Question: I have two dropdowns DD1 & DD2 , I want that if user selects option HELLO (value="100") in DD1 and presses a key , then the same value option in DD2 is removed, DD1 will have that option,
it would only be removed from DD2

```
var selectedItems = $('#DD1').val();

 for ( var i = 0 ; i < selectedItems.length; i++) 
        {
           $("#DD2 option[value='"+selectedItems[i]+']"').remove();
        }                                                                       

```

Answer: 
From what I understand of HTM's, the structure of layers and columns mimics the structure of the neocortex. See appendix B here: <http://www.numenta.com/htm-overview/education/HTM_CorticalLearningAlgorithms.pdf>

So the short answer would be that since the brain can understand non-linear phenomenon with this structure, so can an HTM.

Initial, instantaneous sensory input is indeed mapped to 2D regions within an HTM. This does not limit HTM's to dealing with 2D representations any more than a one dimensional string of bits is limited to representing only one dimensional things. It's just a way of encoding stuff so that sparse distributed representations can be formed and their efficiencies can be taken advantage of.

To answer your question about Project Gutenberg, I don't think an HTM will really understand language without first understanding the physical world on which language is based and creates symbols for. That said, this is a very interesting sequence for an HTM, since predictions are only made in one direction, and in a way the understanding of what's happening to the fruit goes backwards. i.e. I see the pattern 'flies like a' and assume the phrase applies to the fruit the same way it did to time. HTM's do group subsequent input (words in this case) together at higher levels, so if you used Fuzzy Grouping (perhaps) as Davide Maltoni has shown to be effective, the two halves of the sentence could be grouped together into the same high level representation and feedback could be sent down linking the two specific sentences. Numenta, to my knowledge has not done too much with feedback messages yet, but it's definitely part of the theory.
ok guys, dont get silly, htms just copy data into them, if you want a concept, its going to be a group of the data, and then you can have motor depend on the relation, and then it all works.

our cortex, is probably way better, and actually generates new images, but a computer cortex WONT, but as it happens, it doesnt matter, and its very very useful already.

but drawing concepts from a data pool, is tricky, the easiest way to do it is by recording an invarient combination of its senses, and when it comes up, associate everything else to it, this will give you organism or animal like intelligence.

drawing harder relations, is what humans do, and its ad hoc logic, imagine a set explaining the most ad hoc relation, and then it slowly gets more and more specific, until it gets to exact motor programs... and all knowledge you have is controlling your motor, and making relations that trigger pathways in the cortex, and tell it where to go, from the blast search that checks all motor, and finds the most successful trigger.

woah that was a mouthful, but watch out dummies, you wont get no concepts from a predictive assimilator, which is what htm is, unless you work out how people draw relations in the data pool, like a machine, and if you do that, its like a program thats programming itself.

no shit.