This page has been created for the utility of eliminating the mention of principles (often seen conformations) when the same design elements occur in the multiple places. This page might even help in narrowing the precision of design down to small scale, because of its allowing to hold the loose data into rigid form in the presence of other supporting related structures.
Eliminating The Loss Of Data While Searching For Optimal Group, To Input New Thought| 14/7/17;9: Is it optimal to first write new thoughts in OneNote, for writing it quickly, without searching the group in which it can be put? (14/7/17; 1b)
Am I now searching thought groups before writing them? (14/7/17; 2)
If I write thoughts in OneNote, won't I need to copy text in OneNote and paste again in Open Live Writer? (14/7/17; 2b)
Is writing in OneNote and then pasting it in an optimal group, optimal than searching thought groups and then writing? (14/7/17; 3)
Doesn't searching thought group allow, losing the data (forgetting?) I thought to write? (14/7/17; 4)
Can't I write directly in one place in Open Live Writer instead of typing in OneNote, and then paste the content in the optimal group? (14/7/17; 5)
Won't it be easy (attain in least time?) to find thoughts to be added, if typed in OneNote? How? (14/7/17; 6)
If I write in OLW, thoughts seem to get merged with others, but if written in OneNote, they seem to stay away from other thoughts; doesn't this allow to see the thoughts to be added in optimal group, in least time? (Clarification required; 14/7/17; 7)
If I type in OneNote, I seem to not need to scroll down (if it is the case) more to copy and paste the thoughts in optimal groups? Why? (14/7/17; 8)
In OneNote, thoughts once written can be cut and pasted to Open Live Writer, which seem to decrease the scrolling length. (14/7/17; 9)
Re-answering The Past Questions| 19/6/17: Doesn’t reanswering the past questions after getting the right experience allow in verifying the new experience as the right solution? (Clarification required, 19/6/17)
Cleaning| 18/6/17: Doesn’t knowing the utility behind every structure allow precise and clean reconstruction of existing thoughts? (Clarification required, 18/6/17)
Optimal Grouping:
Use Of Grouped Thoughts| 26/1/17;1: Doesn't grouping of thoughts help in making the context more clear, and allow quick inclusion of the blurry notions which need more description? (26/1/17)
[Gen] Need I start grouping thoughts only when I am adding a related thought of a group, to verify it with other related thoughts?
Need Of Grouping Thoughts| 4/7/17;8: Doesn’t grouping of thoughts for attaining a particular utility eliminate labor of finding thoughts? (4/7/17; 7)
How does grouping of thoughts ease the action of attaining utility? (4/7/17; 8)
What is the need of finding related thoughts? Or what ease does finding related thoughts allow? (7/7/17; 3)
Won’t I be finding thoughts to write certain thoughts in a particular group? What is the need of writing particular thought in a particular group? (13/7/17; 2b)
Doesn’t grouping of thoughts eliminate duplicate expression of same conformations (exploration)? (7/7/17; 4)
Need Of Writing Thought Group Name| 4/7/17: Does writing the representative name of thought group allow ease of skipping the seeing of content for eliminating it as not the one being searched? (Clarification required; 4/7/17; 4)
Spacing Between Thought Groups| 13/6/17: Is spacing between thought groups optimal? Why? (13/6/17)
Does that help in easy distinguishing of different thought groups? How? If space is not left, won’t I need to see the bold letters or underlined letters, which lie only at the left, and then know the distinguishing between thoughts or know the end of the thought group? If I leave space, the space will be their from left to right, and I need not search for bold or underlined, doesn’t this make the ease? (13/6/17)
When is the knowing end and beginning of thought groups needed? It seems to be needed when we will be searching for optimal groups, to which we can add the new thought. (13/6/17)
Utility: Increasing the ease of exploration;
Experience| I am thinking on what I need to do, whether to take compound step, which involves a notion of not knowing elementary properties—the ones which can create everything formed from them, or to know elements, which itself involves knowing compounds. (Clarification required, 12/6/17)
Utility: To create a system, for verifying the step which I have considered, is optimal or not, by comparison of it with all the existing thoughts.
Links: Effective usage of all the thoughts;
Nothing yet...
