Lecture (contd.)

0:00 I agree, it's a bit of a generous speech, but you've got to find some, you've got to find something. You're good at this, you can do it, but the problems you get, I mean, you can just, you know, yes, I'm sorry, there's a function like this, if you don't get rid of it, you're going to get rid of it, you're going to get rid of it, you're going to get rid of it, you're going to get rid of it, you're going to get rid of it, But he does a lot on the flat space. On the flat space, you can get away with it. You can get away with it. That's it. I love it.

2:30 These are the solutions. You can't hear it. It's in no way to the level that I speak. It's not something I'm allowed to speak. It's not something that's uniform. There is a constraint. And that's a single constraint on this complex. Well, I can say it very briefly. I mean, I think what we're going to go up, the GI-CHO equation, the G0-I, the G0-0 equation, the DIRA, the DIRA equation turns out to be, I think, equivalent to the K of all these two equations. The K-nothing equation, well, they have to be not only E-equivalent, but complicated. So that goes to the DIRA equation. And this is the fact that so many of these, excuse me. You might imagine when you quantize something very clear is going to happen, because, for a smart, you're going to be able to compose any conversation, and that means instead of using an infinite number of words, if you have any rules of spin, your Hilbert space has 15 dimensions. Now basically you're getting control of the spin of things, and so you expect for a 100-year-old space, and no problem, it's a small thing, you've got a couple of effects of 16 dimensions. And secondly, you've got this funny thing about, well, what's this constraint equation? You see, we've got problems when we do the quantization, and you can't do the quantization. Basically, because there are equations of first-order equations, it's not particularly very exact what we're trying to get at. So in this particular case, it's finding why we should even be trying to get a guess. By not getting a guess, we get a slightly different answer. When you post anti-quantization equations, you equal time and concentration, which turn out to be 1,000 units.

5:00 Now what can you do in this equation if you're being precise in the equations of motion and twistors? What you now have to do is that this certain part of the equation of motion is satisfied to relate. That's the central persistence check here. When you can check that, it's true. So far, so good. As regards to the Dirac equation, you've got to quantise that, you've got to understand this as an operating equation, that's what quantisation means. It's a linear, so it's on here, on here, instantly gives you a Dirac equation, in other words it gives you a solution to the dynamic equations. So that goes across immediately into the field of systems. Now if you stopped at this point, what you would have done would be to quantify a spin-off field in a flat, fantastical order, which is the perfect sense of the problem for that society of the era. However, the central, extra point, as I say, is what's classic, is the inclusion of the G0-0 equation, which is what we have across the two fields together. The other question is how do we do it? How do we pose this constraint? Well, you have various possibilities, but the thing we seem to ask the most definitely is to impose it now for the constraint on the state of absence. Before it, it might have seemed like it didn't want to be here, but it didn't want anything. This is not what it's meant to do. We're trying to solve one of these, but we didn't do that. What we did was do it like that. It's essentially writing it down. It sounds like a violation of the law, or a fault, or an assault, in some ways or another. You get classical mathematical computational legislations at the end. Now, you notice some different representations. This is a different classification from the first one. It's a huge difference.

7:30 Yes, and it is a significant difference. I can call you a layperson. I mean, the point is, let's have some analytical computational legislations. It doesn't mean that's a classical way of thinking. The central point is, let's have some analytical computational legislations. It's just more convenient to me, so. Now, the twistor theory approach then becomes MCO approach part of A1 data, A1 data, A2 data, A3 data, A3 data, A4 data, A5 data, A6 data, A7 data, A8 data, A9 data, A10 data, A11 data, A11 data, A12 data, A13 data, A14 data, A15 data, A16 data, A15 data, A16 data, A17 data, A18 data, A19 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A20 data, A When you look at this thing, you realise that it's an eigenvalue equation, but the only thing that you can vary between the g's is n. So in fact, what I say might be a little bit intelligent, but I don't think there's so much choice of this thing on the system in this sense. And what you actually get, let's see, if I can see the quantum square there, which is what we're going to be doing here, I mean, part of the physics we're going to be doing is we're going to be doing the quantum change of the verticals, and then we're going to be doing the quantum change of the square, and we'll see the answer to that. So, if you look at the square, it's absolutely correct. And n can take on the values, basically, and apply it to a little set of things like algebras and degeneracy. The algebras which n can have are 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, minus 1. Degeneracy is the dimension of the square. So n contains only the values 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,

10:00 And the interesting thing to notice about this is that there is no age-file dependence. And we checked, we checked very, very carefully, but there is definitely no age-file dependence. But despite the fact that this is from our period of commentary, the age-file is graphically cancelled out, this thing in fact does have the correct dimensions. You notice it doesn't depend on time at all. What it says is that for a given rate of increase, there's only a very small number of levels of flat which are probably the way that we could do, of course, is to put it here as a public concept. And what we get out of the maths is 10 to the 10th of the 6th of the 9th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of Well, yes, if it wasn't, then it was not. See, the question was not just how many facts had been observed, really, in the literature, but the achievement of observations. The reason we can show that the right side of the sign, g0, is really m-sign-bounce-sign, this is where this equation comes from. When you get g0, you get m-sign-bounce-sign, and this is what you get when you look like a non-photographer. Now, if m-sign-bounce-sign is not, you actually do get the horizontal line of the sign, so you get to solve for the system of masses. I mean, it's not, I think it goes to the treatments of Shannon. He treated us better by the time he went, so I wouldn't have anything to say about that.

