Ard A. Louis

Oxford Centre for Soft and Biological Matter

Condensed Matter Theory Group

Rudolph Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics

Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford

ArXiv: Extracting short-ranged interactions from structure factors, 2012

. . . . . Generalization bounds for deep learning (PDF), with Guillermo Valle-Pérez, Dec. 2020

CV

Homepage (another)

Wikipedia

YouTube: George Ellis & Ard Louis, Top-Down Causation (many other videos)

. . . . . . 2020 Physics Colloquium: Why the world is simple

Within this website: https://81018.com/empower/ and https://81018.com/empower/#Louis

Most recent email: 21 June 2021

Dear Prof. Dr. Ard Louis:

I am circling back through your work so you’ll see your image along with seven others at the top of the homepage: https://81018.com/ The URL when not a homepage is: https://81018.com/empower/ I am particularly enamored with your December 2020 work with Guillermo Valle-Pérez regarding the *Generalization bounds for deep learning*.

There is a paragraph about that work under “References.” Yes, it is still being developed and is still an early draft.

Other scholars will be directed to it. If you object, I can easily remove the reference to you. If it needs updating or correction, please advise me. I’ll update it as expeditiously as possible. Thanks so much.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. My primary reference page to your work is here: https://81018.com/2017/01/05/louis/

Third email: Sunday, December 29, 2019 @ Noon

Dear Prof. Dr. Ard Louis:

You are a real scholar and stand among the greats. To help me understand such scholarship, I have developed a summary page about your work here: https://81018.com/2017/01/05/louis/ (this page)

Then, there are rest of us who just might have an idea in our old age yet must beg the favor of a reply. As you can see, I have been asking for a modicum of advice for over eight years now, and receive very little. Of course, the greats have very little time, especially for those of us who are idiosyncratic. Notwithstanding, I would dearly like to know what my failures of simple logic and simple mathematics have been before I die.

Might you help me? Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

Second email: Thursday, June 28, 2018, 10:24 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Ard Louis:

I have enjoyed your forthright defense of the faith. Potentially another dimension of the debate could be the natural inflation of the universe from the Planck base units using an application of base-2 exponentiation to encapsulate the universe within 202 notations: https://81018.com/emergence

Of course, your comments on this most idiosyncratic construct are most welcomed.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

`First email: Thursday, January 5, 2017, 4:16 PM`

Dear Prof. Dr. Ard A. Louis:

My brother-in-law introduced me to you through your interview with Eric Metaxas (who talks a lot to get to a question); and while listening to your interview, I went to your home page and to several of your ArXiv articles. You’ve done a lot of very good work in a very short time! Congratulations.

I have only one key question for you; and like Eric, I will probably take too much time to get to it.

I was helping out in our family’s private high school in New Orleans (geometry classes, December 2011). We used tetrahedrons and octahedrons to tile and tessellate the universe (unwittingly re-exploring Aristotle 1800-year old mistake regarding nested and combinatorial geometry).

Out of that work came a surprisingly simple model of the universe. We used base-2 exponentiation starting with the Planck base units and went out to the Age of the Universe, perhaps called, the Now. Of course, it is very similar to the base-10 work of Kees Boeke in 1957 in Holland.

That chart of our numbers was made horizontal in April 2016: https://81018.com/chart

The first 67 notations, we’ve dubbed the Planck scale and the small-scale universe. The next scale, notations 67 to 134, we considered the human scale. It begins at the CERN-scale with the Higgs, fermions, etc. and goes up to chemical scale (80-90) and into the biological scale (90-100) and then into things, people, and city-states. Then, from notations 134 to 201, we entered the large-scale universe. It all seemed like an excellent STEM tool, a secondary school program to encourage involvement within Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM).

But something unusual happened when we applied Planck Time to the chart in December 2014. We could easily follow the first second of the universe, up and between notation 143 and 144. And, then we began thinking about the big bang, natural inflation, and all kinds of topics well over our heads.

It seemed like our chart was simulating the big bang without a bang! Excuse me please that my writing is certainly not ArXiv quality.

**Key Question**: Do you think it could be worth the time to attempt to get a few of our papers into an ArXiv format or are these concepts just too general and idiosyncratic?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

*************

Bruce Camber

http://81018.com

PS. We have certainly enjoyed the work of Cambridge/Oxford colleague, Jonathan P. K. Doye, over the years.