Utility: For creating a system indicating reasons behind every structure (clarification required);
Knowing The Utility Behind An Action During Its Execution| 2/5/17: Doesn’t knowing the utility/principle (reason for the action) behind an action during every execution of it, help in eliminating action getting out of sync with its original intention, and even help in implementing/updating the principle? (Clarification required, 2/5/17)
Experience| I am now indicating utility behind every thought using the syntax (?) “Utility:”, is there any other optimal representation indicating even the reason for writing it? Need I indicate the reason behind writing utility as TIUFMQCFCOE standing for ”To identify utility for making quick comparison for choosing optimal exploration”? (13/5/17)
Utility: For knowing on which thought to be included in blog.
Utility Of Writing Thoughts| 2/5/17: Need I write thoughts which are of utility to achieve the final target? Need I then mention utility behind thoughts on writing it? (4/5/17)
To know utility behind every structure, won’t I need to know the evolution of all the structures (e.g. evolution of alphabets, etc.) to know the utility behind them? See 29/6/17; 21. (4/5/17)
Utility: For building the system, indicating hierarchy of exploration preference/need of various thoughts for achieving a particular utility optimally.
Importance Of Thought| 1/5/17: Doesn’t the important thought get more attention by its recurrence due to need (evolutionary?)? (1/5/17)
If we can record on why we have taken a thought as important every time we see it, won’t it be helpful in not allowing the need of seeing the occurrence of the case showing its importance? (1/5/17)
Is there a need of conscious identification of the important thoughts? (1/5/17)
Doesn’t the consciousness of utility of the exploration of a thought, give more drive for it to be explored? How? (1/5/17)
Aren’t most of the present-thoughts seeming to be identifications coming involuntarily in a random way? (1/5/17)
I seem to had been recording random thought identifications which I didn’t want to miss, this seems to have bee not allowing me often on the optimal step/exploration for the main utility. (1/5/17)
Experience| I saw the thought group “Out of Sync Expressions”, which was showing the optimal way of expression, which might help in the process of expression creation. Thought| Some of the thought groups seems to help in forming algorithms. (1/5/17)
Some of the thought groups (e.g. Expression/Representation as on 1/5/17) itself seem to be looking algorithms. (1/5/17)
Books seems to have identifications for algorithms, but can we make it incremental and transparent? (Clarification required, 2/5/17)
Need I indicate utility of thoughts? What utility is it going to give? Doesn’t that help in knowing the utility of thought without even reading the content for knowing its content (as in the thought groups, where the name of the group can give an overview)? Doesn’t this help in quick comparing of utilities for optimal preference? (1/5/17)
How do headings help in knowing the content without reading the content? (1/5/17)
Evolutionary Involuntary Importance Measurer Vs. Conscious Voluntary Importance Measurer| 1/5/17: Is evolutionary importance measurer inefficient? Doesn’t this exploration help in constructing the structure eliminating the inefficiency cause? (Clarification required, 1/5/17)
Disadvantages With Utility Oriented Thought Organization/Exploration| 1/5/17: Nothing yet…
Need Of Name For The Site| 10/4/17: Nothing yet…
Links: Exploration engine;
Thought Categories:
Thought Arrangement Based On Origins And Thought Arrangement Based On Similarity: Construction principle of title exploration: I thought on writing “Vs.” in place of “and”, later thinking on it inducing bias for not allowing a mixed structure of both, I have used “and”. (31/3/17)
Thought Grouping Based On Requirements/Targets/Purposes/Utility| 13/4/17: Does thought arrangement based on utility allow grouping of similar thoughts? (30/4/17)
How is arrangement based on utility going to provide utility? (30/4/17)
Does that help in making exploration more on the targets I have and be conscious of my targets? (Clarification required, 30/4/17)
Does arrangement of thought groups according to utility help in seeing the next optimal/general (all acquiring) step? | How? (Clarification required, 30/4/17| 13/7/17; 2a)
Aren’t some of the present thought clusters identifications—not related to achieving utility like making an automated-thinking machine? (Clarification required, 1/5/17)
Is it optimal to find utilities present inside the thought clusters? (Clarification required, 1/5/17)
Is it optimal to highlight utility-explorations (exploration of which may bring utility/progress) present within the thought clusters (main big thought group/classification)? (1/5/17)
Aren’t all the explorations meant for utility? (1/5/17)
If some are of greater utility than others, is it possible to measure it to give preference to the one of greater utility? (1/5/17)
If we can create the system, indicating different explorations to be made according to their importance, to achieve the main target, won’t it be useful? Is it possible to give importance measurement even to the smaller scale? (Clarification required, 1/5/17)
Doesn’t this arrangement based on utility help in making me know the entire thoughts I have made in an overview? (1/5/17)
Need I indicate utility beneath every thought by including another section like “experience” and “thought“? (1/5/17)
Doesn’t indicating utility of a thought help in having overview? How? Is it clubbing independent thoughts into a group under similar utility, to give an overview? Were not the thoughts clubbed under a name before? Is that past classification not giving an overview? Is the classification based on utility, giving more details on the type of content than the before one? (2/5/17)
The past name seems to be clubbing thoughts under a similar relation, the new classification based on utility seems to be giving overview of the thoughts within them. (2/5/17)
Is there any other optimal classification? (2/5/17)
Order Of Utility Thought Groups| 14/6/17: Is it optimal to type main utility at the top of the page and the others according to their importance (?) beneath it? (14/6/17)
Does that give more preference for general (?) exploration, which can change all the explorations typed beneath it? (Clarification required, 14/6/17)
Doesn’t the order avoid the labor of seeing the right order? (14/6/17)
Does the order allow knowing of the utility degree (?) of the exploration? (14/6/17)
Thought Linking System| 26/3/17: I seem to have been depending on the chance nature (?) or memory of me to sense the links among thoughts. If I can indicate links among thoughts, won’t I be eliminating memory need? Doesn’t this provide more exploratory ways from the exploration done in the way of another similar model? (Clarification required, 27/3/17)
Aren’t linked thoughts included in thought-groups? Is this not allowing the utility you need? (27/3/17)
I am now thinking to link thought of “optimal curated algorithm” and “self curated algorithm or need driven algorithm” which seem to exist separated in different thought groups. Are these connections of need to bring out the exploration which brings different similar thoughts under the same group? Or is the linking system of utility in providing to-be-grouped thoughts together? (27/3/17)
Doesn’t linking of thoughts allow updating of thoughts? (27/3/17)
Is link the optimal sound here? (27/3/17)
After the exploration has been made from the connection/link, won’t the connection/link be helping to update the origin thought when changes has been made to its connected thought? I seem to have been not indicating these origin connections before. (Clarification required, 28/3/17)
Won’t the links/connections help in knowing the root/general thought? This seems to give a measure on which thought to be highlighted. (28/3/17/p2)
Need I create a separate page for including all the links/connections of thoughts, as it might to distract reading of thoughts? (28/3/17)
Won’t the linking/connecting help in optimal grouping? (28/3/17)
Thought groups/Thoughts seem to be the product of connections of thoughts, but seem to be not indicating connections behind them in a transparent manner. (Clarification required, 23/3/17)
Don’t connections/links help in automation of exploration/thinking? (29/3/17)
Are links trying to give utility of easing the process of automating exploration, via similarity-matching? (2/4/17)
Arrangement Of Thought-Groups/Thoughts In A Page/Within A Group| 12/3/17: Is it optimal to bring the thought-group/thought which got updated in the nearest time, to the top of the page/group? Why? Doesn’t this suggest on the arrangement according to the most needed one, as the one which is more needed gets updated often (is it?)? (12/3/17)
Modifications Verifier| 12/3/17:
Separate Page For Identifications Thought Group| 12/3/17: Is there a need of giving “identifications” thought group (now in Principles) a separate page? (12/3/17)
Identifications Thought Group In “Principles” Section| 12/3/17: Why is the identifications thought group present in Principles section?
Principles section involves thoughts on often occurring conformations, and identifications involve identifying conformations. Think on this. (12/3/17)
Joining Identifications Thought Group With Representation/Expression| 12/3/17: Doesn’t representation indicate identification? Should I then move “identification” under “expression/representation” section? (12/3/17)
Need Of Separate Pages| 12/3/17;1: Do separate pages eliminate scrolling for a long length and give desired content quickly (if links directing to other pages are given in one separate page?)? (13/6/17)
What if all the content is written in one page, and links taking to separate thoughts are given at the top of the page (in the way Wikipedia does?)? Doesn’t this eliminate the need of separate page? (13/6/17)
Link: Explore the relation with comments section to be given for the content;
Reason used for the creation of a particular page in the past (as mentioned in it): “This page was created for the utility of having ease of finding/editing/viewing this important section when needed. And to compare the new thought with every other thought in the section before any addition.”