12:30 Controversy is a mixture of positive and negative. I don't think it's always the right thing to do. Yeah, because we have a math certificate after that. It's not a chance. There are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don't think there are many different types of mathematics in science, but I don I think it's d-dega-sigma-i-d plus e-dega-sigma-i-b, something like that. Now, when we quantize, up to 2%, all you'll have is an extended figure. So, depending on what you choose, you can get a better interpretation of it in certain states, depending on your choice of definition. Sorry, I wanted to ask this particular question. Do you think that your projection is really working out in this hall as you consider it? Well, I wouldn't want to say I believe it's not a projection, but the possibility is that it might as well be a projection. Now, it's not modulus, and it wouldn't be much less than that. It's not going to go up and down very quickly, and that's what they're used to. Now, in the case of your three notes, you're going to get your x to be less than this. So, how do you weigh it? Well, I mean, I don't know. I'm just... I don't know. There are models you can say.

15:00 Things like time, where you actually have a, you have a rotation system. Yes, yes. You still don't have a rotation system. Do you have a rotation system? Do you know how to do that sort of thing? I think this model is something, in fact, in the sense that it can be, it doesn't work that way, because you've got to do two things at once. Again, it's not really possible. The gravitational force is self-twisting itself, which can be taken out of the system. So the idea was essentially that one wanted to, for instance, to find out how to get rid of the complexity. And the trouble was that one could write out a space formulation in life, but there was a constraint, so one didn't have two canonical parameters to give you the frame. But then, making all this so on and so on, I wanted to get natural configuration, space, and natural sense. And then different choices of times have been made. And there are different subliminal definitions that you can use for that when you get ready. Those essentially consisted of representing this particular physical test set as a quotient formula or some kind of data. Yes, it's nice to talk in some specific way. That's right. And if you do it in different ways, you get a different answer.

17:30 So, apart from the mathematical thing, what sort of conclusions can one draw in general or even for this particular system? It's true that if I slide in a particular way, I can answer, but what is the right way of slicing, or what is the difference between the two types of slicing? Or how you choose to come to the road. I don't know if we agree with this at all, but one thing I do, and two, the problem with mathematics is that you don't need anything to be able to learn this, and of course mathematics really doesn't commune with that actually, it's just as well-applied. So, I mean, what I notice is the basic problem is particularly, of course, obscure in modern geology, where there are no natural ways of choosing to come to the road, so anything is equivalent, and this is something which is totally different from the set of problems that I've heard. Well, also I think the description of mathematics and mathematics of choice, that's obviously much more specific. Do you have cases here in which you say you need to be a state advisor? Is it too valuable or is it difficult? No, it's not too valuable. It's about in some way having really had two kinds of students which passed it up in a totally different form, in which typically the... Classical mathematical transformations change from one to the other. It's not usually representative of the various spatial states, so there's no way it's all the same.

20:00 In the even classic that's true, and of course the spectrum does change, but that's obvious to me in terms of striking mathematics. He would look at sort of qualitative states about dynamics, which you couldn't do if you didn't know how to do it, because as I always say, you don't really know. It is true in all of these choices at the time, and really it went up to the same level at any single point. Otherwise it could be all in R-space, tail down to I. If you're in a finite space, it's 10 to the 5th plus or minus infinity, which is the Euclid's model of the singular state there. Now you might have developed a theory on both of those, that if you have a set of observables which have characteristic values, which are classically regarded as singular, and if you look at the way much it's written down on the alphabet, you might always find that they always seem to be perhaps more or less the same than they are. But if you're going to make an inequality exercise, you might only be able to put it into that equation. In one case it would be the state-of-the-art space of functions, but in another case it would be the state-of-the-art space of functions, but in another case it would be the state-of-theart space of functions, but in another case it would be the state-of-theart space of functions, but in another case it would be the state-of-theart space of functions, but in another case it would be the state-of-theart space of functions, but in another case it would be the state-of-theart space of functions, but in another case it would be the state-of-theart space of functions, but in another case it would be the state-of-theart space of functions, but in another case it would be the state-of-theart space of functions, but in another case it would be the state-of-theart space of functions, but in another case it would be the state-of-theart space of functions, but in another case it would There's a lot of language in there, but even there, I thought it was disgusting, it's weird. It was little, I think, what happened. It's just that here, you see the problem, the ring was more severe away, because you could all be showing it the way we can. It's obviously made up, it's a choice. It's just that here, there's no language whatsoever. That's a well-known reason to do twistors. You probably are, by the way. Well, I didn't do that. Yes, I didn't do that. I didn't do that seriously, even though I could have that done. Because it's a fact that, sure, mathematics is impossible to do that seriously. Well, what we are doing, but more seriously, is looking at, to what extent is this opportunity to do the wrong thing? This is the general property of mathematics.

22:30 It's all originating from the fact that we never signed our sign in mathematics. And there are a lot of us trying to make sure this is true, and so you could expect to get a sort of spectrum of just maths and mathematics, if that is true as well. I'm very confident in that, and I think I can do very much of the same. As it relates to learning, as I said, there are a lot of people who come to me to talk about this. What you see here is a situation that's quite big, and you want to set the context. So if you put the second point behind this, and you put the third point behind it,

25:00 then you can talk about the duration and the dilation of the universe, and that's the end of the topic, which is probably the best example. Thank you for your attention.