# Alexandre V. Borovik

School of Mathematics

University of Manchester

Manchester M13 9PL United Kingdom

**Articles**: “A Dialogue on Infinity” “From here to infinity”

**ArXiv**: Calling a spade a spade: Mathematics in the new pattern of division of labour (2014)

**Books**: Shadows of Truth, Mathematics under the Microscope (**PDF**)

**CV**: https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/alexandre.borovik/AVBorovik-CV.pdf

**Homepage** https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/alexandre.borovik/

Talks on Mathematics (**PDF**): See pages 2-7

First email: 3 October 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Alexandre V. Borovik:

If I were young again looking to pickup where I had left off, I would beg for your mercy and ask if I could come to learn from you. So much of your scholarship (writing and thinking) attracts my sensibilities.

Making reference in footnote #4 within *Calling a spade a spade* (PDF – 2014), to the Moscow Center for Continuous Mathematics Education, where the emphasis is on the word “continuous” perhaps we should broaden their scope to suggest, the most important bridge to close the gap is from the university to the grave. Yet, that gap requires special motivation and goals which centers of learning do not themselves grasp very well. I think your work in combinatorics, group theory, and model theory hold the secrets. And, if I were young again, I would condition my application to study with you, that you accept the circumstances and history that I bring with me.

That is, in 2011 with my high school classes of geometers, we walked with Zeno back inside the tetrahedron, slicing each edge in half and connecting those new vertices. Four smaller tetrahedrons in each corner and an octahedron in the middle, we kept slicing. The octahedron rendered six smaller octahedrons, one in each corner and eight tetrahedrons, one in each face, and all share a common centerpoint (https://81018.com/tot/). In just 45 steps we were down within the electrons. In another 67 steps, going further within, we were hitting the Planck Wall. We tried, but could not slice and dice the Planck Length!

But, being on a roll, we took our Planck units began multiplying by 2, ostensibly checking our work as we went back up the scale. In 112 steps, we were in our classroom, and in another 90 steps were were out on the edge of the universe, watching the current expansion.

Now coming up on eight years later, we are still wondering, “What is wrong with our math and logic? What are we doing wrong?”

So, loaded with such an agenda and with a sweet, horizontally-scrolled chart of the universe in 202 notations — https://81018.com/chart/ — and all kind of pages on the web asking questions and making wild-and-crazy postulations and speculations — https://81018.com/index/ — I’d come knocking on your door.

Alerted beforehand, I would expect there would be no answer. If the door opened, I would expect within minutes to be turned away, “Such a silly proposition.”

From Hawking to Penrose, from Ashtekar to Zichichi, from Ada Yonath to Steven Weinberg, the doors rarely open and they all close rather quickly. I ask myself, “Is my logic so flawed, and so simply flawed, and I so stupid not to see, that no one should even waste one’s time to respond?” That seems to be the message to date. In 2013 John Baez responded to my note that the concept was idiosyncratic. He is oh so right, but that does not make it wrong. It also doesn’t make it right.

Thank you for your scholarship and for stimulating the scholarship of others. I am on your webpages, making notes — https://81018.com/borovik — to attempt to begin fine-tuning my most recent attempt to understand the basics: https://81018.com/formula

Thanks again for all that you do.

Warmly,

Bruce