Upon following the work of Yuxi Fu in Shanghai

Yuxi Fu, Department of Computer Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University

Symmetric π-calculus, Yuxi Fu,  Journal of Computer Science and Technology V.13, pages 202–208 (1998)

Second email: 28 December 2022 at

Dear Prof. Dr. Yuxi Fu:

In the Thesis for Interaction (2021) you open with a quote from David Deutsch who suggests that our current theories of computation are too abstract because that are based on “pure” logic and mathematics that has nothing to do with physical processes. I would challenge David on his definition of very nature of physicality, “Are the Planck base units physical?” I think we would all agree that they are.

That begs the next question about nature of a “value-passing communication mechanism.” What might be some of the functional mechanisms for an information exchange communication?“, an initial discussion about which I found in Section 5, Conclusion and Variations, page 208, J. of Comput. Sci. & Tech. V1.13, 1998.

Today, right now, I am of the mind that the essence of information doesn’t exist in the finite; it is all contained with an infinite universe defined by continuity, symmetry and harmony. It doesn’t exist in the physicality of the computer, but in the mind of the participant or a dynamic equation. The finite-infinite relation is always and it is always dynamic. That would change the nature of the equations. Assuredly, the initial conditions would not be defined by big bang cosmology.

I’ll continue my path through your works and may change my mind, but wanted to again thank you for your work and for causing me to go over it all just one more time.

Warm regards,


First email: 27 December 2022 at 7:36 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Yuxi Fu:

Your article, Symmetric π-calculus, 1998, was the first to come to my attention. It prompts me to ask you, “Could continuity, symmetry, and harmony be a proper description of the functional nature of pi?”  I am now studying the references within your website, https://basics.sjtu.edu.cn/~yuxi/

Years ago, I could see how it all might evolve from the most simple sphere: https://81018.com/csh/  I wondered, “Do the Planck base units define the first infinitesimal sphere? If so, is sphere stacking-and-packing a fundamental of physicality?”

If base-2 is applied, there are just 202 doublings to the approximate age and size of the universe and wave-particles-fluctuations are not measured until Notations-64 to Notation-67. The first second doesn’t come along until Notation-143. So, yes, most of our chart is a description of the very early universe.  Is this interesting? Thank you.

Most sincerely,


PS. Along the way, we found a very interesting gap with five-octahedrons. Long ago, Aristotle had failed to see the gap with five tetrahedrons! Nobody seems to be aware that five octahedrons create the same gap!  Even the commercial construction sets and computer programs overlook these gaps!  -BEC