Dear Armin, Meme is simply KQID ψI( CTE), the bits-waves functions of consciousness (C), time (T) and energy (E). This meme ψI( CTE) is living in the i3D of time/space in Lm time of KQID relativity ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) Amen, Leo KoGuan

Dear all.

Wang Yaming's one bit

Fu Xi heaven triagram ☰ as the element that are creative, innovative and proactive forces that gives A bits first, whereas the earth trigram ☷ as the element that are receptive, flowing and reactive forces that takes and converts A into S bits later to complete a cycle. The heaven ☰ is doing the first Giving and the earth ☷ is doing the first Taking: Existence emerges. The act of Giving is the beginning of the Taking and the act of Taking is completing the Giving. The Giving first and Taking later principle is the unity of Wang Yangming's one bit. The Giving and Taking collapse the bits-wave function of Giving and Taking. This collapse of the bits-waves function ψI(CTE) means the breaking of symmetry of the state of equilibrium before the Giving and the state of equilibrium before the Taking. This ψI(CTE) is bits-waves function of consciousness (C), time (T) and energy (E). This ψI(CTE) is one Qbit that can be many as our Multiverse ψτ( iLx,y,z, Lm) as long as it does not violate the conservation laws and ΔS = 0. The breaking of symmetry yield at least one or more bit/s as its manifestation of the creation and distribution of new bit/s. if the Giving and Taking do not yield any bit/s, then the act of Giving is not consummated by the act of Taking, thus, there is no collapse of the bits-waves function and no information gain. See excellent article on information gain hypothesis by Pfister and Wehner, arXiv:1210.0194v3. A bit means information gain. Information gain means the breaking of the symmetry from the act of Giving and Taking consummated in the meeting of the mind as well as the actual Exchange of equal value from the respective giver and taker. (jurisprudence of contract law). The act of Giving andTaking are aborted and not consummated without breaking the symmetry and hereby no information gains. This is the KQID simple mechanism of Creation and Distribution of Everything.

Respectfully,

Leo KoGuan

    Dear Sreenath, I will look at your essay soon. Thanks, Leo KoGuan

    Dear Leo KoGuan,

    Your perception and interpretation of "our" reality touches me.

    There are a lot of paralels with my own perception, only you add the eastern wisdom, while I start from the pre-socratic philosophers.

    When i am reading your KQID it is a vibration that touches me so I would like to ask you to read my earlier articles that are published in the Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, volume 3 Issue 10, november 2012 (in print) you can find it on the Web on http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/265 "A METAPHYSICAL CONCEPT OF CONSCIOUSNESS"

    and

    http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/264 "FOUNDATION OF REALITY: TOTAL SIMULTANEITY"

    Perhaps in the future we will be able to combine the east and the west...

    respectfully

    Wilhelmus

    Dear Wilhelmus,

    You are so kind!

    Yes, I will read and make comments on them. Yes, that would be my pleasure to work with you to combine the East and the West wisdoms into one comprehensive theory that can be falsified and verified, and more importantly that can save our species from extinction. And that can enhance and realize our Ancestor Qbit's dreams and aspirations. That is my dream. That is why I am participating in this FQXI great contest of ideas.

    Yours truly,

    Leo KoGuan

    Dear Leo KoGuan,

    You have made marvelous effort to explain whole of current physics, whether it is quantum physics or classical physics or cosmology on the basis of the concept of KQID and this KQID is having mythological and historical back ground in Chinese philosophy. I appreciate your imagination in this regard. However, I found one similarity in the three elements of Fu Xi heaven trigram (creative, innovative and proactive forces) and the Indian Trinity (3 Gods). These three Gods also do the same job as heaven trigram. The other factor that attracted me is the number 1.776 x 10^14 = A / S and this number is a dimensionless number and it appears in my work on quantum-gravity (QG) and this number, 1.776 x 10^14 = (pi/2) x (G bar / 2G); where G = Newton's gravitational constant = 6.67 x 10^-8 in CGS units, and G bar = 1.5 x 10^7 in CGS units. That is the value of G bar = 1 /G and G bar is the QG constant. You find this in my essay, in previous year's (2012) FQXI essay contest (Questioning the Foundations: Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?, Title of the Essay: The concept of Acceleration in the quantum world is Wrong).