Can links within the page be created in Open Live Writer? (13/7/17; 3)
Doesn’t page load slowly, if more data is there in it? (13/7/17; 9)
What ease/utility (allowing to attain main utility in least time?) does having all the data in a single page give? (13/7/17; 10)
Is ease/utility of separate pages, the quickness of typing the data? (26/7/17; 6)
Doesn’t separate pages allow attaining a particular utility than only the ease of typing data quickly?(26/7/17; 7)
Is having separate page for typing data in least time, depended on the time of scrolling for the required writing space in the same page and the time required to find the required writing space in another page? (26/7/17; 8)
Won’t I be able to write data in a particular group quickly, as I will not be needed to go to different page? (13/7/17; 11)
Can Open Live Writer (OLW) give quick links to all the pages on the sidebar, to allow me quickly go to the page where I want to add my new thought? (13/7/17; 12)
Doesn’t OneNote give links to all the pages on the sidebar? (13/7/17; 13)
Can OneNote be itself used as a website? (13/7/17; 14)
Is it optimal to use OneNote to write all the data and then update site via OLW regularly? (13/7/17; 15)
Can’t I save data in pc, and then copy paste the same data in OLW for publishing in Blogger, for cloud storage? (26/7/17; 9)
Doesn’t this allow not to explore offline without having (depending completely on) problematic(seems to crash more) OLW? (26/7/17; 11)
Does putting same data in OneNote and Blogger change site ranking? (13/7/17; 16)
Where are files of OLW stored, to allow quick access of files, by making the folder stay as sidebar-docked-view? (Clarification required; 13/7/17; 18)
Doesn’t OLW allow access to required files quickly, if the file has been recently edited? (13/7/17; 19)
If in-page links (similar to table of contents?) are used to allow seeing the required thoughts on clicking through the links, won’t I need to scroll to the topic link and then press it to reach table of contents and then click through required link? Is the time of seeing the required thought reduced here, in comparison with opening files in OLW? (13/7/17; 20)
Doesn’t OneNote have docked view ability which can allow seeing two or more pages at one time? (26/7/17; 13)
Do you want to copy and paste the data updated in OneNote, into OLW everyday, for posting in Blogger? (26/7/17; 14)
Does time taken for copy-pasting allow attaining main utility in least time than directly using OLW? (26/7/17; 16)
Is OLW now increasing the time of attainment of main utility? (26/7/17; 17)
OLW was not launching quickly, and didn’t launch in the last week even after reinstalling it; I restored the windows to launch it. And it doesn’t allow searching all the data. It seems to not allow auto-docked view. (26/7/17; 18)
Does OneNote update in least time if we ask for any new conformation, than OLW? (26/7/17; 15)
Does Microsoft Word allow searching all the files? (26/7/17; 20)
Different Explorations In The Groups| 26/7/17;12: Experience: I seem to be making different explorations from the thoughts written in a particular group for another utility.| Thought: Is this optimal? (26/7/17; 12)
Indicating The Completion Of Exploration/Answering| 26/7/17;17: I seem to be not answering certain questions, do I need to indicate on question being answered to allow knowing on completion of expected exploration or answering? (26/7/17; 17)
Need Of Reddit Type Indentation| 26/7/17;10: Is indentation here required to allow non elimination of referencing of a top thought by a bottom thought? (Clarification required; 26/7/17; 10)
Analysis Site Mobile View| 5/3/17: Mathjax is not working in mobile view, think on correcting it. (5/3/17)
Search box seems to be not loaded in mobile view. (9/3/17)
Think on giving a link for the search box within the mobile view. (28/3/17)
Use Of Search Engine With [Gen] Tag For Highlighting General Thoughts| 25/2/17: Need I now stop temporarily tagging [Gen] for the highlighted text, to see whether I really need it. If I come in great need of it, won’t it then be optimal to continue tagging it, otherwise I can drop it? If I now don’t stop and if this tagging is of not much need, won’t I be wasting my time? (9/3/17)
If I press “gen” in the search box, the results page contains all the highlighted contents. This change of tagging general (the one covering all the other simple cases) thoughts with the short form [gen] is used for the quick utility of seeing all the general thoughts in an overview, to help decide choosing the more general one and in exploring it to a greater degree. (25/2/17)
[Gen] Compression Of Thought Groups Via Updated View Statement| 19/2/17: I seem to be exploring thoughts over a long period on a particular category, some of the thoughts within the group might get outdated; writing of the updated summary separately, without any of the not required parts, might help in reducing the length. The original thoughts in the group might help in providing the history. (Clarification required, 19/2/17)
Horizontal Line: Used to differentiate two sections. (19/2/17)
Branches Within The Page: To be filled...
Categories: Should I put “Symbols” section under “Exploratory Ways”? (9/3/17)
Categories seems to be not allowing the arrangement of thoughts according to their origin, i.e. there will no arrangement of thoughts showing their origin from the other ones (if it is the case). (27/2/17)
Representation Of Date Of Thought Generation| 25/2/17: Think on indicating the difference between the date of thought recording and the date of thought origin. (25/2/17)
Need Of Writing Date Of Thought Generation| 15/2/17: What utility do dates mentioned along with thought give? (< 15/2/17)
Need I introduce the notation date/month/year/number_of_thoughts_on_the_day? Doesn’t this serve as the unique identity number of each thought? (< 15/2/17)
What ease does unique identity of each thought give? Does not this allow giving the answer to duplicate explorations at ease? (1/7/17)
Doesn’t unique identity allow to see the complete thought used in short-forms, which are grouped together for using them to do a particular action, by eliminating the labor searching them back? (1/7/17)
Need I use date and time as the representation of the uniqueness of thought? (26/2/17)
I may write two or more thoughts at the same minute, this might require me to write alphabets along with hour and minute of generation. (28/3/17)
If I can write the position of thought according to its generation on that day, won’t it provide unique identity in limited space and even data on the number of thoughts generated on the day? (23/3/17)
What ease does the data on the number of thoughts generated per day give? (1/7/17)
Need Of Counting The Number Of Thoughts Generated In A Day| 22/6/17: Is it required to use the notation (date; thought’s count position) after the thought? (22/6/17; 3)
Doesn’t the notation allow knowing on which thought was written after which one? Is there any need/utility of recording the order in which thoughts were written? (22/6/17; 4)
Doesn’t that allow knowing the magnitude of exploration of the considered day? Is there any need/utility of knowing the magnitude of exploration made in a day? (22/6/17; 5)
Need I introduce the notation date/month/year/number_of_thoughts_on_the_day? Doesn’t this give unique identity number to each thought? (< 15/2/17)
If it is required to number unique explorations(?), then do I need to use alphabets for the explorations related to main exploration? (1/7/17; 6a)
Does this allow to group thoughts without giving a name for the group? What ease does that give? (1/7/17; 6b)
Isn’t this eliminating the scattering of related thoughts before grouping them? (Clarification required; 1/7/17; 6c)
Doesn’t alphabetical identification of the related thoughts allow to separate them? Clarification: I seem to have been writing related thoughts in one paragraph, without even leaving space for the exploration which a question inside that paragraph asks for; doesn’t now taking new related thoughts of a particular group to new line allow ease to answer them from the ease of only seeing new lines for new thoughts? (Clarification required; 1/7/17)
Can’t different thought groups be separated without alphabetical numbering by using one line space between the two groups of other thoughts? (1/7/17)
Is there any non-ease in numbering thoughts? I need to see that I am numbering without duplicating by having the labor of what number needs to be given for the next thought.(1/7/17)
Is seeing the count of number of thoughts in a day change the action of exploration for attaining utility? (1/7/17)
Doesn’t recording the order in which thoughts were written allow ease for readers to see the evolution of thoughts? (3/7/17)
Is it optimal to give numbers to new explorations? (30/6/17; 7)
Expected Exploration: Which are new explorations?;
Highlighting:
Miscellaneous| 14/3/17: Need I put different color on the sentences giving new exploration, and which needs to be explored? (14/3/17)
Deciding On The Highlighting Of The Content| 12/3/17: Nothing yet...
