TO: Christopher John Budd, Professor of Applied Mathematics, Director of the Centre of Nonlinear Mechanics, Bath Institute for Mathematical Innovation (IMI), University of Bath, Bath, England
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your many homepage(s): Bath, CV, Twitter, Wikipedia, YouTube: Maths is Coded in Your Genes
This page URL: https://81018.com/2018/09/16/budd/
Third email: 24 February 2026 (updated)
Dear Prof. Dr. Christopher Budd:
Six major AI systems — Claude (Anthropic), Grok (xAI), ChatGPT (OpenAI), Gemini (Google DeepMind), Perplexity, and DeepSeek — all concur.
We asked each of them, “Is Synthetic Peer Review (SPR) specified precisely enough, and consistently enough, to be worth your expert attention?” No systematic method existed to answer it. When augmented with precise structural specification, quantitative extraction, negative controls, and adversarial stability testing, SPR provides a reproducible method for evaluating structural coherence in theoretical proposals before formal submission.
Synthetic peer review has been applied to the 202.34 base-2 notations from the Planck time to the current time and the results are in. It’s a viable methodology.
I thought you would want to know. Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
PS. My page about your work on our website: https://81018.com/2018/09/16/budd/ –BEC
Second email: 24 January 2024 (updated)
Dear Prof. Dr. Christopher Budd:
Impressive work. All of us would have benefited if we had you as a professor. There surely would be more math majors; and, as an academic community, we might have made more progress and fewer mistakes.
Somebody was visiting our page about your work yesterday. Although I remembered your name, I was having trouble remembering what had attracted me to your work that prompted my note to you and a page on our website. Most often I stop and review that scholar’s work and do some updating of our page. It’s a good exercise in the morning. So, I am back on your homepage, thinking about Bath, England and our Bath, Maine (an idyllic little community not far from my Mom’s birthplace and where my grandfather worked — Bath Iron Works – shipbuilders).
I now know it was your mathematics of genes that attracted me; today, I would be more attracted to your work with Mathias Ehrhardt within your project, “Mathematics of Deep Learning.” I will try to dig deeper to find some of that work online. My affections are for the “simplicity” of pi (π). My most recent writing about it is here: https://81018.com/star-formation/#Summary
I know how idiosyncratic that work is. It all started very naively in a high school geometry class: https://81018.com/home/ Of course, I would thoroughly enjoy hearing from you.
I know that you would be a hard critic but I have received a few “F’s” and weather them well! It prepares one’s ego for deeper learning.
Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
First email: Sunday, September 16, 2018 (updated)
RE: More than our genes and DNA, math encodes everything, everywhere, for all time…
Dear Prof. Chis John Budd:
In our high school in New Orleans (USA), we applied base-2 to the Planck base units and mapped the universe to its current expansion in just 202 notations or doublings. We thought it was a marvelous STEM tool until we started studying the first 64-to-67 notations. It seems like a transition from that which can only be measured mathematically-and-logically to that which is “measurable physicality.”
http://81018.com is our relatively new website for our work.
So when you say, “Maths is coded in your Genes,” we not only agree, we say, “Mathematics is encoded in everything, everywhere, for all time; and along the way, we’ll discover how it redefines time!” I thought you might find our work to be of interest, albeit quite idiosyncratic:
> A story behind the story is here: https://81018.com/home/
> Our chart of numbers is here: https://81018.com/chart/ (scrolls horizontally)
It all started with a discussion about Zeno’s paradox and a challenge to touch the Planck Wall. Because it was a geometry class and we were digging down inside what we call the tetrahedral-octahedral complex , we also discovered the 7.356103172+ degree gap with just five tetrahedrons or with just five icosahedrons. We probably go much too far with our generalizations; we are not scholars, yet excited to be learning so many new things!
Embedded web links:
The tetrahedral-octahedral complex: http://81018.com/tot-2/
The 7.356103172+ degree gap: https://81018.com/number/#Pentastar
It is endlessly fascinating to me, and I would be delighted with your quick assessment even if it is harsh! Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce