Part Three of The Solutions to the Last Test of course 13

7)  If a one-dimensional superstring is swivel-like shaped in such a manner in so that the anharmonics of its spurious vibrations that the said superstring potentially displays between itself and its counter-string is not isometrically in terms of cyclic in the rhythm of the eluded to covariance that exists between the said counterpart, then there is an identical potential of the stated one-dimensional superstring to become tachyonic.  Any other of such covariant Chern-Simmons singularities here cause the same general effect.

8)  If a two-dimensional superstring is swivel-like-shaped -- in such a manner in so that the anharmonics of the spurious vibrations that the said superstring displays, between itself and its counter-string, (even though a two-dimensional superstring vibrates harmonically at its correlative Poincaire level) are potentially not isometrically cyclical in the rhythm of the eluded to covariance that exists between the said two-dimensional superstring and its counterpart, then, there is an identical potential of the stated two-dimensional superstring to become tachyonic.  Any other of such covariant Chern-Simmons singularities here will cause a spontaneously tachyonic effect.

9)  Light-Cone-Gauge eigenstates bear an angling from a given arbitrary superstring to its counterpart that bears one form or another of a genus of orphoganation with the connectivity of the directly corresponding superstring with its counterpart, if the said superstring is orientable.

Part Two of the Test Solutions To the Last Test Of Course 13

4)  Two-Dimensional stringular encoders consist of a relative hoop-like allignment of 10^43 substrings that are completely Njenhuis to our general detection, that work to orientate with a relative hoop-like allignment of 10^43 counter-substrings.  Unless there is major tachyonic propulsion that works to envolve basically the whole said encoder, the homeomorphic vibration of the said substrings of a given arbitrary two-dimensional substringular encoder exist as having a homeomorphic vibrating two-dimensional partial field that topologically sways into a third spatial dimension  -- in the process of the inter-relation of the said two-dimensional substringular encoder  with its counterpart, over the course of the given arbitrary duration of an iteration of BRST.

5)  The Grassman Constant of a one-dimensional swivel-like-shaped superstring may be orientable if the anharmonic vibration of the directly corresponding superstring over the corelative iteration of BRST bears a manner of a virtually harmonic covariance with is corresponding counterstring, in so that the one-dimensional field that here topologically sways into a second spatial dimension, may work to bear a homeomorphic field-based consistency over the eluded to course of BRST.  If the spurious alteration in the said harmonics of the eluded to genus of covariance that exists here between a given arbitrary one-dimensional superstring and its counterstring is isometrically cyclical, in terms of the chirality of the rhythm of the perturbation of the morphology of the eluded to field that exists in-between the said superstring and its counterstring, will become orientable in the Regge Action eigenmetric that happens after the iteration of BRST that involves the said swivel-like-shaped one-dimensional superstring.

6)  A two-dimensional superstring that bears a swivel-like-shaped contour along its topology during BRST has a directly corresponding Grassman Constant that may be orientalbe if the anharmonic vibration of the directly corresponding superstring -- over the course of the said iteration of BRST bears a manner of virtually hamonic covariance -- that exists between the said two-dimensional superstring and its counterstrings -- that is only spurious in such a manner in so that the anharmonics of the direcly associated field that exists between the said two-dimensional superstring and its counterstring is isometrically cyclical, in terms of the chirality of the rhythm of the perturbation of the morphology of the said field.  This is in so that the said two-dimensional superstring may be orientable during the ensuing Regge Action eigenmetric.
I will continue with the last three solutions to the test later.  To Be Continued!  Sam.

Part One Of the Solutions to the Last Test of Course 13

1)  Ideal one-dimensional superstrings have an orientable Grassman Constant that exists as a homeomorphic vibrating one-dimensional partial field that topologically sways in a second spatial dimension in the process of the inter-relation of the said one-dimensional string with its counterstring over the course of the corresponding duration of a given arbitrary iteration of BRST.

2)  Ideal two-dimensional superstrings have an orientable Grassman Constant that exists as a homeomorphic vibrating two-dimensional partial field that topologically sways in a third spatial dimension in the process of the inter-relation of the said two-dimensional string with its counterstring over the course of the corrsponding duration of a given arbitrary iteration of BRST.

3) One-Dimensional superstringular encoders consist of a relative allignment of 10^43 substrings that are completely Njenhuis to our general detection, that work to orientate with a relative allignment of 10^43 counter-substrings.  Unless there is major tachyonic propulsion that is directly envolved with a given arbitrary substringular encoder, the homeomorphic vibrating substrings -- as a whole -- that are of a given arbitrary one-dimensional substringlar encoder, exist as having a homeomorphic vibrating one-dimensional partial field that topologically sways in a second spatial dimension in the process of the inter-relation of the said one-dimensional stringlar encoder with its counterstring over the course of the given arbitrary duration of an iteration of BRST.
I will provide the next three test solutions later.  To Be Continued!  Sam Roach.

