a completeness sentence and an even more well-known incompleteness. It is a question of whether a machine can declare all statements that are possible to be true or false. In the completeness clause, he proves for which statements this is possible. In the incompleteness sentence, however, it shows that there are statements that cannot be answered. I have now decided to refine that even more. In my opinion, there are questions that are simply weak-minded, that is, neither true nor false, but weak-minded. In addition, there are questions that are in themselves unanswerable, but which can be answered from the experience or from the course of fate.

Gödel's proof of God is also great. He sets up 5 axioms and proves the existence of God. In the end, I am no longer a "believer" Christian, but a knowing Christian. The axioms can be reformulated in form.
1) There are positive things and beings.
2 – 4) Life (in the entire space-time) is beautiful, so necessary and meaningful
5) When you add all things and beings together, you get a positive number (my rewording of the instance property, the power of a set is at the same time the instance of the set for me)

In short: Kurt Gödel was a great man, but he is often called crazy by atheists, because they have no other weapon against him than bluntness (seems to me somehow familiar).

I can only warmly recommend it to you, googling after it, read the Wikipedia article. It's worth it. And it may be that I will continue to deal with the individual works of Kurt Gödel.

Dear greetings
Till

Hi together,

The third part of my series is still about the economy, but no longer about the abstract economy, but this time we turn to concrete instructions from the quantity equation for companies. As a reminder, the quantity equation is one of the highest equations of the economy it is: money supply M = price P * Real production Y / circulation speed of money U.

So for days I have been wondering how corporate bubbles can be created. And the concept of inflation is becoming clearer to me. On the one hand, a bloated amount of money M as a bloated price P certainly lead to bubbles.

In Germany, for example, costs have been reduced for years, especially as my generation is painfully involved in the cost of personnel. And here we have proof that this is not going well for a long time.

Remember my note that the ruble has to roll. He just doesn't do that when wages are low. In fact, this reduces the rate of circulation of money in the company.

Now let's reshape the equation to make the consequences clearer. M * U = P * Y.

As a result, the circulation speed of money must, of course, increase the money supply with the same price P and with the same production Y. Companies are happy about this when the company's money supply, capitalization, profits, return on sales increase.

Unfortunately, this is a fallacy, as we know from the economy that too much increase in the money supply is definitely inflation, definitely leads to bubbles, and definitely that these bubbles burst and leave nothing as destruction.

I always consider the commercial bill as it used to be a healthy balance. At his expense, the good merchant proposes 20% action costs and on this amount then 20% profit. Nobody wants to take that away from the businessmen.

This means that I am able to return on sales of approx. 17%, which is already very much nowadays. I consider all the returns on sales that are higher to be inflationary, the companies concerned are bubbles and the associated markets are extremely threatened.

Back to the equation M * U = P * Y. De facto, the low wages lead to far too high turnover returns of the companies (Huch, there is a locust ;-)). If this were not the case, real production would have to decline.

But then again our demand – supply principle comes into play, which I already presented in the first part as outdated. If production falls, the price of goods rises again. If the price rises, demand and production decreases.

I am therefore on significantly higher wages than they are currently paid. I am in the process of increasing the price of a company that is the third root of increasing production. I am also entrepreneurial in pricing, which only raises prices at the third root of the increase in production. All other pricing policies lead to bursting bubbles.

To support my thesis again physics: M is the cover, for example a ceiling with the unit kg * m3. Orbital velocity u I leave constant and in order not to complicate it unnecessarily, I leave the units away after the equivalence of space and time to Einstein. Then I am at a real production Y, which is to be measured in kg. Consequently, the price is m3.

Now I said, in order to maintain real production, the money supply must grow square in relation to prices, gladly taking into account the percentages. Gross domestic product is the product of real production and price. Until now, governments have always guided the increase in the money supply with the increase in gross domestic product.

This raises the price, but real production remains the same, according to the theory so far. And as I pointed out in the last article, kg per volume is density and decreasing density is a sign of a bubble. When Y/P is getting smaller and smaller, which we have de facto for decades, we as a state and society form a bubble. We have this bubble, people are getting poorer and poorer. To keep the bubble constant, production would have to rise with prices. There I am at Y / P = 1. I'm also at M = P2. So the money supply would have to rise squarely at prices to at least keep the bubble constant. I am at M = P3 to have the bubble contracted again. However, since we do not want to let M rise so blatantly, I am in favour of very moderate price increases, as I said 3. Root of the increase in production in order to increase the density again.

It is also soristic when, after the euphoria of the bull, as we currently have it, the depression of the bearish comes. I know the feeling now from 1999. Everyone thinks the stock market records go so further ad infinitum. We feel that way again. And again, only a few will benefit from the stock market crash, and the majority of the population will lose their sour savings again because of their greed. Then we have another depression of the peoples.

I see many wise measures around the world against the stock market crash from the political side and from central banks. Unfortunately, this time it is the returns that lead to bubbles, which are then unfortunately fed politically by the retention of the Hartz IV laws in times of bullion, so that we have arrived in the valleys of stock market prices and in the valleys of human moods in 2 to 3 years at the latest.

But I think we all don't give up thinking about these connections and if even a stock market crash and the associated depression of the markets and the population can be cushioned by smart, learnable minds, then we should not stop working on it as human beings.

Dear greetings
Till

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

      

  

    

      

     

    

      

   

      

 

    

        

 
 

Hi together,

and on: I had some interesting conversations with colleagues who jumped on the Bitcoin train. They defend themselves by saying that bitcoin is deflationary and thus a so-called hard currency. As I said, I do not see it that this is the case: everything is derived from the quantity equation. This was, we remember, M = Y * P / U. M was the money supply, Y the real production, P the price or the price level and U the orbital speed of money.

First of all, I have now tried to grasp the economic terms more physically. On the one hand, I suspect behind the quantum equation there is also a physical connection, i.e. a law of nature, and secondly, I feel safer with the concrete physical concepts. I define Y := m, i.e. as a mass. This is obvious, because real production is really what we produce. Furthermore, I define the price P as volume, P := V = s3. The orbital velocity U remains the circulation speed within the system, i.e. v. Yes, then all that is left is what the money supply M means. One comes to a term m * V / v. If we start from the constancy of the orbital velocity, and sometimes disregard the units, we come to a term kg * m3. I call it cover. It is clear that if you need a blanket on cold nights, that it not only needs the necessary volume, but also needs to be fed, so you have to carry a certain weight. Accordingly, within the limits of this analogy, a larger, wider, higher ceiling is better, which is also heavier. So it is with the cover: the cover is better, the more mass there is and the more surface there is, the better the cover.

Money supply then fits very well with the coverage, because it covers the money that the goods require multiplied by their price. So we come to Bitcoin: It is then close to m / V, so to calculate the density. This is economically speaking: Y / P. The price of Bitcoin has risen extremely, while the real goods traded with it have definitely not risen by 300%. So last year we have had an ever-decreasing density. Here the formation of a bubble or bubble is to be feared, because it also loses more and more density, the more it grows.

As in the last report, this means that we either have to trade more real goods via Bitcoin in order to "feed" the bubble again. Or if that does not work, we will have to bite into the sour apple and reduce prices through currency reform. Monetary reforms after inflation are never nice, for no one, but the ultima ratio. Otherwise, the density decreases more and more and the bubble bursts.

So you can see that even a supposedly hard and deflationary currency in people's eyes can create an inflationary bubble.

Lg
Till

Hi together,

and on: I had some interesting conversations with colleagues who jumped on the Bitcoin train. They defend themselves by saying that bitcoin is deflationary and thus a so-called hard currency. As I said, I do not see it that this is the case: everything is derived from the quantity equation. This was, we remember, M = Y * P / U. M was the money supply, Y the real production, P the price or the price level and U the orbital speed of money.

First of all, I have now tried to grasp the economic terms more physically. On the one hand, I suspect behind the quantum equation there is also a physical connection, i.e. a law of nature, and secondly, I feel safer with the concrete physical concepts. I define Y := m, i.e. as a mass. This is obvious, because real production is really what we produce. Furthermore, I define the price P as volume, P := V = s3. The orbital velocity U remains the circulation speed within the system, i.e. v. Yes, then all that is left is what the money supply M means. One comes to a term m * V / v. If we start from the constancy of the orbital velocity, and sometimes disregard the units, we come to a term kg * m3. I call it cover. It is clear that if you need a blanket on cold nights, that it not only needs the necessary volume, but also needs to be fed, so you have to carry a certain weight. Accordingly, within the limits of this analogy, a larger, wider, higher ceiling is better, which is also heavier. So it is with the cover: the cover is better, the more mass there is and the more surface there is, the better the cover.

