Discussions

0:00 We'll talk to him, but he thinks that there is a high probability that the approach of Dr. Kaczynski is the same as the approach to pincer geometry of traditional pincer geometries, so to say. Could well be. That is, using the two-index metric tensor. And this could be the cause of misunderstanding, because we call one and the same name different things. Yeah, yeah, right. Even with those people from Romania, I would tell them to come and read for some years on the radio, they just cannot find the right common language. No, I understood that very clearly after listening to the conversations between Dimitri and Vargas when, you know, last year. Trying to find a common language with Vargas would be... It's curious because the guy who I was talking to last night, this guy Afriat, who works on... General dynamical systems theory. He is a great expert on Cartan, and particularly on Einstein-Cartan theory, and I mentioned in passing, you know, that I'd met Vargas in Moscow. The moment I mentioned Vargas, this guy kind of rolled his eyes and said it all, just one look and, oh, God! Well, shall we go and see if we can find a cafe? I mean an internet cafe. Probably. Thank you for your attention.

2:30 Thank you very much. No, no, I have those too. I have those. They're done. They're done. It's just a question of giving them to the people. But about tomorrow, I, well, I, if it wasn't for this problem with the Russians and their visas, I, in fact, think I would be able to get to them. Does it start at 11? Well, no, I was going to come here, but here, this starts at 9.30. No, no, this starts at 9.30. If I was going to come here and leave a recording, then go on, because I have two recorders. But, but, but, now, because of the rush hour, this may not be possible. So what I will do, we'll stick with Plan A, at the end of today, I'll give you this. Which, at the moment, I just recorded the last part of my notes, but I would like to read some of your notes, because I want to go back to you two earlier. That's okay, I'll give it to you. Just call me when you're ready to read my notes. I want to go to the bank. Which bank? I don't know. I'd love to go to the bank. Oh, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, it's that one, Well, I think I'll probably come to these at some point in time. I'm sorry about that. Do you want to do that? Cosmology. No, but if you want to try, I could go and call the class. I'll do that. In which case, I believe we can do it. Yes, we can do it. But in that case, it's all more important that you do this now, because it's not going to work. Yeah, sure. I just wanted to explain it to you. Atiyah,

5:00 Mr. Witten has one recording on it, which I'm most going to copy tonight. There should be quite enough space on the screen to play now. It has a two-hour... No, no, no. It has over six hours. You see, you have a total of... You have a total number to pass on the point of recording of about 70 people. Now, this is switched off to save the battery. All you do is put on your snowboard this, so, the left way, and then this is on, okay, now that's one. That tells you there is one recording on there already. This I will give you with the input from a microphone, this is recorded on, it is recorded on, that's the highest recording box. Thank you for your attention. There are also a number of different types of mathematics, such as quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics of the universe, quantum mechanics of the universe, quantum mechanics of the universe, quantum mechanics of the universe, quantum mechanics of the universe, quantum mechanics of the universe, I will probably come to, um, when calculus and physics is at one, that's it. What are you doing on the end? Yeah, I might do it on the end, otherwise just keep it. Because I have to see if you can do it on the end. But would you check the calendar? And tomorrow night, it's Tizia Richard. And he's coming to get a talk about, you know, the classification in the 1920s and 30s. If I was going to record that. You're going to record that? Yeah, yeah, but it will be covered. I don't want to ruin it.

7:30 Not many, but they are just arranged in front of you to help you with some of the questions. Catherine is a physicist and a mathematician. It's rare as well. You know where it's been developed? I can show you. I'll show you in the afternoon. It's one of the few campuses where it's located to keep us on our trail that way, where the public health minister says it can't be well met with less people. Thank you for your attention. I mean, I know it's all right. Well, no, I can show you a map of what you need, isn't it? What you need is a map of the actual campus to show you where the building is, and then I'll have to pull down from the index. It's okay, we have, you're not going to rush off at the end of this, are you? Well, I will, yeah, I think I will. Well, where are you going? You're not going, you're going to be up in a while. I'm going to, yes. What? Woodtown. Woodtown. I went deep. This will finish the class. We're not part of it, actually. It's a guide. This guy's getting fucked up. Is he talking in German at the moment?

