Le 29-avr.-08, à 13:40, Brian Tenneson a écrit :

> Thanks, Bruno.  Feedback from you is quite valuable.
> I vaguely recall mentioning somewhere online that I am attempting to 
> give a contributed talk at this conference:
> http://www.mat.unisi.it/~latd2008/
> I mainly need something to get my foot in the door.  Now since April 
> 30th is my deadline, I'd rather simply drop conjecture 1 than 
> investigate it between now and the deadline.
> So, if I remove conjecture 1 and all mentions of the CRH....would that 
> help improve this abstract's "acceptability" in your opinion as far as 
> that conference is concerned?
> Here is a version with conjecture 1 gone, to be investigated later.
> http://www.universalsight.org/conference_abstract/00-00-06.pdf

In my opinion it is far better. (Hope you will see the CRH point one 
day). If you would have more time, I would have suggested some attempt 
to relate shortly the intuition which makes you relating Tegmark's MUH 
and your algebraïcal hypotheses (insisting perhaps on Mundici's work). 
The conference being quite open on Algebra and technics/philosophy, you 
could raise some interest. In any case it is worth to try. It's also a 
good idea to add some references notably on Tegmark and Mundici.

Best wishes,



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to