# We need to understand the simple things first.

Austin, Texas:  Nothing comes easy. An old mentor often said to me, “Let’s go over that one more time. We are missing something.”  It is so true. We so quickly think we know something even though we have barely scratched the surface.

Multiplication by 2 is such a thing, “Easy. Got it. Let’s move on,” until some chessboard guru asks, “What’s 264 power?” and then we begin to learn all the stories about the Wheat and Chessboard [1].  We marvel at those numbers [2] and the nature of exponential notation [3], then conclude, “Now we can move on.” Not so fast. First, consider the meaning of 2202 power. Within these numbers we begin to discover a mathematically-integrated model of the universe [4].

Now, that could be a real step forward. It creates the boundary conditions from the smallest to the largest and it begins to define relations between every step. Here we may have backed into John Wheeler’s 1986 dream, “…an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it — in a decade, a century, or a millennium – we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?” [5]

Robert Langlands, Edward Frenkel, and a cadre of scholars… There are so many really smart people in this world. They write voluminously and get invited to speak around the world. Yet, their language is specialized and there is little an outsider can quickly understand by reading their articles in ArXiv or by listening to their videos on YouTube. We can try, but there is nothing easy about it.

There are hundreds of scholars whose insights I seek to understand. Robert Langlands and his conjectures (called programs) are high on my list [6]. His conjectures have proved helpful to many mathematicians, yet he writes for the best of our mathematicians and surely not for people who love simple things.  He’s a serious guy, so I am very grateful for people like Edward Frenkel who tries hard to introduce the rest of us to Langlands’ larger concepts.  He really wants us to understand this emerging discipline.  In 2013, I read Frenkel’s book, Love & Math [7] and just recently I re-engaged both Langlands and Frenkel to see if they just might be missing some simple things like the first 60+ (of the 202) notations that give definition and a simple structure to the study of our universe.

Physics rather quickly writes off those first 60+ steps as being much too small to define their seed structures. And, they are right, but nothing is too small for mathematics. And if it all begins in some sense at the Planck scale, then let’s try to see the universe as the Planck scale just might possibly see it. [8]

The entire enterprise of the Langlands people (and of most of his colleagues at the Institute for Advanced Studies) is to grasp a more basic understanding of reality and our universe. But ever so quickly these scholars jump into an esoteric discussion about automorphic forms [9]; it begs the question, “What are we missing? Let’s go over this one more time.”

And, we will.  Over the next few years, we’ll try to learn a little about Langlands and his programs because it is my belief that this math begins to emerge within the first block of ten steps or doublings or notations pictured just above on the right.

## Endnotes:

[1] Wheat & Chessboard story: https://81018.com/wheat-chessboard/
https://81018.com/exponential-universe/#Chess
There are many variations of this story and they are all good to learn.
[2] Scroll down to the eighth row: https://81018.com/2017/11/10/chessboard/
These numbers tell a very important story. Here the same progression tells us that we are all related within just 33 generations.
[3] Exponential Universe: https://81018.com/exponential-universe/
It was only with this document that I finally stepped back from the trees to look at the forest and it was abundantly clear, “The universe is an exponential notation machine!”
[4] The mathematically-integrated picture of the universe: https://81018.com/chart
Of course, this chart has had a slow progression from December 2011. It is a very incomplete, working document that probably will be updated on my dying day!
[5] First used in 2015 to introduce a posting, A Simple View of the Universe. This quote by John Archibald Wheeler gives me hope. All scientists, philosophers and theologians who have said that the ultimate model must be simple and beautiful have influenced me throughout my life.
[6] The page on the emails to Robert Langlands has many references to his work since 1965: https://81018.com/langlands
[7] The page on the emails to Frenkel has numerous references to his excellent book, Love & Math: https://81018.com/2013/10/13/frenkel/
[8] There are two articles that look at the Planck universe: https://81018.com/planck_universe and https://81018.com/number/
[9] The first chart of the 202 notations was big and awkward: https://81018.com/home  The next attempt was a Universe Table. The plan was to have three. The first column of the Human Scale chart — https://81018.com/table/ — is displayed on the right. It is a series of guesses in 2014 starting with Plato; I was just learning about automorphic forms. Wikipedia’s explanation is still barely penetrable ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automorphic_form ).  Notwithstanding, by the time we finish with this analysis, we will have tried to pull it out of the language of the specialists.

## More Analysis

By moving your cursor over HOME on the top navigation bar, there is a drop down of all the postings throughout the year.  The current post and two recent prior posts also help guide us through the maze of this website:

## The Sequels

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.