10:00 Uh, yeah, he is. And our next one, and the next one is a provocatory. Actually, just in that way, somehow, concentrating on them that compare for relationship about predictive transformation. So you have a very common chip because you are the same. Yeah, but it was prepared by Jean Bonneau. The idea of dealing, have a new view of the way functions are correlated to each other. The last, the last, okay, when you deal with this kind of, should be meaning, the lattice is immersed in the complex plane.

12:30 When you deal with lattices and you transform lattices into lattices, should you go, make one step outside the lattice? There could be problems with this inclusion, inclusion, when you have in mind all this story rooted in, when you have, okay, you gain, you have profit, you gain clarity, you have also algorithmic profit in a way, but other, from another perspective, but you lose something, you lose something. I guess, clear in many locations, many places. I think it's one reason among many reasons that made Siegel angry. Sorry. I'm not clear on why Siegel referred to the dreadful turn of the tree. I don't see clearly how he didn't see that, but maybe it's... Why it has this function. Or maybe just in what sense abstraction you don't have to. He actually, can I say, he doesn't actually, he says it's a particular type of abstraction, doesn't he, in your original quotation? Just so it's nice. Sensuous abstraction, isn't it? No, no, no, it's sensuous abstraction, but it's an interesting qualification that maybe... And that's, that's... Can we see the abstraction for its own sake or something? Yeah, abstraction for its own sake, of course, of course. Okay, it's... I don't want... I did want to... I wanted to follow a line and to understand why I wanted to give an answer to the senseless abstraction.

15:00 Yeah, well that makes it even sharper. Why senseless? Oh, sorry, senseless. I misread it. I'm sorry. I went and read out the quotation. I misheard it. I thought he said sensuous abstraction. Sorry, that sounded even more puzzling. Senseless abstraction. Oh, okay. He's just being abusive. Why senseless? Because it's a question of, well, you can fix yourself many goals. In a way, it's a question of how, what is building... Some abstraction could be required and could be obliterated. The focus on periodicity is a kind of abstraction. There's always abstraction in this way in mathematics. I guess it really does come down to sensible abstraction. I guess in the context of this so-called arithmetical... Exceptional, come get me, algebraic or that concept that doesn't obliterate the hidden reason. That sounds really interesting because, okay, we are accustomed to say, okay, that's the real important thing that gets you to the core of the thing. He's the one who gets to the hidden reason. Yeah, and the hidden reason. But, of course, I don't say, it's not a question of taking sides, of course.

17:30 It's a question of, okay, conveying the richness of 19th century mathematics. You have plenty of goals, you have plenty of strategies, you have plenty of ways of dealing with abstract concepts that are, and that is very important to, okay, to pose the problem of foundation, foundational issues, to take into account this composition of many alternatives. You see, his language there, in the somatic guise, the solid spirit. I mean, now that doesn't really, I mean, he seems to have thought that there was, I mean, that suggested we saw something visual or quasi-visual. I mean, that's what gave it solidity. That's one way to read this. Perhaps, it seems to me that visual devices are everywhere, but not the same. Right. So, along these lines, visual devices that give you something versus visual devices that are subjective. And certainly for Riemann we give you the leptic functions. Where's the solidity? I mean, so he sees abstractions about leading away from solidity, and he opposes those somehow, and I'm just... But what's so clear to me? You want to get some action to be balanced and visual, with visualization. Why? Is it the génie de l'allongement? I don't do that. No, what he says is that you have something visual, you know, like... There must be some visual effect that you get from RIMA.

20:00 In this difference of visualization? I don't know to be clear, but what I was concerned with is the homogeneity of keeping track of something which is the same within the chain of transformation. In the 17th century mathematics, that was the curve, the key object. So when mathematics comes to another age, is there something, a substitution object, giving this feeling that in mathematics you keep track of something, you don't lose yourself in... The homogeneity in this context would be the homogeneity of the objects of transformation. I mean, which, as you say, which for the 18th century is central on the curve as the controlling notion that gives content to the transformation problem. The curve is ambiguous. I mean, that's a problematic term here, because what's the curve? The visual thing? Clearly already in Euler it's a great deal of algebraic sophistication. We see quite clearly in the Euler that's what he has in mind by itself. As if Lujan said, Euler missed the analytic chessboard, which is very clever, because he was obsessed with measuring a curve by itself. He says that explicitly. He has this in mind, that was his goal, a reminder of the quote, Euler's quote on the homo-venomous, promoting the end of a moment. Okay, I can't make things more explicit than that. No, it's fine. I'm not complaining. I sort of just want to set something up because I think I have a kind of conjecture here.

