We can only admire von Neumann’s genial prediction that ”the language of the brain, not the language of mathematics” [17], given that most of the cited experimental evidence was unavailable at his age. Similarly, one can also agree with von Neumann [3] and Sejnowski [18] that ”whatever the system [of the brain] is, it cannot fail to differ from what we consciously and explicitly consider mathematics”; adding that maybe the appropriate mathematical methods are not yet invented. Our procedure still meets the requirement given by Feynman: [19] ”an effective procedure is a set of rules telling you, moment by moment, what to do to achieve a particular end; it is an algorithm.” Furthermore, it considers that ”timing of spike matters” giving way to interpreting Hebb’s learning rule [20, 21], which usually remains outside of the scope of mathematics. We formulate problems, provide their numerical solutions, and open the way for mathematics to provide analytical solutions. Not surprisingly, the need for applying new approximations for the non-ordinary laws [22] for describing living matter needs a slightly different (in this sense, non-ordinary) mathematical formulation describing them. Among others, whether ion-related functions are differentiable for discrete carriers at all and whether partial derivatives of ion-related functions can be interpreted at all for charge and mass as independent quantities. Furthermore, new algorithms [23] are to be developed for simulation.