Quick follow-up: Jan 10, 2023, 5:48 PM

Dear Emeritus Professor Dr. Richard H. Lavine:

I so hoped to hear from you, but an article like the one you published in 1969 puts you in a rare category. Did you happen to receive my note from Jan 2, 2023, 12:57 PM? Do you still follow email?

Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

First email:  Mon, Jan 2, 12:57 PM

AMS: Research partially supported by NSF grant GP-6948

Dear Emeritus Professor Dr. Richard H. Lavine:

For our 1999 we actually manufactured thousands of perfect clear plastic models of the tetrahedron and octahedron. Over the years I gifted John Conway, Frank Wilczek and hundreds of others with these models with those simple interior parts. In 2012, we applied base-2 notation to Planck’s base units because we had walked down inside those two basic structures 112 steps to the Planck Length. We then walked out to the edge of the universe in another 90 doublings. 

It was a lot to take in: https://81018.com/chart/

Three years later we walked back down with Planck Time and finally with the other Planck base units. The 90 steps out were always mind-boggling. We naively decided that these were the most inclusive continuity equations until we began to consider pi and the trillions of places out the supercomputers have now taken us. 

In trying to justify an inclusion of an entry of “Pi continuity”  within Wikipedia’s definitions of continuity, I came to your article. 

Might you help me? You are a scholar. Should the continuity of pi, a wonderful mystery, be part of the definition of continuity? I think so. Would you agree?

Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce