Evening conversation

0:00 It picks out the same thing that's going on there where you use sets to kind of collapse things down with freeness.

7:30 It's exactly the same thing that's going to happen. We'll give you a talk later in the week.

10:00 I'm going to have it all over the show. Yeah, I'm sort of referring to it as I go so long. All your talks are, you know, very, very thoroughly prepared, but you might always revise things at the last minute, obviously. I have two days to talk to people, so, you know, make up some ideas of what really needs to be said, and so, try to get a feeling for what people are interested in. Yeah. Well, also, I guess, what the general character of the seminar is. I watch the people I've met at the county or county. You can presume there's at least some pretty detailed knowledge of category theory. On the other hand, you're also speaking to physicists and biologists. Correctly. Madame Ayers also. Oh yeah. How old is she? How old? Oh, I don't know. I haven't seen her for a long time. Was she actually an active mathematician herself? Oh yeah, she was. Well, I mean, it's a silly question because obviously she wouldn't be coming to seminars unless she knew something. Okay, I don't want to say she was married to a disciple, to show that she was just as it were. It seems to be very knowledgeable about Hosen's work, any time there's a posting on the categories list related to that that she can point out the relevant historical connections, she's carefully going over her works. Thank you for your attention.

12:30 I think it's actually in the memorial for the report. As a matter of fact, a couple of years ago, I don't even know whatever happened to this. Maybe I just didn't keep up with it. I think it was Peter Pride who proposed to publish exclusively in that journal because the other ones had all been taken over by the judge's publishing mafia. I suppose it was not published. Well, I'm delighted to hear that, because I'm a great... I have to say that's one thing... In the APAL... Yeah, yeah. You know that Byers, I mean, I know, very, very high opinion of Byers, he's a bit of a... But I think he is doing one very good thing, which is that he is trying to start this... There's a lot of movement over the web to get people, particularly in the physics community, to refuse to sit on the editorial boards or to go to a journal or whatever to read for them. And still refereeing is an issue as well, contributing to the cost of providing your free labour to these super exploits in terms of the super profits that Clure generates. Only interested in making a profit out of scientific research and then asking us to provide free labour. Yes, absolutely. And I mean, we're not just talking profits here, we're talking about quite a sea of super profits. And they don't even bother to prove, I mean, when they produce, they tell people to make a camera, they expect you to do all your own proofreading, that's absolutely ridiculous, and they don't even pay you for it. I mean there's a real serious issue there with boycotting these journals and that is for people like me who are still trying to get tenure, you know, there's a question of which journals are well respected and which one will count in your favor in the tenure review. That point has been made to bias and of course that is a very sound point. Yeah, all of your papers are intact, something like that, and it doesn't count as much in an expensive print journal published by the Dutch Elsevier Synoptic. Are there really three distinct entities, Norton and Elsevier? No, they obey Smer.

15:00 I think Springer also has been acquired by Elsevier. Really? Yeah, I heard that news. Elsevier-Reed is one of the greats. I didn't know that. I knew that Elsevier-Reed was going to happen. Did you talk to this young lady at the meeting there? Which one? Which meeting? Which lady? No, just now. Her name was Flora Ostling. She was the representative. And you know, Heinzmann announced that the proceedings would generally be paperback. Oh, really? I didn't hear him say that. Oh, yes, you did. Does that mean it's a... It's not a real book, it's a journal. Wait, no. Well, it's an inexpensive book. It's quite clear it'll be expensive. Well, even a paperback will probably be... Well, exactly. It's only a hundred dollars. But anyway, he said, if we manage to get all high quality papers, then Kluber will make a paperback. This is not quite true. That's a deal you made with her. She has to convince Kluber. She was there as the representative from Kluber for this conference, checking things out. So now she's going to make this courageous attempt to get her to surrender a small percentage of the super profits. Yes, I'm afraid that's almost certainly right. There are enough high-quality papers, then it will be a paperback or then it will be a hardback? No, then it will be a paperback. And what if not? There will be no book at all then? Hardback, yes. But the idea is that it will get ready even less because it will be about $250, whereas they might just squeeze it down into about the $90 range. What were the books that were on the windowsill there in the poster room? Were those Fugler? No, they were not. Is that the sort of thing they're talking about? Those were actually published by the Poncai Archive. They were published by Édition Chimée, the French publishing house, which publishes Philosophia Scientiae, which is the main history and philosophy of science journal in France, which also publishes a number of occasional proceedings as well as a four-week journal.

17:30 There was no commitment on the part of the invited speakers, I wasn't invited, I can tell you, to submit a paper or a publication, you're free to decide whether you want to or not. That makes it tough, I think. I mean, there's really no leverage. The journals are part of a kind of obligation. They pay their way. The journals, the journals. No, I mean for the book. The book for the conference. No, we see that. If it's paperback, then it means maybe a few people can read it. Yeah, maybe. Yeah, that's obviously the carrot being flourished very simply by Cleland. Well, I don't understand why... No, not yet. It's even worse than that. It's the carrot being flourished. Oh, there's two layers of nine poles. Yes, I can see that. She's not behaving in a decent way. Both him and her. No, no, I can see that there's at least two layers. There's only less than that. It doesn't sound very good. I don't understand why he doesn't try to get a journal to produce a special issue. That seems like a good strategy that's happening more and more in mathematics. It works pretty well if they have a wider circulation. And especially when Odysseum Quimae published the proceedings for the previous two conferences that were held, the one on Parkhari in 1994 and the one on Goodman. It seemed to be obvious that they would do it. I don't know why. Oh, and also, the Beth Foundation obviously has a very good in with philosophy, well, it also has a very good in with Guimet, with the people who, well, no, no, no, with the French publishers, with the people who publish Philosophia Scientiae,

20:00 because they did a special proceedings, a special number for the Congress that they had on Beth. Which wasn't there in Nancy, I think it was in Amsterdam. But they also published a special proceedings, obviously with the support of the Beth Foundation, so I would have thought they were the obvious people to do a proceedings on this. Maybe the Kaluva woman was just basically sent out as a spoiler. No, I'm not. Well, I mean, talking to her, I had the impression that she was just a naïve idealist. She had been convinced by talking to a nice woman to try to make an effort to turn the whole thing around. Oh, that was decent of her. Hope it doesn't cost her her job. Well, exactly. That's what I... Which one was it? It was the blonde woman with the pigtails? The blonde woman with the pigtails, yeah. Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to seeing you again soon. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63 You had an idea about how to look at that and say why you thought that the question was not going to be complete, but you thought it was not, but you had a way of looking at it and you thought it was going to be complete, but you thought it was not, but you had a way of looking at it and you thought it was going to be complete, but you had a way of looking at it and you thought it was going to be complete. They never actually deal with the reals in the ordinary sense, they just have the cruciate sequences and the equivalent relation of the category there, you see, which is, well, actually it has some exponentials, but it doesn't have quotients on it.

22:30 You can always build function clouds, but not into truth clouds, because there are no truth clouds. No truth clouds, no truth clouds. In fact, no quotient clouds. You know, it's all clouds. We're already playing... Don't be... All functions are continuous in the real. But you're not. That was... If you think of a real function... Given as a function on Cauchy's sequences, it just happens to preserve the total prevention. That's quite different from having a map and the exact solution. The maps are relations. They always work out. They're not things that are necessarily the end of the maps. Without contradiction, it's just a contradiction. See, on the one hand, the axiom of choice is true in this category, because it consists of natural numbers and quotient sequences and stuff like that. It's an intuitionistic thing. In the exact completion or before you know it? No, after the exact completion, then you've probably got a topos or something. See, at least you've got a category where you can prove that the axiom of choice implies Boolean. So, therefore, the axiom of choice is not true in that... In that category of quotients, but it could, you know, I'm just saying it could, conceivably could be true in a category with this exact completion. And in fact it is. In other words, the intuitionists, given the proper correlation, have said that the actual quotient is true.

25:00 Because they never actually asked you these quotients. In the excellent choice of quantification, there's a kind of a hybrid operation of the slice of sigma surprise rather than rejecting out the images of universal and existential quantifiers, and that's why the choice is true, because they don't collapse down the images of those operations, but they just don't take families as credit issues. Why do you have to do this? Why do you try to get them in? Then the action of choice will be true for those operations. So it's this kind of preservation of all the pre-theoretic information. Once you collapse out, then you've taken images. Now there's no way to get back up in the system. You get back up in the central field section. Well, I mean, I don't know. They have to prove to you where they can construct, so-called, constructive interpretations. Yeah. Like in my, uh, Siena paper, or hypergothic paper. Hypergothic paper, yeah. Thanks. There is a sense in which the actual choice is true in a first order intuitionistic logic. In general, it's not, unless you put it in. Something like a hiding pretopos. A pretopos means you have a quotient. So a hiding regular category width, but also has dual images, or something like that.

27:30 The regular category also has right-handers, fullbacks, and subordinates. Yeah. But see, I mean, basically, well, let's consider this hypothetical possibility. You could easily have a category with an epi-split. At least no longer be an epi-split. Sure. I think that's a sort of reasonable model. Sorry. You could say that the axiom of choice is true in a tradition because it's true in an election. And yet, actually the choice applies boolean because that refers to the actual choice in the category that has a reasonable, you know, the bigger one, that has the number of... Oh, the bigger one that has the number of choices. Right. So you could even have that, in fact, I think in the exact completion, aren't the generators there projected in the image of the... All of these can go into the exact conclusion, characterized by being the projectives in the exact conclusion, if that makes sense. So the axiom of physics can still hold for those objects, the ones where the equivalence relation is trivial. All the ones that arise from a non-trivial equivalence relation, they're not going to have trivial consequences. That's a nice analogy, as usual. Choice is equivalent to all objects being projected. I think I see the point now. I mean, when you build the code you realize, right, you want to start with secrets, accountable secrets as a rule, but you don't have these knowledge relations, you need to identify the ones that convert to the same real.

30:00 You don't have that equivalence relation to work with in the category. You just have the rational and the exponent. So you need to pass to the exact same thing. You have the equivalence relation. You don't have the quotient. You don't have the quotient, so you pass to the exact same thing. But then, that object of course, the real, is no longer projected. Because that's not in the original category. I remember you talking about exactly this in the London, Ontario meeting. You replied to one of the questions. Interpreting is always clear and the whole process is continuous. No, it's functions on the real. The real is so constructed that equivalence by equivalence is false. Annuity is going to mean something like arises from a function in the... On the projective, it's not just an arbitrary personal relation, but an exact completion because of the arbitrary process. Continuous ones are the ones that actually arise, that lift, are the ones that actually arise.

32:30 There are a number of different fields of study, including mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, physics, and mathematics. There are a number of different fields of study, including mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. There are a number of different fields of study. Thank you for your attention. I can't even remember the promise of original arguments for that. Does this have anything to do with existence on a covering? It had a lot to do with that. I used to have a fixed-size formulation, and that was the key. I had a classical example of mine. The question doesn't... the cubic is like this. So it stayed like that. You know, Dvorsky takes it as an axiom for the real, in the odd order of polynomial and root. That's the main axiom for the real arithmetic. Yeah.

35:00 See, and that should be very strongly true. Could be. It does. This is the cubic. So if you turn it over, it's got three partial sections. You can clearly define three partial sections because there's such a huge overlap over the possible domains that you can choose something in the middle. It's not like you can get into any of these intuitionistic questions. You know it's really less than one or higher than the other. Thank you. And so, not only is it true for each point that there exists something, even through the cover of the line by these three open sets, and on each of those you have a continuous section. Now, on the other hand, beside the actual choices, that contradicts. But according to Brauer, there's no single function. On the other hand, the axiom of choice is true intuitionistic. So that means, in other words, they say these things, but one is for the actual quotient, the other is for the quotient sequence of things. Before you factor it out. Yeah, there's where that's something like the axiom of choice is true, at that level. So they don't tell you clearly which one it is, since they don't have this objective idea that there's this one category and then this bigger category. They don't make it, nor state the hypotheses, but they, in effect, move from one to the other. What I really believe is that when they do these kinds of instructions, they're working with equivalence classes, they're working with equivalence classes that always have the key representatives for the equivalence classes, so that they can always fall back on the axioms when they need it, so it's something like...

37:30 I mean, they really work with things up to an equivalent, specified equivalence relation, but they vary that equivalence relation as need be. Sometimes they factor it out, sometimes they don't, and then they've got an equivalent, they've got a representative to work with in picking, say, a section. It's a technique that they've learned to do. The view is very effective, as well as particular in analysis, constructive analysis, string-marginal type theory. They always keep the equivalence. The real number is always the objective. And then, of course, the relationship. Speakers include both. At the same time take advantage of the construction of the given of these objects to crack the system out of its motion and make use of it in a new way. I think they also gained some conceptual kind of clarity about what's going on and formulated things in a much more familiar way that gives them then some intuition for what else to do or something like that, but then they can fall back on the

40:00 Additional proof theoretical or instructive information when they needed to be constructed. So, there's another thing I'd like to do. The truth-theoretic power center is almost always large, like the whole universe. Well, in other words, in other words, what I think of as a model, my chosen representative for their class, and you take any of those, and think of it as a category of types, but then the attributes of the given object, we don't take sub-objects, we take all slices. But now, you'd like to have a hiding house. When you get one, you're going to think it's a piece out of a collection, a category that's precisely what it should be, except it's almost never representable by an object. It's way too big. Oh, oh. And this is, uh... So now... But I also know a few. In fact, I really recently proved that for a particular pre-sheet of paper, it's only if you get the little categories of group values that you get a smaller number. Suppose that the fraction is not going to be smaller. Right. But now, it actually turns out, at least you can have it. In my experience, you talk to these people, but they're not even happy with the slice. They want precincts on the thing. On the slice? No, no. Instead of the slice over the type X, they want that type X to come equipped with its own equivalence relationship to its identity.

42:30 And they want their precincts on that. Beautiful. So they don't want just a slice over X. They want X to be a groupoid, because it has some identity to it, and it preaches on X, the actions of a groupoid. The X itself, is it? I think of X as the category that you take it from. The power object of a groupoid. They don't just slice over it. This is the category of X-Action. So it's vibration related. You have to take the identity of the quality of the relation, of the X-A to account. You have to take vibration for that. That seems to be the... They always have not just a type, but a type together with its notion of identity or equality. So the power of the truth is not set sliced over. It should be set straight. Okay, but what I was referring to with the category you started with, it may not be, it shouldn't be set, so... No, I'm just saying... But you're saying if it's a cliche two courses you start with, then in most cases there won't be too long to be said. What's that reflection? I guess his viewpoint actually told me that. W.A. Babbage. Well, but then I thought of another wrinkle on it, you see. I tried to model proofs. So we have this idea of group bundles over axes, if you like, of these actions of the group of axes, and things over axes.

45:00 So the idea is that what does it mean that A implies B means you can construct a map of A to B, which is a morphism over axes, or a point-bearing morphism over axes. That's not actually the way mathematical proofs work. What you do is, you first, okay, you look at A, that's the definition of your hypothesis, you analyze it to figure out what to do. What does it mean to analyze it? Take a covering of it. Take an A-prime that maps epically to A, and now map A-prime to B. That's the way it actually works. You find a hypothesis. Then it turns out, this of course is giving us the course of the Quibbles relation, you're back to actual sub-objects again. No, on x. Everything is going to be equivalent to a sub-optimum of x. So it's classifiable by safety starting with a total. It's classifiable by omega. It's just this little change of introducing notion. It's only if you define the proof to be something. When you start with a hypothesis, you're not allowed to analyze the hypothesis. The method is to be, that you get this proper class. Of course, there exists an A-prime, okay? That's clearly the whole difficulty of the proof of this existence. There's no way, right? The whole problem with proof theory in a nutshell is there exists a proof. What the hell does that mean? This existence, how far up do you have to go, lifting up or down, how far do you have to go, right, right, right. So what I feel is obvious, really, because you're working in a category where every map is, the base category, everything, and if you follow... So you've got these two maps, A to X or D to X, and what you want to see is the same, then you have to recover it.

47:30 But I mean, you prove it by some of the maps in the diagram, the fractals. You pull it back. You can pull that back or, hey, pull back as happy as happy. So that gives you the O prime. The O prime is, in a sense, inherent. It may be arbitrary. Thank you for your attention. So this would be a way of thinking of proof. But I think that remark is a useful counterpoint to the idea that if you consider only the existence of maps directly, you may see that becomes a tougher task. It's kind of a useful counterpoint to realize that within that setup, there is already the ordinary omega. And that's a good example. Sort of metaphorically, of course, going to a finer analysis of what people do when they carry out proofs. They look at B and see how hard it is, and then they analyze A, and finally they get up and make a change.

50:00 If the image of A is the image of B, then that's what you're going to show, but if the images are the same, then it's obvious that if you had a map of A to B, then the image of A would be the image of B. But that's a necessary condition. In that direction, no, but it's a necessary condition for people being able to prove it at all. Conversely. I've been using that factorization every month. If you're wondering to think about analyzing galaxies with the fluid implications, then you'll get the idea that the world is infinitely different. If you're willing to think about that, you'll get the opposite conclusion that the world is amazing and simple, until you realize that making a choice is an acrimonial idea, because that's wrong. Making a determination which involves analyzing the hypothesis. The way the idea is constructed is that if the doctor were going to ignore it, they were going to bypass the difficulty. Thank you for your attention. Well, the constructivist solution is that they've been driven into almost, well, the same kind of thing as the set theorists have been driven into, where they have to keep on modulating larger and larger universes and collapsing these properties of technology. In order to deal with the solutions that they pursue in the axioms of the universe, it's like you take the whole proof theory and collapse it down to a single type and then you have a higher type of sorts and types and kinds and so on and so forth.

52:30 Thank you for watching this video, I hope you enjoyed it. I hope you enjoyed this video. I hope you enjoyed this video. I hope you enjoyed this video. I hope you enjoyed this video. I hope you enjoyed this video. I hope you enjoyed this video. I hope you enjoyed this video. I hope you enjoyed this video. I think he's out of the... Out of the... Out of the... Out of the... Out of the... Out of the... Out of the... Out of the... Out of the... Out of the... The name Bill accepted at the establishment of the university. He was guiding on this with a lot of effort. He studied a lot of things to do with chemistry. Well, that's about it. I think it was my address. Thank you for watching.

55:00 What I heard was that Hepliger was not impressed. That even Hepliger, though not a category here, has been able to sniff that there was something fake about him. That the project of getting accepted didn't really work out. Now that's just my impression. Thank you for your attention. What is the meaning of this? It's like a pizza parlor in Jersey. Operate, operate, and operate, okay? So you can't talk about it, you can't talk about it, you can't talk about it, you can't talk about it, you can't talk about it, you can't talk about it, you can't talk about it, you can't talk about it, you can't talk about it. The Scandinavian Categorical Physicists. There are a number of them. There are a number of them. There are a number of them. There are a number of them. There are a number of them. There are a number of them. There are a number of them. There are a number of them. Thank you for your attention. There are lots of branches of mathematics that they don't know anything about. I'm sure any of you do. Often, for some reason, you come in and you get a car. You move out of the car and you don't know anything about it. Otherwise, you move out of the car and you don't know anything about it. Maybe there's another way of helping you, but you don't care about it. All semester long, Eric Haldgren was there in residence. Eric had done his work together on this.

57:30 The idea is an axiomatized class. Parts of a type theory and a formal style, but with a kind of graded system of suboptimalism. Eric couldn't give a talk about it. Everybody was asking Eric, why don't you tell us how this is supposed to work, because that's what you can't take care of. And Eric was basically like, oh, that's what I'm going to do. He'll talk about it. The idea was, why did we bother doing this? No question. No question. The logic is that we've got to do it with somebody else, so we can learn it on our own, and it doesn't really carry on. Thank you for your attention. There are plenty of dust mountains out there, but if you want to do a lot of stuff there, you have to meet a lot of guys out there. I heard you turned it down a little bit. No, I didn't. You turned it down a little bit. No, I didn't. You turned it down a little bit. No, I didn't.

1:00:00 You turned it down a little bit. No, I didn't. You turned it down a little bit. No, I didn't. You turned it down a little bit. No, I didn't. You turned it down a little bit. No, I didn't. Thank you very much. There are a number of different types of subjects, such as mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, physics, Finally, somebody was a mathematical scientist who got into it and cleaned it up. Now all of the Scandinavian listeners are scrambling around here. Thank you for your attention. I would very much like to remember Richard E. Jackson's name. Thank you for your attention.

1:02:30 So who's been talking about quantum mechanics? It's a famous question. It's not a question. It's not a question. It's not a question. It's not a question. It's not a question. It's not a question. It's not a question. It's not a question. It's not a question. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much for your attention and I hope to see you again soon. So your impression is? The halfling earth. Maybe it was intentionality. I mean there was this idea of trying to model intentionality. That was what was missing from their intentionality when you start talking to those.

1:05:00 What they care about is intentionality and, as I was saying before, every type has a viewpoint structure and that's what seems to be the core of the relation. What they care about is the perspective of what this is, and for them that's a question of intentionality, and that was not done in... I don't know, some sort of challenge, some sort of combination of that. I don't know exactly what you would think of Witten, but maybe it could be. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for watching. My impression was that I had to throw them out of the ocean to say, let me work on that.

1:07:30 We'll certainly give him minor lectures in that speaker, I'm sure he probably will. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your attention. Have you ever seen this book about Dr. Noah? About him? Yeah. It's just one of his books. One of his books? Yeah. That's what it's about. It's just one of his books. Better and better. Better and better. Better and better. Better and better. Better and better. Better and better. Better and better. Better and better. Better and better. The topos are representing a combination of topology, geometry, algebra, mathematics, and physics. Thank you for watching.

1:10:00 I think he is working on something else here. Does he have a job now? I believe he has a job. But not at Montreal or Toronto. He was in some place crazy. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for watching. Thank you for your attention. The question is, if you want to represent all this stuff, you think about what it's saying, it's actually simply saying, you know, it's a good guy. But, you know, the previous, the previous instructions would sort of go into it a little bit more in an ad hoc manner without realizing how much of a twistor I was talking about. It's an advance in that way.

1:12:30 It's getting better and better. There are also a number of other fields of study, such as mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, physics, physics, and mathematics. In addition to these fields, there are also other fields of study, such as mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. I asked him, you know, he's had the experience of publishing in the Spanish world, of course, being Argentinian and having got, you know, he got this citation from the King of Spain, leading contributor to Spanish culture in the world for that particular year. The year after, the same prize went to the entire Ladino people, you know, the ones who were pushed out 500 years ago. Oh, that's right. He clung to a Spanish dialect and therefore propagated Spanish culture in the world. So the whole group of people got the collective prize one year and the next year he won a Nobel Prize. His wife is a very fine person. They never talk about it. Well, that's probably true. Well, she was originally, of course, a student. Many years ago. Forty years ago. They never talk about it. Well, I'm glad to hear it. They preach the truth. They don't talk about it. My impression is that it's very, very little left to talk about. It's a great deal, but very substantial. It's curious, but the title he likes to flourish with is what exactly also would apply far more to the preference of others. Still. Well, anyway, Steve, did I tell you I've now agreed to review...

1:15:00 I'm not looking for a translation of this. Rosman? Holy cow. Holy cow. Holy cow, yeah. Okay, well, don't hold me responsible. I do prep that thing. I know, I know. I wasn't happy with it. I hold you responsible for any improvements that might have been made. Right. Hold me responsible for anything that's not as bad as you thought it might have been. Right. Hold me responsible for anything that's not as bad as you thought it might have been. When I brought them with that one, they accepted it before they really sent it to someone knowledgeable for refereeing. And then they were stuck. Then they had accepted it, but then they had to fix it up. I did what I could, but under the circumstances, there was limited time and resources. I was working on my dissertation. I didn't have all the time in the world. I did what I could to patch it up. Is there an introductory? Is there an introduction, sir? I mean, as there is in Plymouth's book or in English. The translator wrote it. The translator wrote it very well. Well, actually, Albert Lewis wrote a few pages. I mean, that's what I had been asked to do, but I turned it down. Well, because of me, because of you. That's what I was going to say about that. Yeah, yeah. Thank you for your attention. So you could recognize that he was there first, but he accomplished an exotic revelation, and there was no way to recognize what the hell he was. We recognize what the hell he was. Yeah. Yeah.

1:17:30 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, well there's that problem, too, there's the, you know, kind of German and... The question of how to render that into English, that's a legitimate problem with translation. You put it into modern English, it really violates the style of the thing. So you try to iterate a little bit more closely so it sounds more... I don't have an opinion about that. It depends on the purpose, I guess. Sure. Well, I think the most essential thing is the pronounciation. Well, that would be one attitude. That was already before a more cleaner, cleaning up the prose kind of translation. He doesn't respect Eurydice very closely, but tries to get the connection to modern technology. The other approach would be to try to support the original. In the case of Drago, he made some advances that are not even recognized today. So, what are you going to tell us? I'm not sure I'm going to find more, but I thought Lamont's French class was down for a minute. He was buried, so I came here to ask for an answer. My French was not that good, not that I knew French that well, but I just get the impression of reading that I can actually understand some literature. And it's very scholarly, there's a lot of, yeah, it's a 60-60-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50-50. You don't know the answer?

1:20:00 Well, maybe it's slightly better. Is that the... Oh, I'm sorry. I'm very sorry. I apologize. Thank you. What was this 1862 for the later edition of the thing? Well, this was a whole big thing, you see. There was an outcry, how terrible it is that Grouchmont is actually starting to use serious philosophy in writing geometry. But the promise was saying, oh, our readers know nothing about philosophy. How can they possibly, you know, it's the same old refrain. Our readers are ignorant. It's our job to keep them that way. It was already being used by the Leipzig Publisher at that time, and not only the Publisher, but the whole community in general launched this campaign against the idea that the rumor that Drachmann is too difficult was solidly founded and continues to this day, independent of what it really is or not. So, after many years of trying to get his ideas across, Drachmann gave up and turned to Sanskrit. Ah, yes, he translated it. He wrote great Vedas. He wrote grammars, which are still used today. Oh, yeah. The most important figures in history. Just like people like us. Well, I don't know. Well, in fact, there are now meetings in the UK where they monitor mathematics. Oh, yeah, I mean, I've met people like that. So then... But then, of course, we wanted to get back to mathematics, and so we rewrote the whole thing, leaving out the blood, reducing the thing which is called, you know, better for mathematicians, I mean, just like, you know, boys are better than little children or something like that.

1:22:30 So that's the 1862 book. It's taken out a lot of the soul of the thing. I think I'm told it contains a little bit more mathematics than the first one. Like in the case of the original house painting, where it was only going to be volume one and it was far faster than the first work. So I think a little bit more of that plan was created. But then, this book didn't succeed either, in the sense of the market. So, after some years of deciding to promote this book, we finally decided that after all, we wanted to go back to it. So, it was reprinted, well after the 60s. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for watching.