Need Of Highlighter| 12/2/17:
Is it optimal to highlight the thought groups of greater importance with different color? (12/3/17)
Think on highlighting phrases giving complete expansion of the notion having importance. (25/2/17)
Should I remove the highlight after the importance of thought or exploration of the highlighted content has been done? (12/2/17)
Should I write thought after experience or vice versa? (< 2/2/17)
Doesn’t the grouping of according to utility allow knowing the optimal actions needed to make the desired utility/action in least time? | Links: 1/7/17;1, 7/7/17;6. (9/7/17; 3b)
These thought groups which have thoughts on making optimal actions to make the main actions, seem to allow ease in seeing/using(?) them on doing the main action by docked view of OneNote. How? (9/7/17; 4)
Can’t these thought groups which allow attaining main utility, be then added with other thoughts of attaining the same utility in more ease way (at more least time?), in the docked view of OneNote to copy them back to Open Live Writer later, to not loss them? (9/7/17; 5)
What is the need of using OneNote and then copying its content back to Open Live Writer (OLW), can’t OLW be directly used? See 9/7/17;6&7. (9/7/17; 8)
Can’t Open Live Writer be used in docked view? See 9/7/17; 7. (9/7/17; 6)
There seems to be no automatic docked viewing action in Open Live Writer; and there seems to be no feature for expanding content, which would allow finding thought groups in least time. How? (9/7/17; 7)
Do I then need to arrange thoughts as arranged in OneNote, in OLW to not lose the grouping of thoughts? (9/7/17; 9)
What utility (conformation allowing ease to attain main utility in least time) does not losing the grouping of thoughts give? Doesn’t the order eliminate the labor of finding thoughts on making optimal actions to attain utility in least time? (9/7/17; 10)
When do I need to arrange thoughts as in OneNote, in OLW? Do I need to arrange the thoughts before shutting down the laptop? (9/7/17; 11)
When does loss of data in OneNote occur? Won’t the loss occur on application crashing (?), or on deleting the application, or on Operating System malfunctioning due to other reasons (?)? (9/7/17; 12)
Won’t copying data to OLW and publishing it often, allow to not loss more data? (9/7/17; 13)
Won’t OneNote itself publish data to OneDrive? It does; one of them in reddit/onenote, posted on it to be using excess data to sync less data. (9/7/17; 14a)
What is the need then to copy back to OLW, for only not losing data? See 9/7/17;14a,15,16. (9/7/17; 14b)
OneDrive seems to give 5 GB of free space, which seems to not allow me save more data in it; publishing data to Blogger via OLW seems to have no space limitation. Same data in OLW seems to have small size than that in OneDrive. (9/7/17; 15)
Won’t arranging thoughts according to utility allow to isolate the thoughts which are not grouped, and then allow to see if they are the thoughts which can allow optimizing any of the existing desired actions? (9/7/17; 16)
Won’t the present grouping allow to see isolate thoughts? (9/7/17; 17)
Are all thoughts now arranged to allow attaining utility? (9/7/17; 19)
Do I now need to arrange thoughts only(?) when they aren’t arranged according to utility? (9/7/17; 20)
What is the need of seeing isolated thoughts? Can’t they be thoughts, which can allow optimizing any existing desired actions? (9/7/17; 17)
Are all thoughts present in thought group, example now in Arranging Thoughts According To Their Utility| 9/7/17;3, have all thoughts needed for making the desired action? (9/7/17; 18)
Won’t I here, from this group, need to know that the action of arranging thoughts according to utility and seeing them in docked view to be optimal? (9/7/17; 21)
Won’t it be optimal to know on why a particular action was chosen among others as optimal (one allowing attainment of utility in least time), to allow not doing of that action, if there are conformations which make it not optimal? (9/7/17; 22)
OLW is not opening quickly, is it optimal to use OneNote to start recording in least time? (10/7/17; 5)
Is data in OLW is stored in OneNote, will that be considered as duplicate content by Google, would that change search engine ranking? (10/7/17; 6)
Comments
Post a Comment