A Little Dittie To Help Explain Some Stuff

The actual motion of gluons causes the existence of the Wick Action. The Wick Action is an arbitrary example of a Hausendorf Projection. The activity of the Wick Action causes the Landau-Gisner-Action to move in such a manner so as to produce the leverage operation known as the Fischler-Suskind-Mechanism. The Fischler-Suskind-Mechansim moves the Higgs Action in the proper directoralization so as to move Klein Bottle eigenstates to the proper loci so as to allow for the Kaeler Metric. The Kaeler Metric allows for Gaussian Transformations. Gaussian Transformations allow for changes in norm-conditions that are necessary for the spontaneous kinematic differentiation of Fourier Transformations. Gaussian Transformations that directly involve the activity of Njenhuis tensors that act upon these in the process of the covariant translation of phenomena that are going through an arbitrary Gaussian Tranformation always involve the scattering of electromagnetic energy and/or the activity of entropy. Such Gaussian Transformations are known of as gauge-transformations. So, whenever there is a change of physical state and/or wherever light strikes something, there is a gauge-transformation. The Kaeler Metric allows for superstrings to reatain discrete energy permittivity, as well as allowing the field trajectory of the mentioned superstrings to re-attain discrete energy impedance. If the directly prior did not happen, discrete energy would not exist. The Kaeler Metric always involves a Gaussian Transformation. The activity of the re-attainment of discrete energy permittivity and the activity of the re-attainment of discrete energy impedance produces alterations in the covariant displacement that are involved in the kinematic Fourier Translation of superstrings so that the sequential series of the integrated re-displacements of superstrings may differentiate among each other without interfering with other of such activities of other superstrings. So, the Higgs Action is not only essential for the interaction of E.M. with other phenomena and the existence and kinematic differentiation of entropy, yet, the Higgs Action also allows for the covariant redistribution of superstrings among each other without the condition of superstrings interfering with each other's space.
God Bless You, and you have a great day! Sincerely, Sam Roach                     

More As To Norm-Conditions

More fundamental to the concept as to what are spaces of one universe, when relative to what are spaces of another universe -- that bear a certain tense of corresponding genus -- the one when relative to the other, is to be determined via the appropriate use of Li Algebra. This is more based upon angling, when in terms of comparisons that involve norm-conditions -- and norm-conditions are most practical in the application of comparing things based upon tangency and orphoganation. There is, of course, a certain need for the usage of linearity in the process. -- The proper application of Wilson Lines is to be used here in order to work to determine those subtentions that are needed in order to perceive of the appropriate comparisons of Njenhuis-based norm-conditions. Yet, one is not to belittle the fundamental premise that it is the general norm-conditional bases that works to compare substringular spaces more than the conditional bases that may just be extrapolated by a certain general context of linearity that works to correspond one tense of space when relative to another. Sam Roach.              

A Little Bit Of Some Stough About Lorentz-Four-Contractions

Mass, in and of itself, is comprised of two-dimensional superstrings.  Besides plain kinetic energy, most superstrings are bosonic, or closed in nature.  This means that most superstrings are two-dimensional in nature.  When a superstring is expanded to the inverse of its Lorentz-Four-Contraction over the initial portion of the duration of any given arbitrary iteration of BRST, it is expanded in proportion to how it was -- as a general shape -- before it was expanded to the inverse of its generally eluded to Lorentz-Four-Contraction.  Substringular phenomena that is related to a mass is basically in reference to the condition of the presence of two-dimensional superstrings, as eluded to earlier.  That is why, when a superstring is contracted, its length is contracted to the same scalar amplitude as the degree in which it is Lorentz-Four-Contracted.  Again, since the duration in which a superstring is expanded to the inverse of its contraction is so brief when relative to the overall duration of an iteration of BRST, from within an iteration of instanton, superstrings appear to have contracted when these are not fully expanded -- to any observer of whom may happen to be extrapolating the dimensionality, mass, and time that would here directly correspond to the conditions that may relate to any given arbitrary superstrings that may here be given consideration.  Bosonic superstrings have a length and a width.  A mass is comprised of many bosonic superstrings that come together as a whole in an orbifold eigenset.  So, as a mass is LFC to a certain given arbitrary degree, its length appears to have contracted to the scalar amplitude that corresponds to the degree in which such a condition may be extrapolated. 