Money supply then fits very well with the coverage, because it covers the money that the goods require multiplied by their price. So we come to Bitcoin: It is then close to m / V, so to calculate the density. This is economically speaking: Y / P. The price of Bitcoin has risen extremely, while the real goods traded with it have definitely not risen by 300%. So last year we have had an ever-decreasing density. Here the formation of a bubble or bubble is to be feared, because it also loses more and more density, the more it grows.

As in the last report, this means that we either have to trade more real goods via Bitcoin in order to "feed" the bubble again. Or if that does not work, we will have to bite into the sour apple and reduce prices through currency reform. Monetary reforms after inflation are never nice, for no one, but the ultima ratio. Otherwise, the density decreases more and more and the bubble bursts.

So you can see that even a supposedly hard and deflationary currency in people's eyes can create an inflationary bubble.

Lg
Till

Hi together,

today I have an economic topic and by that I do not mean my regular pub Am Sender. It is about the quantity equation that describes inflation. For the first time, the term must be explained: inflation is neither the price increase nor the increase in the money supply, but an imbalance in the quantity equation. This equation is: Y * P = M * U see inflation wiki. Y is the real production. P is the price. M is the money supply and U is the velocity of money. You can switch them to M = Y * P / U. It is assumed that U, the orbital velocity, is constant over longer periods of time. In the end, that is the case, but it is nonsense. Thus, society does not become rich, the ruble must roll, that is, the orbital speed must increase steadily.

Let us start, however, from a constant rate of circulation: then the money supply must always rise above the price level if we want to promote real production, and that is what we all want in times of technological progress, in times of scalability, at times when companies on the cost side do not care whether they produce a hundred or a hundred thousand products. Increasing real production promotes true prosperity. And as you can easily see with the three-rate, the increase in the money supply must necessarily be above the price increase.

Unfortunately, it has not been for years, and our economists are making us poor. The Federal Statistical Office publishes false statistics. This blemish must be removed in order to restore wealth.

Assuming that the velocity of circulation must also increase, a link is added to the quantity equation. Then you can see that the demand/supply principle no longer works at a time when we can scale when goods are no longer scarce. Because when the ruble rolls and the rate of circulation increases, demand increases. If you increase the price now, you choke off real production. So dear economic operators, if they are going well, the goods will no longer be expensive. This is only needed for goods that endanger the environment, but at most for those.

That is why I think it is good that the CDU and SPD want to strengthen domestic demand. This will increase the rate of circulation of money, and if the economy pulls along and prices do not increase, we can even keep the money supply constant and promote real production, that is, the production of goods that are good for all of us.

A negative example of inflation is the internet currency Bitcoin at the moment. Their value has risen 300-fold while the money supply remains the same, and thus the price of goods. Unfortunately, real production, that is, the goods traded through it, has not increased 300-fold, which is why it is highly inflationary and, as sorry as I am sorry for Mark Zuckerberg and the others, needs monetary reform.

Dear greetings
Till

Hi
I was on a science tweetup again. This time I was allowed to see particle accelerators from the inside in Hamburg. Mega beautiful for me 🙂 Here is the article in English: Science Tweetup Desy Hamburg.
Have fun reading and greetings
Till

Hi
I was on a science tweetup again. This time I was allowed to see particle accelerators from the inside in Hamburg. Mega beautiful for me 🙂 Here is the article in English: Science Tweetup Desy Hamburg.
Have fun reading and greetings
Till

Hi together,

today I have a serious subject. I was a proponent of nuclear power for years, because I simply found the inventions and discoveries of Einstein, Curie and Hahn too horny. But on the other hand, as now in their thirties, one is always bombarded with reports of increased cancer numbers near nuclear power plants.

So where is the way out of the dilemma? You look at the available statistics in the age of the Internet. The proponents of nuclear power claim that the connection – if at all – is statistically in the per mille range (more on that later), the opponents of nuclear power overdo it and paint the devil on the wall.

Here's how to start with an initial statistic:http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/182514/umfrage/krebs-haeufigkeitsrate-in-europa/

The Maxima and the Minima are striking. Turkey has the lowest rate, France the highest. Nowadays, people also like to talk about the fact that cancer is caused by diet. And that cancer is less common in southern states. However, France, with south and south-west France, also has access to the Mediterranean and also a southern diet, so that cannot really be true or the connection is smaller than a connection that we do not know for sure.