    Thanking you for your very imaginative essay and please go through my essay and post your comments in my thread.

    All the best,

    Sreenath

      Dear Leo,

      I am very glad to see that you know that our conversation here transcends the bounds of this contest. In my opinion, the fact that authors must vote on each other's essays injects a large amount of politics: as a recipient of a compliment, one can not be sure if it is genuine or whether it is meant to just garner a high vote. And if you want to point out a problem in an essay you cannot be sure if this will the other person to retaliate by Down voting your essay. Last year I strongly criticized FQXi for this on their 2012 contest for this, but this year I'm just resigned that since this is their they, they can set the evaluation criteria however they fit, author voting seems to me like a highly misguided approach. You might wonder why I still participated. The answer is already contained in your comment above: when someone wants to introduce a new idea in science, then he will encounter a lot of resistance from people who want to hang on to the "orthodox meme", especially if the new idea is substantially different and the person comes from outside mainstream. For all the flaws with author voting, this contest is still one of the best ways for such people to expose others to their ideas, and it is still possible that useful exchanges and collaborations happen.

      But let me come back to your work: I agree that in science orthodox memes have a limited lifetime. In the western world, Aristotle's lasted for 2000 years until we had a understanding of what science is, Newton's lasted only about 225 years, and who knows how long the current one will last.

      Introducing a new idea is hard enough, but when the conceptual framework goes beyond science as understood by most of its practitioners it may well be impossible. I think that this independent of how much the proponent of the idea has achieved in other areas and how much money/influence/power that person yields.

      Not too long ago, the physics journals were flooded with glossy, pagelong advertisements for "null physics", a theory of everything by Terence Witt. Witt founded a biomedical company and then sold it for about $150M, so he had the resources to carry out a massive advertising campaign. He even became adjunct faculty at a Florida university (I suspect that he made a large donation to the University).

      However, his null physics does not seem to connect to what we already understand, and to my knowledge there is no experiment to test it. As a result, nobody in the physics community takes his theory seriously except when there is the influence of his money.

      I think a way that your situation is very different from his is that I perceive a strong motivation underneath to help people. You say that you want for people to identify with their work, but I think you mean that you want for people to identify with their passions. The reason I think this is because you gave the people who entered this contest as an example, but for (most of) the people participating here is not work, it is the pursuit of their passions. Like you, I think it is great for a person to have at least one passion. It fills life with purpose and meaning. When you pursue something with passion, it is no longer work. So I agree that just helping people to find their passions if they don't already have one is to help them. I can tell that you have a great passion about KQID, but my concern is that if your dream of its receiving scientific recognition and acceptance the way quantum theory and relativity are currently recognized is not realized, then the disappointment about that might also negatively impact your noble goal of helping people.

      Even in this essay contest, I can tell that if there is the prospect of a reward, some people will tell you what they think you want to hear instead of what they really think. I can only imagine that for someone in your position this is magnified manifold. You are obviously a very accomplished, smart and adroit person, but you are still only human. Your enthusiasm and passion for KQID may lead you to give more weight to believing those who think that by telling you that KQID is, say, on the same footing as quantum theory and relativity as a scientific theory, they may gain favors from you. I will give you my honest opinion, even though I think this may not be what you want to hear:

      In order for KQID to be accepted as a fundamental scientific theory of the world, two main requirements need to be met. First, it needs to mathematically connect to our existing theories. Historically, every new theory that came to be accepted by scientists could reproduce the old theories within their own more limited domains. Can you derive the Einstein Field equations or the standard model Lagrangians in the limit in which general relativity and the standard model, respectively? I understand that you see your equation as so much more fundamental that it transcends the field of physics, but if that is really the case, it should be possible to derive this in some limit. That is because if a new theory is inconsistent with an old theory in its domain and an experiment supports the old theory, the new theory will not be accepted. This brings me to the second requirement. You mention that KQID makes testable predictions, but it is not clear to me that the technology is quite there. Is there an experiment that can be done right now to test it? Note, that while it is good if a new theory produces known results, but it is much more compelling if the experiment tests something that has not been tested before, and for which the old theory gives a new prediction from the old one.

      Unless these two requirements are met, I think KQID will suffer the same fate as null physics. In your case I think that would be a pity because the central theme of the associated philosophy of helping people find and pursue their

      passions is something with which I find myself in complete agreement and think would be a valuable contribution to society. That's why I suggested that even though you see KQID as a total package, it might be better to separate out the physics part from the philosophical.

      All the best,

      Armin

      Dear Armin,

      Thanks for the honest advise that I know you are right. I plan to train new young scholars with my system, hopefully they will do well in their respective fields of specialization like physics, economics and law. I do things my own way, this will not change because I don't want to change my style. I let others be themselves and I genuinely respect them and believe they know what are good for them in the long run. If my theory is right and USEFUL in helping our species to survive, our species will find their ways to adopt the idea into their systems within the next 100 years or even longer. They may or may not acknowledge my contributions but ideas get their own ways to find receptive hosts. I do know for sure that my ideas have been very influential already at this moment and shall be even more so in some countries. Ideas ψI(CTE) as bits-waves function are alive embedded with consciousness, time and energy, not self-conscious like human being but in their own ways. Powerful Ideas contain powerful consciousness (C), time (T) and energy(E). KQID also describes Human being as idea/bits that cannot die because, not a single bit shall be deleted in our Multiverse. While alive physically, we are superb evolved being as the direct manifestation/incarnation of our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit. We are vulnerable yes, right now. But we shall live as long as we wish, we cannot die or be killed unless we want to by law. If we die by accident, we can be revived in better condition and form. In some cases, a society will refuse to allow us to die even if we want to or at least his/her memory with his/her idea like Xuan Yuan/Fu Xi/ Einstein/Jesus/ Mohammed/Kongzi/ Buddha/Brahma(idea), etc. simply because these ideas are useful for that society. If not the society of the living will kill those ideas by neglect. This is the law of nature. Those ideas will be in dormant until such time they are needed to rescue the living from a disaster. You see this drama unfolding under our noses everyday. Most people do not consciously aware even thrir own philosophy that govern their every yes and no answer to a challenge/opportunity because they do not need to know but they do know subconsciously that has evolved for billions years on earth or even trillions years in our Multiverse already according to KQID, and they are superb actors because they are our Ancestors Qbit in action. I do have a lot of faith in humanity because we are our Ancestor Qbit in action. Separation between ideas and man is very thin one, since We all are ideas.

      Thanks for your advice and asking stimulating questions as you are the seeker of our species,

      Leo KoGuan

      Professor KoGuan,

      Please forgive me. I am a decrepit old realist. I read your fine essay about the oriental abstract universe twice, may I please make a comment about it? You wrote; "Following Newton's idea of absolute time and space, KQID postulates the absolute digital time T and absolute digital length K L as follows:"

      As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS: The real Universe only deals in absolutes. All information is abstract and all and every abstract part of information is excruciatingly difficult to understand. Information is always selective, subjective and sequential. Reality is not and cannot ever be selective subjective and sequential.

      One (1) real unique Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real "speed" of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.

      Can we Wheeler it sir?

      Is the real Universe simple? Yes.

      Is KQID simple? No.

      I do hope you have good fortune in the competition.

      Joe

      Dear Joe,

      I tried to relate KQID with your idea that everything happens once. At the bottom, everything is simple. We all know that even a simple living system like an amoeba or even our own cell is a complex piece of work that has evolved for billions of years on earth and if KQID is correct that it has evolved for trillions trillions years in our Multiverse. However, the mechanism of creating and distributing of this complex phenomena is simple at the bottom. It is based on what I defined as the Wang Yangming one bit of Giving first and Taking later as the unity of knowledge and action. I only say that KQID agrees with your idea that everything happens only once every absolute digital time T T≤10^-1000seconds. Each T contains all Minkowski events in our Multiverse. In analogy, one may compare it with our heart beat, each our heart beat is unique and only happens once for each beat. The beat itself is repeated if not this unit idea as the living dies. Because without exchanges of bits/ideas taking in the "good" fresh nutrient bits and getting rid of the "bad" waste bits, this living system dies. However, while alive this human lives beat by beat of his heart. Each beat is unique. Each embodies the whole human being with complex bits/atoms arrangements that combines the new and old bits. It is also like our breathing of air, each breath is unique and each breath creates and distribute a unique human being with difference bits arrangement that only happens once every breath. each breath renews and resynchronizes our living system. Each breath is the Giving first and Taking later complex activities. The mechanism of Giving and Taking is simple but the actual activities of Giving and Taking are complex. The process is simple but the outcome in the living is complex. We have known that complexities derived from simplicity.

      Joe, you are not "a decrepit old realist" but you are a great outside of the box thinker. You are a Greek Cynic and a great human being. It is my honor to converse with you. I hope my explanation above satisfies your realist self. I would like to think myself as a realistic dreamer. I believe you are a realistic dreamer because you are in this forum to enlighten all of us. Good work and good fight of ideas. I share your good fight. May you do well in this contest of ideas.

      Best wishes,

      Leo KoGuan

        Dear Leo KoGuan,

        Thanks for your response to my comments on your fine essay and I am eager to hear your full comments on my essay. I too would like to rate your imaginative and empirically minded essay with equal favor.

        sincerely,

        Sreenath

        Hello Leo KoGuan,

        Your theory sound interesting. Can you use KQID to answer these 4 questions:

        "If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...

        1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

        2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

        3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

        Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

        4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

        Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

        Best regards,

        Akinbo

          Honorable Professor KoGuan,

          I am deeply gratified by the exemplary graciousness of your reply to my comment. To know that you agree with me that my assessment of reality as being unique, once is extremely important to me. Respectfully sir, real unique, once cannot be complex and it cannot have evolved. Abstraction is not unique, which is why abstraction can appear more than once and only abstraction can evolve. The only thing the physicists appear to me to be doing is cannibalizing each other's quantum ideas.

          To all, I repost this comment here.

          Dear Carlo,

          You are my model in doing theoretical physics especially your relationship interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. You made a bold declaration: "I suggest that this incorrect notion is the notion of observer-independent state of a system (or observer-independent values of physical quantities). I reformulate the problem of the "interpretation of quantum mechanics" as the problem of deriving the formalism from a few simple physical postulates. I consider a reformulation of quantum mechanics in terms of information theory. All systems are assumed to be equivalent, there is no observer-observed distinction, and the theory describes only the information that systems have about each other; nevertheless, the theory is complete." arXiv:quant-ph/9609002v2 Magnifico! I salute you.

          I love and in full agreement with what you wrote below and I quote: "And Democritus uses then a powerful metaphor: like twenty letters of an alphabet can be combined in innumerable manners to give rise to comedies or tragedies, similarly the atoms can be combined in innumerable manners to give rise to the innumerable phenomena of the world....Not so after the discovery of quantum theory. If we measure the energy of a harmonic oscillator and we obtain the result that this is between E1 and E2, (in KQID E1 = A (pc) and E2 = S(mc^2)) then there is only a finite number of possible values that the energy can have. This is given by the area of the region of phase space included between the two surfaces E1 and E2, divided by the Planck constant.... The statue that Aristotle wants to be made of more than atoms, is indeed made by more than atoms: it is something that pertains to the interaction between the stone and brain of Aristotle, or ours....To go back to Democritus metaphor: atoms are like an alphabet, but an immense alphabet so rich to be capable of reading itself and thinking itself. With Democritus worlds: "The Universe is change, life is opinion that adapt it- self".

