The quasi-word means that it is secondary, not formal. Brigadier General is the lowest rank in military titles, and it is second to Lieutenant General.

And in the low-level ranks, it is quasi-literal. The word quasi, and the meaning of preparation. However, it cannot be said to be preparation.

It should be said that it has it, but it is not completely available. However, it can be understood that there is already a foundation in some way.

Similar to quasi-denomination, it also denotes a subordinate. The use of the deputy ratio is more extensive, and it can be seen in enterprise managers and government administrators.

There are some similarities with the quasi-word, and Ya. Ya means secondary, but it is inferior. In medicine, sub-health means that the body is at a poor level of health.

In geography, there is the subtropics. Mizukawa said. Is the spin of any quantum an integer or half integer?

It is said that anyon is related to two-dimensional space. It is a hypothetical assumption by physicists. Since people can't enter two-dimensional space yet, it can't be detected by physicists.

It's in two-dimensional space, so can it do motion? Because it's in two-dimensional space, it's two-dimensional.

Therefore, it has a length and a width. Can it move upwards, it can't. Two-dimensional space has no height, so it can only move around.

So, can two objects coincide together? We have said before that two objects cannot coincide in a one-dimensional space, because one-dimensional space cannot reflect the difference between length and shortness.

The two-dimensional space cannot coincide because it does not reflect the difference in area. How to understand it?

I believe that difference is an important factor in expressing the characteristics of space. The difference between the objects in a space is caused by the difference, and the greater the difference, the wider the possible range of the space.

Actually, there is an example. No matter how close the two objects are, the two centroids are always at a distance.

That is, two objects cannot coincide. However, quantum entanglement seems to overturn this conclusion. If there is an overlap between the quanta, then can the entanglement between them be explained?

We said before that quantum entanglement is essentially because of the intersection of shapes, and now I have to ask what exactly is?

The two quanta are so far apart that if they do cross in shape, they should be able to be observed by physicists, even if the line in the middle is thin.

And if it is partially overlapped, it is even more bizarre. According to my reasoning, it is impossible for two objects to coincide in three-dimensional space.

Even if it is partially overlapping, then there is only one possible place where the three-dimensional space and the four-dimensional space intersect, and they are likely to be woven into a whole like the warp and weft of a fishing net.

However, they each became individuals. Going back to the original question, is the spin of any neutron an integer or a half integer?

Any neutron is neither a boson nor a fermion, so what exactly is its spin? I think it's a half-integer, because two-dimensional space is a special space.

Integers can only exist in three-dimensional space, while two-dimensional space can only exist in the form of semi-integers.

Just like 0.1234567890, although it is smaller than 23, it has more digits. I guess it's the same with two-dimensional space.

Of course, this is just speculation. Actually, I don't have any proof. Let's talk about two-dimensional space.

Since two objects cannot coincide, can they be tangent? Here's another problem. Didn't I say that two-dimensional space does not reflect the difference in area when it coincides?

But when it does not coincide, how should the existence of objects be reflected in two-dimensional space? Again, the difference.

Two-dimensional space is two-dimensional, and two-dimensional has no height. The objects inside are also two-dimensional, naturally without height.

You might say that zero plus zero equals zero. Regardless of whether there is an object somewhere in two-dimensional space, its height is zero.

And here it is a height when there is no object, and it is a height when there is an object. Although the final result is zero, in order for two-dimensional space to represent the state of the object in this region, it is necessary to distinguish between two different zeros.

But since they are all zeros, how do you tell the difference? At this point, you would say that the two-dimensional space is two-dimensional, and has nothing to do with height.

So, how can two-dimensional space reflect the existence of an object in a certain area? That is, how to express its existence?

If the height is zero, does that mean you may not be able to see an object that exists in a place in 2D space?

However, it does exist. Most likely, you arrive in 2D space and find nothing.

In fact, there are objects everywhere. Even, they are not aware of each other's existence.

Just like invisibility, stealth technology in the military can only achieve technological invisibility but not invisibility in the true sense.

Even if the military uses technology to become invisible, other countries can still detect it through their own technology.

If two-dimensional space really does not reflect the existence of objects in space, then objects will inevitably become invisible.

Both Dueñas and Margarita have returned to Spain and are not in a position to participate in today's discussion. And today the effect has been achieved, there is no need to continue.

Liuzifeng said.