On following the work of Minhyong Kim

Minhyong Kim, Christopher Zeeman Professor of
Algebra, Geometry & Public Understanding of Mathematics
, University of Warwick
Warwickshire, England UK

ArXiv (38): A note on abelian arithmetic BF-theory (PDF), 2019
•  Diophantine geometry and non-abelian reciprocity laws I (2015)
Homepage(s): ICSM, Oxford, Warwick, Bloomsbury Journal, WordPress

YouTube: Connecting Number Theory to Physics, 2017

Pages within this site: Boundaries, Limits: Smallest-Largest

Most recent email: 25 March 2022 at 7:13 PM 

Dear Prof. Dr. Minhyong Kim:

Congratulations (I hope) on your move to Warwick. I have been thinking about boundaries and began thinking about my earlier notes to you and wondered again if you have ever considered the Planck scale as a proper boundary to define the first moment of space and time. If so, why? If not, why not?

I have updated our pages about your work and my notes here: https://81018.com/kim/ (this page)

I wish you well with your new work and home.

Most sincerely,


PS. Let’s talk. It’s a little tricky but toward the end of your work day, I am still quite active! -BEC

Second email: 23 January 2019

Dear Prof. Dr. Minhyong Kim:

Can we take as a given the following:

  1. The Planck base units of length, time, mass and charge describe a real reality.
  2. Those units concresce (grow together) to create a stream of infinitesimal spheres.  Though unable to be measured by instruments (length/time are well below thresholds for measurement), the mass/charge units can be studied.

Sphere stacking becomes cubic-closest packing; tetrahedrons and octahedrons emerge. Doublings beginOur universe begins to emerge. Their numbers eventually begin to define things within our current scientific realitiesThis is a natural inflationAnd, it’s not dark.

Using that construction this universe, from the first moment in time until this moment in time, is outlined within 202 base-2 notations (progressive doublings) of the Planck base units.The model begins at the Planck scale and goes to the Age of the Universe today.1

This model, by definition, contains everything, everywhere, and for all time.This model is 100% predictive (mathematical), logical and apparently rational.

The first 64 notations, an infinitesimal universe below our thresholds for measurement, have never been studied per se by academics, scholars or scientists. Notwithstanding, these base-2 numbers of the Planck units tell many stories.

This simple model appears to be able to absorb discoveries since 1927 when Georges Lemaître proposed his theory of a primeval atom.2That work became big bang cosmology.

This model opens time symmetry; Max Planck redefined the very nature of light-space-time but big bang cosmology blocked our view of it.

And that opens my questions about boundaries:
1. Are space and time boundaries? I think probably not. They are relations, necessary relations (concepts), a Janus-face of each other, the manifestations of light. They are always dynamic and,  to create boundaries require numbers. However, Planck Time and Planck Length appear to represent real boundaries, especially within our infinitesimal universe. On one side is physicality and the other, the infinite.

2. Is the most simple expression of physicality the sphere?  If so, sphere stacking becomes an important study to discern the nature of a doubling and each doubling represents a boundary.  

3. Is this the natural inflation of our universe? If the universe is expanding because of these doublings, and a progression of doublings, there are natural boundary conditions between each notation.

There are 202 base-2 notations from the Planck scale to the current age of the universe and size of the universe: https://81018.com/chart are natural and a natural inflation: https://81018.com/doublings/ and https://81018.com/emergence/. I’ll continue working on these three sentences.

Would you help me shape them properly?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,


 First email: 10 December 2017

References: https://81018.com/2017/12/10/question-kim/

Research comments by John C. Baez

Dear Prof. Dr. Minhyong Kim:

You are a rock star within mathematics and perhaps the Pope of number theory. I am a nobody from nowhere special. But, I fantasized about having your answers to a set of questions: https://81018.com/2017/12/10/question-kim/
I have been trying to answer these questions myself for many years now, but I am not confident of my conclusions given my lack of deep knowledge.

Most sincerely,


@KSHartnett Thank you for this introduction to Kim’s work. As a response, I asked a series of naive questions — https://81018.com/2017/12/10/question-kim/  — which in an ideal world I would ask you or Prof. Dr. Kim to answer!