Session 16 Of Course 13, Questions To Last Test Of Course

1)  Describe the Grassman Constant of ideal one-dimensional superstrings.

2)  Describe the Grassman Constant of ideal two-dimensional superstrings.

3)  Describe the Grassman Constant of one-dimensional stringular encoders.

4)  Describe the Grassman Constant of two-dimensional stringular encoders.

5)  Describe the Grassman Consant of one-dimensional swivel-like-shaped superstrings.

6)  Describe the Grassman Constant of two-dimensional swivel-like-shaped superstrings.

7)  Describe the Grassman Constant of one-dimensional potentially tachyonic superstrings.

8)  Describe the Grassman Constant of two-dimensional potentially tachyonic superstrings.

9)  Describe the angling of light-cone-gauge eigenstates.

About The Discrete Energy Of Gauge-Bosons

As superstrings and their directly corresponding Fadeev-Popov-Trace eigenstates go into their respective Klein Bottle eigenstates, the light-cone-gauge is involved with the temporary entry of the whole entity of discrete energy being fed back, in discrete increments, a little bit of permittivity and impedance at a "time" per iteration of group instanton -- respectively.  As this is happening, the gauge-bosons re-attain a tense of permittivity/impedance that these need during their corresponding Kaeler-Metric eigenmetrics so that these eluded to heterotic strings may remain as a tense of discrete energy, as well as both the more tended to be thought of superstrings that are discrete units of energy pemittivity and the Fadeev-Popov-Trace eigenstates -- the latter of which are discrete units of energy impedance.  Again, superstrings that are not heterotic act as units of discrete energy permittivity, while their corresponding Fadeev-Popov-Trace eigenstates act as discrete units of energy impedance.

More About Heterotic Bosonic Superstrings

As both the Polyakov Action and the Bette Action happen simultaneously for their corresponding superstrings, the corelative light-cone-gauge eigenstates that directly correspond to the said superstrings are fed in mini-string so that the interconnection of the individual second-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates with their directly corresponding Fadeev-Popov-Trace eigenstates with their corelative superstrings mentioned may go through the process of their format of Clifford Expansion, in so that the activities that work to allow for what is known of as Lorentz-Four-Contractions may happen at the same general format of metric as when superstrings kinematically differentiate with their counterstrings.  This happens in a manner in which these said superstrings "attempt" to orientate in so as to be able to remain in the process of Noether Flow.  As the said second-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates go through their topological-based fed in expansion in order that superstrings may be able to arrange their relative length, time, and mass-equivalence relative to electromagnetic energy, the E(6)XE(6) heterotic-based superstrings move in the direction of the motion of that contorsioning of the holonomic substrate of the directly related second-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates, as this said genus of heterotic string moves in so as to "pluck" the given arbitrary mini-string that works to form the topological entity of the said second-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates without heterometrically or anharmonically torqueing the mentioned format of mini-string segments in the process of working to form second-ordered Schwinger Indices.  So, as gauge-bosons pluck light-cone-gauge eigenstates in order to form those vibrations that move along the Rarita Structure, in order to do various necessities -- such as causing the motion of the Wick Action, these move hermitianly and harmonically in the directoralization of the wave-tug/wave-pull of the topological substrate of the said light-cone-gauge eigenstates in so as to help fascilitate the smooth translation of Schwinger vibrations along that substrate that works to interconnect the given arbitrary relative Real Reimmanian plane considered in any given arbitrary case with the motion of rudimentary gravitational-based particles -- so  that both gravity and changes in substringular norm-conditions may be permanent.  To Be Continued!  Samuel David Roach.