          KQID conceptualizes Erosverse interpretation that is similar to yours as quoted above except that KQID is based on transaction of Giving first Taking later to create and distribute Wang Yaming's bits that encompasses the relationships of core-self with self, family, community, mankind and Multiverse. In this worldview interpretation, Existence including our Multiverse, us and our God/s are properly pregnant within. In KQID, everything emerges from one singularity Qbit Multiverse that projects Einstein complex coordinates( Einstein triangles similar to Pythagorean triangles) on the event horizon of our Multiverse as Minkowski Null geodesics Lm in zeroth dimension that instantaneously project those coordinates in the bulk ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) as the KQID relativity Multiverse. In brief: All things are one Qbit. As a bonus, KQID calculates the dark energy of our Multiverse 1.523 x 10-153Pm/Pv. and how many bits are they in our Multiverse 6.3 x 10^153 bits. I believe the only theory out there that has done so.

          Other examples, pertaining to our universe: KQID estimates the first burst of the Bit Bang rather than the Big Bang, with the temperature of about 7.8 x10^126K within 1.43478x10^-147 seconds with the first wavelength λ of the Bit Bang = 1.43478x10^-147 s x c = 4.3x10^-139 meter. These numbers are far higher and lower than the existing standard model. KQID predicts and calculates when our universe will collapse, rather than forever expanding based on the existing model. KQID predicts that when A = S, our universe will inevitably start its contraction and acceleration into a Bit Crush, rather than a Big Crush, hundreds of trillion years sometimes later.

          Here is KQID Wang Yaming's one bit

          Fu Xi heaven triagram ☰ as the element that are creative, innovative and proactive forces that gives A bits first, whereas the earth trigram ☷ as the element that are receptive, flowing and reactive forces that takes and converts A into S bits later to complete a cycle. The heaven ☰ is doing the first Giving and the earth ☷ is doing the first Taking: Existence emerges. The act of Giving is the beginning of the Taking and the act of Taking is completing the Giving. The Giving first and Taking later principle is the unity of Wang Yangming's one bit. The Giving and Taking collapse the bits-wave function of Giving and Taking. This collapse of the bits-waves function ψI(CTE) means the breaking of symmetry of the state of equilibrium before the Giving and the state of equilibrium before the Taking. This ψI(CTE) is bits-waves function of consciousness (C), time (T) and energy (E). This ψI(CTE) is one Qbit that can be many as our Multiverse ψτ( iLx,y,z, Lm) as long as it does not violate the conservation laws and ΔS = 0. The breaking of symmetry yield at least one or more bit/s as its manifestation of the creation and distribution of new bit/s. if the Giving and Taking do not yield any bit/s, then the act of Giving is not consummated by the act of Taking, thus, there is no collapse of the bits-waves function and no information gain. See excellent article on information gain hypothesis by Pfister and Wehner, arXiv:1210.0194v3. A bit means information gain. Information gain means the breaking of the symmetry from the act of Giving and Taking consummated in the meeting of the mind as well as the actual Exchange of equal value from the respective giver and taker. (jurisprudence of contract law). The act of Giving andTaking are aborted and not consummated without breaking the symmetry and hereby no information gains. This is the KQID simple mechanism of Creation and Distribution of Everything. For example, the FAPAMA Qbit exchanges among the Giving first photons A and Taking later gravitons S that gives electron its mass and the interaction among photons A gives electron its activities. The interactions between electrons and protons/neutrons give rise to atoms, and so on.

          KQID FAPAMA Qbit unifies Democritus's bit/qbit worldview, Plato's Idea and Aristotle's form that you mentioned in your essay.

          Can you kindly comment on my relationships/transactional of Giving first Taking later principle as the origin of Existence as stated above?

          Thanks for your superb contribution in this forum and I rate it accordingly. If you have time please comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time.

          Thanks,

          Leo KoGuan

          view post as summary

          Dear Joe,

          If I may use the great Carlo Rovelli's metaphor from Democritus atom below( see my post to Carlo below): "To go back to Democritus metaphor: atoms are like an alphabet, but an immense alphabet so rich to be capable of reading itself and thinking itself." That what I envision of our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit is as the immensely infinite alphabet Qbit that contains all consciousness out there from the beginning to now and what Qbit will be. The Qbit is self aware of its constant state of being every absolute digital time T ≤ 10^-1000 seconds. Each T is the Democritus-Rovelli alphabet that contains Existence including itself, it is conscious and alive with energy in time or in KQID symbols ψI(CTE) as the bits-waves function of consciousness(C), time (T) and energy (E) that is capable not only reading and thinking itself but also doing itself! We think, talk and make love. The alphabet looks static but if it is conscious with energy with infinite time; Existence emerges and we are that Qbit in action. Again you cannot tell nature what to do, nature does in infinite ways, it cannot be limited by anything including itself! Yes, Qbit cannot limit Qbit. Is this Hume's not all too powerful being but an infinite being that is limited by its own infinity nature and by its own conservation laws. Yes, it is. We are also for example infinite beings in finite forms. We are wonderfully powerful being subject to conservation laws. We are becoming more powerful in time and shall be physically immortal beings once we can manipulate the conservation laws to reach a critically advance level like singularity technology as envision by the great visionary Ray Kurzweil. My dear friend, facts are still facts despite of being observed and interpreted by our subjective minds. Facts change every T. This "once" evolves to become whatever and whoever we are. Unless you deny the different between you and a starstuff. Unless you deny who you are as a complex human being who brilliantly deduced from facts that everything happens once. Yours "once" and each "once" is a complex Democitus-Rovelli alphabet when you were once either in the womb of your kind mother or in this world once in a lone journey within yours erosverse reality.

          Amen,

          Leo KoGuan

          Dear Professor KoGuan,

          I do not quite see it your way. Please forgive me. There is no logic to unique, once. All information must contain logic, which forces everybody to conform to logic at the expense of reality. I cannot see how I could possibly think that I could "know" more about reality than a real sparrow or a real lettuce could "know." All a sparrow has to "know" is how to be a sparrow. All a lettuce has to "know" is how to be a lettuce. Reality has to be simple, otherwise, it would be impossible for the sparrow and the lettuce to exist. Science cannot answer any simple question. For instance, where does here begin and end? Where does there begin and end? When does now start and stop? When does then start and stop? Scientists do not "know" There is no experiment that they could conduct that would tell them.

          Joe

          Dear Joe,

          I admire your simple but powerful idea that everything happens once which I agree that everything happens once at every T-moment, but after that we differ as you put it to rest well, "I do not quite see it your way". I do believe strongly that we must encourage diversity of opinions/theories. Because uniformity of opinion is a heat-death state of thermodynamic equilibrium tantamount to Schrodinger's defunct bumblebee. Let us celebrate symphonies of ideas. Let 1000 flowers of bumblebee's thought bloom and prosper.

          Best wishes,

          Leo KoGuan

          I rather be a bumblebee poet than not to be.

          Dear KoGuan Leo,

          For your kind reference the number 1.77649 x 10^14 or 177.649 trillion, was found on a clay in Nivea (Iran) dating back to many thousand years and being the largest ancient number to be found. You can Google it to know more about it. So this number has some meaning. I also told you in my posting in your thread why this particular number is interesting.

          Regards,

          Sreenath

          Dear Sreenath,

          Thanks for your wonderful suggestion, I need to read and comment again your excellent essay this weekend. You mentioned a clay in Nivea (Iran) and its incredibly mysterious 1.77649 x 10^14 numbers and your last year article found the same numbers are so interesting. I am grateful that you pointed it out to me and I shall carefully study them. I am sorry for the delay. We shall converse later.

          Best regards,

          Leo KoGuan

          Dear KoGuan Leo,

          Thanks for your kind comments and rating. I quite agree with you when you say that knowledge is monism, because that is the basic philosophy behind my whole argument of unifying all the four forces in physics in the form of QG thus agreeing with your concept of KUID. In fact in my 2011 fqxi essay contest, that is, "Is reality digital or analog?" I based my essay on QG on the Indian philosophy of "Advaitha", literally meaning non-dualism or monism. If you need any clarifications regarding this, please, contact me. I am too going to rate your essay much more favorably.

          Best regards,

          Sreenath