First email: Feb 11, 2022, 3:53 PM Updated and resent: May 20, 2022
Dear Prof. Dr. Michèle Vergne:
There is nothing easy about automorphic forms as developed within Langlands programs. I backed into my on-going study through Edward Frenkel’s wonderful book, Love & Math. When we needed help and he was not available, we rather naively turned to the only other person we knew within this field, Robert Langlands.
Like all scholars at the top of their work, there is very little time for neophytes. Yet, it may take naive questions to open new paths.
We are not asking just any questions. Our focus is on infinity, space-time, pi and spheres.
Process studies. With Wikipedia, Google, and questions, we quickly learned that the Langland programs do not require any definition of infinity and there is no necessary working relation between their programs and infinity and spheres. Automorphic forms jump over continuity and symmetry and are a generalization of periodic functions.
Are we missing too much? Are there unique footings to discover within the facets of continuity and symmetry? We use base-2 notation and start with a concept like Planck Time whereby the universe is parsed from the beginning of time to this day such that there are 202 notations or doublings to consider. By jumping into periodic functions, it appears to me that Langlands programs start within Notations-65-to-67. I think there is too much conceptual richness left unexplored within Notations-0-to-65.
Within our model, Langlands automorphic forms begin to be defined within the first ten notations. There is plenty of room for their number theory to work its magic, yet it will be even more magical when their number theory engages infinity, pi (π) and spheres, and the very nature of space-time.
Would you give us a quick head slap if we are egregiously wrong? We started our trek into these waters back in 2011 within a New Orleans high school. Thanks.