22:30 Siegel has this sort of three-volume textbook. It's been translated into English, you know, very widely used, and I tried to read it one time. And he starts out with, I guess, this basic thing from Euler, a novel. And I remember when I read that, because I've been corrupted by 20 years of re-education, I read that it's kind of a special case. I wonder when he's going to get to that. There's no Riemann Rope there, but this guy's obviously quite a... But really, he has this way of doing things. Among the things that lost superiority was the generalized immediate Boovillian function in the 1857 article. And this was something with the earlier approaches. But now I find Siegel saying, and that explains why he didn't say it. No, no, no, there's a great way of generalizing it. Read that far. Is this sort of what's going on? Yes, yes, he's in there right now, and I haven't understood you. Yeah, it's hard, I've got to say. But that's what he says. But he really thinks that you find in there an approach to a vehicle. There's something else. Oh, quick question, too. What about the ghost, though? Because the other thing is, ghost has this connection. And number theory, which is also kind of lost in Riemann's generalization, whereas I bet it follows up in action.

25:00 Okay, Gauss, it's behind all this already. Yeah, so complex multiplication follows immediately and you get connections. Okay, everything is clean. It's a model. Gauss' conception is in the line. You find that this idea, well, conceding transformation of elliptic intricacies. Of course, it's all the work of Abel, Eisenstein, Kronecker, and Segal based on this line. Of course, also Dave. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But concerning your questions, I don't have a clear view of... Well, this might be the follow-up paper to my practice of understanding. The second volume, because I think this is sort of, I think this is likely what he's getting at, is that there is this idea, I mean actually Weil also suggests this in elliptic functions, is that there's something really, right, and now Weil, that's why he mentions the elliptic functions. And it's in the line of, of course, what was important, what is very delved into right now is the, the quote, the quote for the punch, and it was in the middle.

27:30 It's the mention of... You have generalizations here. But you have this... You know what? This is actually, there's something really sweet here. One way, of course, of delivering on the chronic is about as far from the chronic... And then you get this unified account of arithmetic and algebraic geometry. But this turns out to give you a realization of the problem of the human problem. It's completely computational. Then, I understand why the singular is wrong. The singular is wrong in what? In putting the remanent in the first one rather than the second one. I don't know. I understand it in the light of your introduction that basically the cancels are in the first. I would have said that the generation of mathematics began with the idea of a dedicated cancels. I'm afraid this is going to be fucked.

30:00 It was an addition by a later copy. This is the only way to do the question, but the same question can be used in another way. I think that what's the important thing is that... You mean this one? The second one. Yes, the second one. What is the tension? It's not a trance. A trance is a trance in its proper name. It's a real bond. What is the meaning of this? What does it mean? Isn't this a thumb? That's just a figure of speech to make the insult complete. I mean, take it. God, did you accept me? No, no, okay, that sounds cool. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, but there's a pun there, because there's also nothing. Another idea of foundation, so I think that what is happening here is an idea of how to bond the mathematics here, but it is compared to another idea of foundation, and in this sense, we don't think that Riemann is someone to be able to bond. I see. You are two so-called set theorists or founders, founding fathers of the... Two different ideas of both of these, I mean.

32:30 Logic and set theory are one side, and we should not be in this kind of ring. But Markov, actually the first time I saw this quotation I thought I should have known this... Okay, but you said that the reason is the beginning of the theory, but I'm wrong. He did say nothing of the sort. He outrageously redid it. I agree with him. In fact, in the light of all that we saw, I would like to go back to your position, Oh, yes, well, I mean, not specifically, but the idea of language independence. Yeah, but not only in Cologne. I know. Not only in Cologne, but, you know, you know, other domains of the field. Yes, yes, okay, I don't know, because I was enlightened by this. And I didn't, of course, deal with other parts. So, as these distinctions, the link will inevitably be made within and beyond each of the five cases, and I would be interested to know what other examples there are.