And the basis is now two further statistics:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernenergie_nach_L%C3%A4ndern
•%C3%9view
Andhttp://t.co/l3GzEwF00K of the OECD

The first statistic is that Turkey does not have a nuclear power plant and is only just beginning to build one. The second statistic is that if you look at the rates of lung cancer, one of the main cancers, these are absolutely the same in Turkey and France.

So good, if I can already see the simple statistic: twice as many cancer cases per 100,000 people in France as in Turkey. And then there would also be the lung cancer cases, which would create an even more stark relationship. Then I would be with a clear link between the country's nuclear power plants and the cancer rate, if it is the only parameter.

That's what I put it on Twitter. Then, of course, came my clever cousin Dr. Henryk Gerlach, his sign mathematician, and said that I couldn't calculate like that because I would have to normalize it demographically. And, of course, he is right, I have assumed that people in Turkey and France are equal in age. Since cancer is more likely to occur in upper to old age, this is a perfectly correct point.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html
Andhttps://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html
come on. Please open the Society tab for both of them. It can be seen that Turkey has 14.5% of the population over the age of 55, while France has 30.5%. Of course, the population in France is older, so they also get more cancer as a percentage.

Here comes my sense of numbers. The rate of cancer is twice as high in Turkey as in France, with the proportion of the population aged over-55s almost half. It follows that almost 100% of cancers must be over the age of 55 in order for the deviation in cancer rate to be explained by demographics alone.

My cousin said that in Turkey people went less to the doctor, so that the number of unreported cases was high. I believe that Turkey is slowly regaining its appetite for figures and statistics and is far from lagging behind. I also doubt that going to the doctor only drives up the rate. In the same way, there are tips on the prevention and prevention of cancer in the doctors, so the argument does not convince me at all.

As I said, the higher cancer rate in France could be explained by demographics alone, if cancer were to develop 100% by the age of 55. However, the probability is 80% or a bit higher. I now expect 80%.

Assuming that Turkey and France have the same number of inhabitants, which is not the case because Turkey has more, then I expect 80 million people. From the German figures see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krebs_(medicine)#Statistik, especially from the total number of new cases, one can conclude that on average one in 2. cancer. The number of 469,000 new cases per year means approx. four million in eight years, and that is 10, that is 40 million, half of my 80 million inhabitants in Germany. Of course, this is inaccurate, because the new diseases are not 500,000 and the average age is not 80. But when I say that half of the people in France then get cancer, I can count on it.

So we have 40 million diseases. I love absolute numbers, anything else can be eye-washing. And we assume that 80% are over 55.

Of the 40 million people who have been sick, 32 million are in the disease, who have only received the disease over 55. So 8 million have already gotten them.

When I say now that these 8 million remain fixed in Turkey. And over 55, the number of sufferers is half because of demographics. then I will come to 24 million people in Turkey and 40 million in France, if France had 80 million inhabitants. In other words, the ratio is 60%. However, according to the incidence rate, it should be 50%.

This means that 10% of the population suffers from a cause of cancer in France, which is not present in Turkey. And sorry, I've already mentioned that I don't let the food factor apply. Of course, the proud Turks will also claim that it is due to a genetic difference. Well, that would have to be investigated and figures presented.

For example, I see only nuclear power in France as very strong and not present in Turkey. The permille numbers of nuclear power can only be obtained if one divides the 10% by 80 and then has the 0.125% or 1.25 per mille. However, this is the proportion of new radiation cancers in the total population. Even on the 3% of Wikipedia I do not know God.

Germany, by the way, also has nuclear power, but has only a quarter of the reactors that the Frenchman has and is thus in the upper midfield of cancer incidentes. I like to recalculate the whole thing on demand for Germany.

What do we learn from this: the nuclear phase-out is not only inevitable after Fukushima, even if this event has only brought about a rethink in Germany. And we also learn: Don't believe statistics that you haven't calculated yourself. I will bring more, among others, among others to the completely wrong rate of price increase in Germany.

Yes, the prognosis remains: if the Frenchman and the Turk continue to smoke as fashionable at the moment, then both incidences will probably fall. I say, however, that if the Turks really build nuclear power stations, they will not fall so sharply. And in terms of lung cancer, the number of cancers in Turkey is more likely to rise.

Yes, I hope you weren't too serious now, as the Kölsche says: Et hätt still jot jejange 🙂

Dear greetings
Your Till