Sergey Karavashkin: 
 >
 >Bilge, don't dodge. You know, this paper has 27 pages, not 9. But not
 >in vain you are saying of 9 pages, as just in the 8th page of paper

  OK. Then change what I said to read:

   "Either your function is 27 pages long or I don't have to read
    27 pages to know what it is."
 
 >(p. 19 of the issue) you saw our formula (26).
 
  Not hardly. I looked at you index page. I didn't bother read
any of your article.

 >You saw it.
 
  Not unless your formula looks like a table of contents. Either post
the function of get lost. My guess is that you wrote an article trying
to give physical significance to an arithmetic error. If you had a
real result, you wouldn't hesitate to post 1 function rather than
post a lot of crap to cover for not having a function.