35:00 I'm sure you have geometry in mind as well, and I'm absolutely positive because I have many people who know that he is suddenly thinking also of geometry and mathematical geometry. Why is that so new? We should try to understand, looking at it from the perspective of various domains in mathematics. Connecting this... Which kind of domains do you have in mind, and what develops in these domains? In my mind, I remember it, but for other examples, it's something like that. I don't remember. Yeah, I just want to put... I wonder, has it a suggestion as to why Riemann is there in that context, together with Dedekind and Pantor, which runs completely counter to the wildly speculative remarks of Marker. This is going to be probably even more wildly speculative. But I think it actually goes to this question of what he has in mind by this notion of solidity. And I think that the The illuminating insight for me was your remark about Grothendieck and scheme theory, because the whole point about, sorry, James's remark, I beg your pardon, yes, James's remark, because it seems to me that there you have a perfect example in scheme theory. Indeed, of an immensely abstract piece of machinery, but one which I suspect Siegel would not have regarded as, in any sense, guilty of senseless abstraction precisely because it does bring the arithmetic and the algebraic geometric aspects back together in an extremely powerful way, as you said. And it seems to me that part of what Siegel has in mind by this is a desiratum of solidity

37:30 is an even-headedness as between the algebraic, analytic, and geometric aspects of our understanding of functions and their transformations, which is directly connected, I think, with the fact that one had this central controlling notion of curve in 18th century mathematics to unify those aspects. And whereas in the Riemannian point of view, which he's rejecting, one does have this assumption that there should be a preferred direction There is, if you like, proper direction in the absorption or assimilation of one context of mathematical explanation into another, in which the topological aspect is somehow paramount or preeminent and underpins the others. And that seems to be something which Segal did reject, and I think precisely because he wanted this even-handedness between the algebraic, analytic and... Arithmetic and Geometric aspects which is part I think of what he saw in the exemplified in the work of Euler and Gauss that was missing in the These great sort of systematic abstract unifiers like Freeman and David Kendrick Cantor in their different ways. I suspect that's a part of what he had in mind by this leaving the ground solidity. He obviously has a vision of what is concrete in mathematics, which I think is not quite the same as what Mick was referring to by this question of visualization, although that certainly is an aspect of it. But it does seem to me that there's some notion of the concrete in mathematics that he wants to hang on to, that he sees Riemann, Dedekind, and Cantor as moving away from. I'd like to try and put my finger on that, but it seems to me to have something to do with this even-handedness that's between the analytic and the geometric aspects of functions, yes. Fine. Oh, okay. Yeah, as I say, I just wanted to offer a... I just wanted to offer a hazardous suggestion as to why he couples the names of Dedekind, Cantor, and Riemann in this fashion, in the context of this... A very powerful piece of rhetoric in the length of the day. What I have in mind is asking that. Is there an end to some sort of connected to practice? Can we have a definitive answer to that question of what is validity?

40:00 There could be different ways of understanding validity. Sure. Well, he does let Riemann off the hook a bit, in that he mentions him as the first element of the sequence, the regressive sequence, and it's a progressively regressive sequence. Yeah, I take your point, and that's interesting. I mean, another possibility, I suggest... Yes, which would connect with the point about the even-handedness and potential cross-fertilization as between arithmetic, geometric, and algebraic insights, which is... Something which I think he does have in mind, clearly in Euler, who he clearly puts on a pedestal, quite understandably, that one might see as missing in Riemann, great obviously as Riemann's conceptual achievement was, that it did move away from that even-handedness as between the arithmetic and the... Precisely by insisting that there was some kind of underlying unifying context, particularly in the case of elliptic integration, the elliptic function. That was supplied by a quite different level of machinery, topological, and that's it. Okay, you accept that, and you position it, and you think back and, what? What is missing? Something could be missing concerning arithmetic? I didn't say that the arithmetic was missing. What I said specifically was the even-handedness as between the way that the arithmetic aspects cross-fertilize with the others. After all, you know, Dedkin is the first great structuralist in the history of mathematics.

42:30 Well, because there are two talks here tonight. Yeah, there's one on cosmology, which is the thing that I've got to say now, because I've got to go and it's going to... No, you want to go to the one in Cardiff. Well, it's... I'm not so sure it's going to be that exciting, actually. It's... No, all I have in mind... I propose that Connick has a very delicate, the parallelism of the, what the composer said to some guy, I think it was Osnab, and he said, oh, you're the man who writes tunes, aren't you? And, you know, it's like a... You know, you're the kind of man who's done some number theory that's actually still about numbers. Yeah, yeah, I'm getting with that conversation. I think that's what Siegel had in mind with this, you know. Because for what little I've done, I mean, obviously, I've been able to read in the first volume. Very, very much shown in the sort of the way he works today. He is very much the kind of mathematician who would put a very high value on the kind of numbers here that he's actually using, the kind of... Thank you for your attention. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

45:00 Field of research. I'm very glad that you can see the kind of work that you are trying to do for everything that's happening. I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I know, I know that he has a bad reputation, but I don't like him. So, listen, don't break your head. It's just a common thing. I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't understand what you're talking about. Thank you for watching this video. If you liked it, please share it with your friends on social media and subscribe to the channel.

47:30 My favourite is the Port-Royal Logic, it was the great third text of logic which was composed by the Jansenists at the Port-Royal in the 17th century, at the Abbey of the Port-Royal which is just up away from here. It was the very influential school of the Jansenist scholars, they were one of the main religious movements in France in the 17th century. Logic is connected to general grammar. That's right, yes, that's right. In fact, it was actually, they actually published the Port Royal Logic, and there was also a book called The Grammar. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it was, well, you know, logic in general theory properties. Yeah, but in terms of function, so you said that rational is inherent, is intrinsic property of function. Yeah, yeah, something like that. And what is logical in this? Logical is when you're concerned with rigorous deduction, no way of concatenating expressions of thought. The assumption that there is an increasing level of generality in each level of expression. You know, the one is where theory of generality, two core, and the other, well, I would see this as aligned slightly to, you know, the cluster of the marvels, the cluster of the distinctions being drawn between rational and thoughtfulness, a little aligned to the claims, you know, that the right thing is always to search for the correct level of truth. No, it's very clear. In this context, I'm not saying this is a correct identification, but in this context I think the identification of logic is the theory of maximal generality.

50:00 It is searching, it is seeking to put the maximally general framework of order into context and place. ...right at the outset, whereas the rational, in this case, is the attempt, as it were, to explore from the inside out what the correct order of concepts should be, or what, as it were, is the correct order of concepts. In the case of rationality in this context, there is a kind of framework for unifying contexts of explanation, and there is a focus on, as Farah said, on the kind of ontological aspects of the subject matter and what it is. Oh, thank you very much. That was a very crumbly expression. I apologise. Was it you? Yes, perhaps it was him. Of course you're right. Of course, of course. Huge, huge compliment. I think Siegel would make a different point on that, because he is a remarkably correct person. I'd also tend to agree with the third point, which is more like you, and that is very, very hard for me. That he is very much the figure that stands at the beginning of that development in the understanding of arithmetic, also represented by Noether and all the great involvement of structural mathematics, that leads to the joke about... The man who, you know, the mathematics department. I'm so old-fashioned, I do the kind of number theory that actually has to do with numbers. You know, I think that Siegel would have privileged the kind of number theory that actually had to do with numbers in a way that he would see Dedekind's approach as moving away from. But of course, I understand quite clearly your point, but it was a way to raise an objection. Yeah, sure, sure, sure. Against both of us. Yes, yes. Well, one can wrestle too much with the... It was, after all, a bad tentative remark in a private letter. I'm not sure why he tried to build so many layers of X-66 and so on. He probably would have wanted a room of thinker.

52:30 Yeah, well, the previous way is probably to go get the bus. Get the bus? Yeah, yeah, we're already at the bus stop anyway. I'm just wondering whether it's worth coming. See you tomorrow. See you tomorrow. See you tomorrow. When is, when is, oh, oh, sorry, this was, oh, this was your inaugural thing, wasn't it? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Oh, sorry, I thought you were already here. No, no, no, I thought you were here. I thought you were already down there, so I'm sorry, okay well I'm ready whenever you are, so Jimmy see you tomorrow, yes okay, I'm sorry, thank you very much, yeah, yeah, yeah, yes, I definitely, and actually, Mark, hang on, what's that again, we've got to split second this morning, Moritz, Etzel, Epple, which one are you saying today? Moritz Peckel, the German guy? No, I missed that. No, I missed that as well. I need to ask him, because that hasn't got into his talk at all. Except I've got it recorded in here. Oh well, I'll listen. I think he's certainly got a hand up. Thank you for watching.

55:00 I know, but this morning, I'm saying this morning, this morning, I didn't realize you were saying it. No, no problem. Okay, now I'm clear. The problem was I had to leave after five minutes. And then in the evening, they were just stopped by to do research. Well, I could go to the calculus and physics thing as well, with Jean-Jacques de Chignac, if you want. How about Jean-Michel Vérez? Well, we did it burning off the ceilings in the last few days. Did you...? Yes, I did have a copy. I have two copies. Well, actually, it would be quite truthful. I only have one copy at the moment, which is yours. But I promised Benoit I'd give it to him, I guess. The guy who's sitting at the back, isn't it Benoit? The guy who's sitting at the back. Yes, Benoit. The chap who was talking to me a bit, he was sitting at the back. He comes through a lot of things sometimes. I'm trying to remember his second name. It's something like Benoit Marguerite, is it? Benoit Marguerite? Well, he sent me an email just a week ago, so I could check. I'm sorry, you know how this is. So, yeah, he asked me for a seat, so what I will do is to burn something for the night, but I'll bring it with me tomorrow, we don't have to do that. No, no, Brian, I promise you, it's a long, long time. I actually went by connection this afternoon on my way back from the place where I had to go in Russia to get there. These are sorted out in order to get some more pictures and photocopies of them. But unfortunately they're closed today. They're annual stoppages. I'll try and pick something up back to...

57:30 Because there's also the two more recordings, two more copies that are ready to come out soon. And there's also, in December from last year, Ray recorded for me while I was in London. Thank you very much for your attention and I look forward to seeing you again next time. And I'll have a go at the Slogan we tarred with you sometime. Okay, au revoir. Okay, actually the nearest bus stop is just up there. You can go. I don't have a ticket. Well, it's okay. I'm poor, but I can just afford to buy you a bus ticket. Oh, actually, having said that. Having said that, wait a minute. I have a feeling I'm going to be on a train. I've never got a 50 though, have I? Hmm, hang on. Let's see, where can we go? Well, I mean, we've already missed over half an hour of it. Do you think it's really worth it? OK, well, let's... OK, let's see. Well, look, in that case... In that case... Look, let's change places for the coffee, just so I can change your notes, because I haven't got any change. There's no way a bus driver can change 50 euro notes. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Sarah? Ah, what would you like? Okay, um, can I have a little bit of coffee, please? And a petit, um...

1:00:00 Oh, it will be not hard a week, okay? Perfect, yes. Yeah, there won't be long. Merci. That's us again. It's quite nice, isn't it? Of course you can! Yes, they make the best beer in the world. The Belgians are the Germans. Okay, that's fine. Well, I don't know if I've... No, I do not. I've just got... I've lost about three pounds, that's all. In fact, I... Well, I... Yeah, well, that's nice of you to say, sir, but I need to use a hell of a lot more. I'm fine. The only problem is... I'm not taking any of the... Because I can't feel it. Yeah, at the moment it's okay. It's just a little bit higher than it was last month. Yeah, it's a little bit higher than it was last month, but only by one point. It hasn't got shooting back up the way I want it to, but what I'm doing, I'm just taking these, you know, these commercial herbs, these dressing herbs that you can buy in any pharmacy. Something like herbs? Yeah, they're just dressing herbs. It's okay. Also, it's really soft.