TO: Peter Woit, Not Even Wron (Columbia University. New York City, NY)
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Homepage
Scientific American: Why String Theory Is Still Not Even Wrong (June 2017)

Second email: 6 April 2025

Dear Peter:

Seven years ago, we weren’t saying enough to be not even wrong. Today, we might be…

You are familiar with the four irrational numbers. What if the four can be related at the beginning, within the tetrahedron’s octahedron? …Planck Time? Here a link — https://81018.com/symphony/

What if Langlands needs it? What if it gives strings access!?! How about others outside grid?

Perhaps you will find it interesting enough to respond!

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. I’ll add the first paragraph below so you can more easily skip of your not interested. –BEC

First email: Aug 30, 2018, 6:25 PM

We are still at it, Peter. I thoroughly enjoyed your Hossenfelder review.
She is such a character. But, you are, too. As for me, I am just a bore.

BTW, we are still quite open to getting punched in the nose — Not even wrong! Baez likes that
expression. He probably stole it from you. At least you give credit to Wolfgang Pauli.

Notwithstanding, we are applying for a grant so we can pay people to punch us in the nose!
The irony of today… http://81018.com/critical_review is the page for it.

You could be a professional reviewer of the data for some of the notations! Why not?
I think you’d be perfect for 64-80. Here’s a sample for #67, an early draft.
The others are to be written.

-Bruce

###