[time 61] RE: [time 57] Re: [time 52] Orientation of time

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Sat, 27 Mar 1999 01:43:29 +0900

Dear Stephen,

Thank you for your detailed explanation of your position. I understand now
that you are trying to find a solution for the observable world, which is
treated quite roughly and insufficiently in my papers. I agree that you are
another discoverer of the notion of local systems in slightly different,
philosophically formed statements in
Thus I say not only that I have no objection with that you try to extend it to
a more understandable one, but further I ask you to do so. As you say, we are
a team, each one of whom should not be lacked. I just might be able to give a
help when there appears any that can be given a mathematical formalism, but I
state I am enjoying invaluable discussions developed here.

Best wishes,

P.S. Your hint that a Superspace for X might be non-Hausdorff may be a clue
for us:

>Dear Hitoshi,
>You may be interested in the following paper: "Quantum norm theory and
>the quantization of metric topology" by C J Isham, Y Rubyshin and P
>Renteln; Class. Quantum Grav. 7 (1990) 1053-74
>it is getting into our question of using a Superspace for X. The
>possibility of its topology being non-Hausdorff is partcularly
>intriguing! That would allow for the use of fuzzy subsethood! I do not
>know your opinion of Kosko's ideas; most mathematicians do not like the
>weakening of the "law of excluded middle" ... :)
>PS, Have you thought about the "noise" interpretation of LSs? I
>recommend: Gaussian Random Fields, K. Ito & T. Hida (eds.) Series on
>probability and Statistics Vol. 1, The third NAgoya Levy Seminar, 15-20
>Aug. 1990. World Scientific (QA 274.4.N34 1990)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:29:46 JST