A Little Bit Of My Perception As To The Big-Bang

Once that the Logos struck the core of the Big-Bang, initially, once that the phenomena that the inter-relationship of the Logos and the initial fabric at the core of the Big-Bang was absorbed into he toroidal-like disc in which the physical portion of space-time-phenomena has existed ever since (any charge at the center of a shell becomes delineated at the surface area of the given arbitrary shell), this formed the basis of sub-mini-string that was being pulled away from the conicenter as to where the core of the Big-Bang happened.  As this was happening, the sub-mini-string moved in so as to work to define, through the motion of the said sub-mini-string, the basis of all 96 spatial dimensions plus time.  Once this happened, the said sub-mini-string formed third-ordered point particles, of which formed second-ordered point particles.  The second-ordered point particles then gained an attraction towards other second-ordered point particles that had spin parities that complemented each other, causing such point particles to come together in a bead-like fashion.  Once that mini-string was formed by the beading of second-ordered point particles, the regions where these beaded points had the most potential abrasion caused these "beads" to form relatively compactified regions known of as first-ordered point particles. During what I just described in my last sentence, norm-state-projections formed, and, in order to allow for the perpetual motion of any sort of semblance of order to the first-ordered point particles -- due to the topological swaying that here existed in-between the initial mini-string and the said initial first-ordered point particles -- the initial Wick Action eigenstate formed in such a manner that it could not help but to pull against the Landau-Gisner-Action, due to the eminent response of the motion of norm-state-projections towards the general regions in which the said initial first-ordered point particles were at.  This was eminent, just as pushing a domino may work to spontaneously cause a flow of falling dominoes.  So, as the initial Landau-Gisner-Action eigenstate worked upon the initial Fischler-Suskind-Mechanism eigenstate, the automatic interaction of this with the initially struck conglomeration of first-ordered point particles worked to form a primitive Higgs Boson known of as an isoelliptiabelianoid.  As the directly prior happened, the equal and opposite reaction to the formation of the Wick Action eigenstate, the Landau-Gisner-Actoin eigenstate, and the Fischler-Suskind-Mechanism eigenstate formed a bottle-like structure known of as a Klein Bottle eigenstate -- in the forward-norm-to-holomorphic direction from where the isoelliptiabelianoid was formed.  As the Fischler-Suskind-Mechanism moved the primitive Higgs Boson that I had mentioned into the said Klein Bottle eigenstate, the said Higgs Boson eigenstate pulled into the Klein Bottle in so as to be able to move it flushly, as I have stated before.  The loose permittivity and the loose impedance that existed in the region to the relatively forward-norm-to-holomorphic direction from the Klein Bottle was then scooped up by the initial Klein Bottle eigenstate.  This worked to form the initial superstrings and Fadeev-Popov-Traces.  As this format of activity became multiplicit and automatic, superstrings became formed continually and spontaneously in so as to form our space-time-continuum.  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Samuel David Roach.

A Little Bit Of A Further Description Of The Higgs Boson

When a Higgs Boson eigenstate initially moves a Klein Bottle eigenstate in the relatively norm-to-forward-holomorphic direction, in order for the said Klein Bottle eigenstate to be able to be at the more specific general locus where the directly corresponding Kaeler-Metric eigenstate is to happen -- in so that a Gaussian Transformation may occur at the just mentioned locus, the said Higgs Boson eigenstate pushes the said Klein Bottle eigenstate, via the Fischler-Suskind-Mechanism -- with its "tip" being pulled flushly in the same specific direction that the center of the norm-to-forward-holomorphic end of the mentioned Klein Bottle eigenstate is moving, over the course of that motion in which the stated Higgs Boson eigenstate works to move the eluded to Schotky Construction toward the described locus where superstrings that are of the same substringular neighborhood that are of discrete energy permittivity are to enter the just mentioned Construction so that these said superstrings may re-attain the discrete permittivity indices that these said superstrings need in order that these strings may remain as fundamental discrete units of energy permittivity -- so that energy may exist at all.  At the same general metrical condition of duration that superstrings work to re-attain being discrete units of energy permttivity, their directly corresponding Fadeev-Popov-Ghosts enter the Schotky Construction in order to re-attain discrete energy impedance.  As the stated given arbitrary Klein Bottle eigenstate is reiterated in a kinematic pull per group instanton in the relative forward holomorphic direction, the directly related Higgs Boson eigenstate is angled at 22.5 degrees counterclockwise From a flush pull in the relative norm-to-holomorphic direction at the locus of the Poincaire of the said tip of the stated Higgs Boson eigenstate  -- this, of which would be 67.5 degrees subtended from angling in the direct relative forward-holomorphic direction, when again, is at the locus of the Poincaire of the said tip of the stated Higgs Boson eigenstate.  When the Klein Bottle eigenstate of this given arbitrary example is then to move in the relative reverse-holomorphic direction over the course of the Kaeler-Metric, then, the stated tip of the Higgs Action eigenstate that is here being discussed is pulled 45 degrees clockwise in so as to then be subtended at 22.5 degrees in the opposite direction From a flush pull in the relative forward-norm-to-holomorphic direction. So as the Schotky Construction is to move in the relative reverse-norm-to-holomorphic direction, then, the directly related Higgs Boson eigenstate is angled flushly in the center of the direction in which the correlative Klein Bottle eigenstate is to move in over this part of the activity of the Fischler-Suskind-Mechanism, in which the stated Klein Bottle eigenstate is to here now move, at least temporarily, out of the specific locus of the activity of the Kaeler-Metric. In each case, Higgs Action eigenstates always are Gliossi at the general Poincaire of the relatively reverse-norm-to-holomorphic positioning of the holonomic substrate of their corresponding Klein Bottle eigenstates.  I will continue with the suspense later.  P.S.:  Even thought my wording may not be perfect, the picture in my mind as to this is as clear as can be!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Layers of Reality Versus Parallel Universes

When the format of two different superstrings, or, two different orbifolds, that are from different layers of reality and/or are from different universes, then, during the duration in which these two given arbitrary superstrings or two different given arbitrary orbifolds are as I have just described them as, then, the said superstring/orbifold that I have initially eluded to is not directly of a viable interaction genus relative to the alterior superstring/orbifold that is either from a different layer of reality and/or are from a different universe. (parallel).  Yet, if an initial superstring or an initial orbifold may be described in a Gaussian-based format as belonging to a relatively Real Reimmanian-based space, then, a superstring that is of an analogous layer of reality -- while yet of the same universe-based format -- may be compared in a rigorous manner as being of a Real-based spatial format with the second eluded to space, when relative to the initial space that works to describe the operational index of the same genus of a Gaussian-based spatial relationship.  Yet, even if two layers of reality that bear an analogous dimensional relationship are of two different universes, respectively, then, the two spaces may not be able to be compared with each other through a Real Reimmanian Gaussian-based format. -- The two superstrings here may only be compared as spatial entities via a Li-Algebra-based eigenbasis that here works to compare these relatively Njenhuis-based spaces via the usage of Imaginary Numbers that works to relate two or more different actual physical spaces that, even though these are not viable in a Real manner from outward appearances, their relationship may be compared by using either a Njenhuis Jacobian-based eigenbasis, a Njenhuis inverse Jacobian-based eigenbasis, a Njenhuis Wronskian-based eigenbasis, or, a Njenhuis inverse Wronskian-based eigenbasis.  So, all spaces that are of the same layer of reality, even though these may not be cohomologically viable with the one or more eluded to physical spaces toward each other, respectively, may be related to each other via Gaussian-based math that works to prove the directly related spaces as being Real Reimmanian relative to one another.  Yet, any comparable sets of orbifolds that are of different universes -- even if the format of the genus of their respective layer of reality is analogous, or not -- are only able to be compared rigorously if these are related via one method or another via Li Algebra constraints, in so as to utilize a Njenhuis-based eigenbasis that works to show their relationship the one or more toward the respective others.  Yet, orbifolds  that are of analogous layers of reality that are not of the same universe may be related via less of an extension of intricate eigenbases than orbifolds that are not only of different universes, yet, are also of different layers of reality.  Also, orbifolds that are of the same universe, yet, are of different layers of reality, require more of an intricate extension of eigenbasis in order to be compared (although of a relatively Real Reimmanian Gaussian basis) than orbifolds that are both from the same universe and of the same layer of reality at the same time.
I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

More About Orientation of Superstrings

When a superstring is both swivel-like in general shape and relatively compact, it is more likely to become tachyonic on account of the following format of kinematics.:
Let us take, first, a common toy as an alagorical example, in order to show what I am saying a little bit clearer.  If you are to stretch-out a "slingky," it is going to have wiring that is relatively more jointal and less tightly looped than if, instead, you were to just bend it in two from the said "slingky's" original shape.  Likewise, if you were to stretch-out a swivel-like shaped superstring, it is more likely to be less tachyonic than if it were to be comactified.  This is because a relatively compactified swivel-shaped superstring is more likely to bear a first-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstate that is sinusoidal, as a basis.  Thus, a Yang-Mills, or, in other words, a non-abelian light-cone-gauge eigenstate is more probable for a compactified superstring, than, for an elongated superstring.  Besides shear entropy, phenomena that is to safely flow in a tachyonic manner is to have a Yang-Mills light-cone-gauge foundation.  This is, in general, why.  I will move on to the test questions for the last test of course 13 later!  Sincerely, Samuel David Roach.

As to Whether or not an Initially Unoriented Superstring Becomes Orienable

When a given arbitrary superstring is initially unorientable due to the condition of a spurious gauge-metric that occurs over the course of a Bette Action eigenmetric, the condition here as to whether or not the said superstring that is here being discussed will be orientable during the ensuing corresponding Regge Action eigenmetric depends upon the rhythm of the anharmonic symmetry that happens -- as the correlative superstring that is here mentinioned bears a vibrational relationship with its corresponding counterstring at the locus where the superstring is undergoing BRST at an iteration of group instanton.  If the said anharmonic vibration that works to exist between the said superstring and its counterstring bears a symmetrically repetitive rhythm -- to where the lack of homeomorphicity that would then exist here would bear a smooth genus, when in terms of the flow of the transient alteration of the morphology that would here exist in-between the said superstring and its counterstring during the said duration of BRST, then, the field that would exist here during the said Bette Action eigenmetric would bear a smooth translation of alteration in its morphology that would bear hermitian cyclical permutations that, even though the Grassman Constant would here not be consistent due to the lack of an even field between the mentioned superstring and its counterstring, this would work to form a harmonically repeated symmetry of an integration of anharmonic sub-metrics of vibrational indices that would here happen during the simultaneous Bette Action eigenmetric and Polyakov Action eigenmetric.  Yet, if the pattern of the anharmonic vibrational indices that would be subtended between the given arbitrary superstring and its directly corresponding counterstring were to not bear a repetitive rhythm -- the cyclical permutations that would here cause anharmonics in the flow of the vibrational oscillations between the given superstring and its given counterstring would not bear a hermitian translation of the eluded to flow of the "attempted" repetition of its cycling -- causing the said superstring to not be able to be orientable during the ensuing Regge Action eigenmetric.  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Some More Stuff About Orientation

When a superstring is unorientable in both the directly corresponding Bette Action eigenmetric and its corroborative Regge Action eigenmetric, then, often this means that there is a non-metrical-based Chern-Simmons singularity that is here directly involved in the covariant-based topological flow that exists in this case in-between the correlative superstring and its counterstring during the said Bette Action eigenmetric.  Such a Chern-Simmons non-metrical-based singularity may often bear two or more cyclic permutations that work to form a critical cusp that forms the so stated basis of multiple singularities that are here Chern-Simmons in nature in this stated scenario.  The directly related singularities here may be "spikes" that may appear -- upon extrapolation -- to be either jointal in trajectoral-based mapping or relatively smooth-curved as an extension that bears a change in more derivatives than the number of dimensions that would here exist in the potential tracing of the eluded to mapping of the  cohomological locus in which such stated singularities are acting upon the Poincaire-based field of the mentioned superstringular topological stratum that is here being discussed.  If the singularities are here to be relatively jointal, then, the ensuing tachyonic flow of motion that is to be active upon further iterations of group instanton that involve the kinematic motion of the given arbitrary superstring that I have discussed will tend to be of a relatively transient nature.  After a transient tachyonic flow, the condition of a Noether-based flow is soon eminent.  Yet, if the non-metrical-based Chern-Simmons-based singularities that are instead to be of a relatively smooth-curved change in derivatives that happen in more derivatives than the number of dimensions in which this happens over the kinematic projection of their trajectory, then, the ensuing tachyonic flow will then here tend to be more relatively permanent.  So, the smoother that the map-based projection of the Chern-Simmons non-metrical-based singularities is acting in the Ward-Caucy delineation of the cohomological-based flow as to how an extrapolation of such is to be traced over the Poincaire trajectory of the said partial topological locus of the said superstrings holonomic substrate, the more of a tendency that the said superstring will have at remaining in an ensuing tachyonic flow over a longer covariant-based sequential set of instantons in which the superstring will then be moving in accordance with.  This goes for any given arbitrary superstring that is to be unorientable, in so long as the condition of spuriousness that the given superstring is acting in accordance with is maintained as a constant that is then the same for both cases. (The spuriousness is then here to be identical in nature in these given arbitrary comparative cases in so that the only condition that is here different then is to be the general tendency as to the nature of the format or genus of the type of non-metrical Chern-Simmons singularities that are here to be compared.  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

More About Non-Orientable Superstrings

When a superstring is not orientable during the course of a gauge-metric of the Bette Action during the directly corresponding duration of an iteration of BRST, the condition as to what the source of the lack of orientation is from works to determine whether or not the said superstring will be able to be orientable over the course of the ensuing Regge Action or not.  If a given arbitrary superstring is not orientable over the said course of a Bette Action eigenmetric -- due to what I described yesterday as a spurious course of motion that would here work to cause a lack of homeomorphicity during the said Bette Action eigenmetric, then, it is at least possible that the ensuing corresponding Regge Action eigenmetric may possibly cause the directly related superstring to become orientable under a certain set of arbitrary circumstances.  Such circumstances would be a group attractor semigroup that may often act upon the given arbitrary superstring, in such a manner in so as to cause its vibratorial oscillation over the given mentioned Regge Action eigenmetric to change in vibration genus, from an anharmonic mode of parity in-between the directly corresponding superstring and its counterpart to a harmonic mode of parity in-between the directly corresponding superstring and its counterpart.  This is not to be confused with the genus of parity of the unitary-based oscillation of the first-ordered point particles with themselves that work to comprise a given arbitrary superstring -- that would here, under a previously mentioned different case from this, not consider the covariant inter-relationship of the vibration of the said superstring with its counterstring.  Yet, if the given arbitrary superstring mentioned here bears a non-metrical Chern-Simmons-related singularity, or, occasionally a set of such directly related singularities, over the course of a Bette Action eigenmetric, then, the ensuing Regge Action eigenmetric that directly corresponds to the inter-relationship of a given superstring with its counterstring will not cause the said superstring to be orientable -- whether or not there is a spurious alteration that is due to a metrical-based perturbation in the motion of the said superstring over the course of a corresponding duration of BRST (over the simultaneous Bette Action eigenmetric and Polyakov Acton eigenmetric that would correspond here).  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sam.

Some More To Say About The Bette Action

When the Bette Action happens for a given arbitrary superstring over the course of the Polyakov Action -- which is during the activity that happens during BRST -- superstrings that are orientable during the said Bette Action eigenmetric, at this point of gauge-metric, vibrate and oscillate in such a manner in so that the morphology that exists in-between the said superstring and its counterstring is held at a constant condition of contour.  Such a maintenance of contour works to define a Grassman Constant that is here demonstrated by the eluded to manner of homeomorphicity in which the general format of field that I just indicated here exists as the field that acts in-between the said superstring and its counterstring.  This said field is held at a harmonic-based contour that does not change in terms of the genus of even permutation that is topologically hermitian over the mentioned course of the directly corresponding gauge-metric of Bette Action that is Eigen to the directly related superstring of discrete energy permittivity.  When such a smooth condition of a maintained contour over the duration of the mentioned metric is achieved for a given arbitrary superstring, this attained condition during BRST is what forms the initial  of two statges that work to allow for a spontaneous ability of the directly related superstring to be orientable over the course of the next iteration of instanton -- in so that the corresponding superstring that works to allow for the wave-push that causes a discrete unit of energy to exist where the mentioned superstring is encoded to go next is then able to happens so that the said superstring is able to be Noether in flow over the proscribed ensuing duration.  Yet, if there is an anharmonic cyclic permutation that is brought into the locus of the kinematic differentiation of the mentioned Gliossi-based field of the said superstring, then, the superstring -- during the corresponding course of BRST -- may have either a spurious twitch and/or a Chern-Simmons singularity that may be non-time-oriented.  The said "spurious twitch" would here be an anharmonic rhythm in the oscillatory vibration of the said superstring, when relative to the covariant motion of its corresponding counterstring during BRST.  The timeless Chern-Simmons genus of singularity would here be a spike-like shape that sometimes may appear in a superstring, upon extrapolation, that may sometimes occur in an oscillation that is even in terms of a Ward-Caucy-based format of acceleration.  I will continue with the suspense.  Later, dudes!  Sam.

Part Two To The Fifteenth Session of Course 13

In regards to the general format of two-dimensional superstrings that bear a swivel-like configuration along the topological substrate that works to define the trace of such types of bosonic superstrings of discrete energy permittivity, this form of pattern may be ellongated, or, it may be compact -- given the situation.  The normalized sinusoidal loops that I have described in the directly prior post (the first part of this session) are differentially oriented at a relativistic angling of 90 degrees to the directly associated Real Reimmanian plane that is here directly associated with the given field of the eluded to genus of two-dimensional bosonic superstrings.  The more compact such superstrings are, the higher that their probablity is of becoming unoriented at both the multiplicit corresponding Bette Action eigenmetric and at the multiplicit corresponding Regge eigenmetric.  When a superstring is not orientable at both the corresponding Bette Action eigenmetric and the corresponding Regge Action eigenmetric, then, the said superstring will become tachyonic over the course of the ensuing sequential series of instantons in which the said superstring will then here be unorientable.  The prior format of superstringular phenomenology that here directly corresponds to the genus of certain one and two-dimensional superstrings of discrete energy permittivity are -- in the corroborating scenario -- pulled by their light-cone-gauge eigenstates into a condition of leaving Noether Flow into a given arbitrary tense of tachyonic flow.  The angling of the direclty corresponding light-cone-gauge eigenstates is controled by the here affiliated genus of normalcy that these eluded to superstrings exhibit over the duration of the sequential series of instantons in which the said superstrings are of either a Noether-based flow or of a tachyonic-based flow -- respectively.  The type of norm-based conditions that these said superstrings of their respective Ward-Caucy conditions work to exhibit is based upon where the given superstrings, along with their Planck-like phenomena, are differentiating in during the affiliated iterations of group instanton in which the mentioned superstrings are undergoing either a Noether-based flow or a tachyonic-based flow -- given their tendancy to be either orientable or unorientable during either the directly associated Bette Action or the directly associated Regge Action.  The corresponding counterstrings that are here associated with the just mentioned superstrings that are here either one-dimensional or two-dimensional are, in this case, bearing a sinusoidal fomat of permutation -- when in terms of the extrapolation of the tracing of the curvature of the topological surface of the eluded to  superstrings that are here either open or closed, depending upon the phenomenology of the mapping of the direclty associated locus that is here to be considered -- that bears a certain given arbitary symmetry of chirality with the Real Reimmanian-based phenomenology of its immediate surroundings, except that these mentioned sinusoidal-based eluded to standing waves are here bearing a certain tense of orphoganation that is, to some degree, out of phase with those waves that are of a different tense of Gaussian-based symmetry.  Such wave-like phenomenology is thus of a different tense of universality if this is simply the case.  If the direclty corresponding spaces are Gaussian to each other -- in a Real Reimmanian-like manner -- yet, bear a tense of orphoganation that is scewed from normalcy in terms of the subtension that exists in-between the directly associated Poincaire-based fields of superstrings that are in their "contracted" format during the Polyakov Action, then, the format of such covariant, codeterminable, codifferentiable waves is then here to involve superstrings that are of a different layer of reality from within the same universe.  The eluded to basis of extrapolated angling that would here exist in-between the like nodes of the said superstrings, along with the like nodes of what are here more directly associated with the covariant counterstrings, is the foundation of the intricacies of the Grassman Constant genus that may be used to determine the basis of the potential orientation and/or lack of orientation that would here work to determine whether or not a given arbitrary superstring is to either remain Noether-based or tachyoni-based.  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Part One Of The Fiftheenth Session of course 13

Sometimes, one-dimensional superstrings are even more diverse than swivel-shaped vibrating strands.  Such one-dimensional superstrings not only have a sinusoidal curved shape as a basically standing wave at the various corresponding iterations of instanton in which such one-dimensional superstrings are behaving as vibrating strands, yet, these said superstrings may often have a normal sinusoidal curve after each successive sinusoidal loop that -- in this case -- works to repeat, as such, a pattern all along the topological surface of the mapping of the said one-dimensional superstrings.  This form of a pattern may be elongated, or, it may be compactified.  The normalized sinusoidal loops that I have just eluded to may be subtended by ninety degrees to the conicenter of the directly associated given arbitrary Real Reimmanian Plane of the affiliated one-dimensional string's field.  The more compact that such a stringular field is, the higher that their probability is of being tachyonic.  Sometimes, two-dimensional strings -- which are vibrating hoops -- are able to be even more diverse than what may be extrapolated for a basic swivel-shaped one-dimensional vibrating strand to be able to be.  Such two-dimensional superstrings, that are here vibrating hoops of discrete energy permittivity, not only have a sinusoidal curved shape as a relatively standing wave -- at their corresponding condition that these bear at the directly affiliated iterations of instanton in which the said phenomenology are closed loops of topological holonomic substrate -- yet, these said superstrings, that work to form discrete energy permittivity that allows for the continued existence of physicality via their kinematic motion over a sequential series of intantons that these iterate through over time, have a norm-based sinusoidal curve.  This basis of such curvature is demonstrated in the mapping of the eluded to topological substrate over a given arbitrary sequential series of instantons in which such a format or genus of bosonic or closed string is maintained, over a relatively transient duration.  Such a mentioned alterior-based curvature that is here amended to the loop amplitudes that exist within the Ward Neumman bounds that may be mapped via an extrapolation in which the tracing of such a genus of superstring is as such, may often work to form an iteration of successive sinusoidal loop phenomenology that may here act as part of the Poincaire-based field that may be attributed here to the Gliossi-based topological entity of the said format of superstring, in such a manner that may often repeat as such a pattern that will then bear a probability of then existing all along the topological-based Gliossi-based tracing of the here discussed two-dimensional superstring that I have here mentioned.  Such a topological genus of permutation may often happen to a superstring in a temporary duration in such a manner that then raises the probability of the superstrings that act as such to be unorientable -- and thus acting to allow for a much higher probability of the said format of superstrings as then being tachyonic.  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Part Two of the Fourteenth Session of Course 13

The light-cone-gauge eigenstates that work to interconnect Planck-like phenomena to superstrings that here directly appertain to the discrete energy permittivity, that exists due to the phenomenology of both one-dimensional superstrings and two-dimensional superstrings -- always are tied in such a general format of manner in so that all substringular phenomena flows through the Ultimon in a relatively flush manner over the course of both the generally noticed and the generally unnoticed portions of Ultimon Flow.  The general type of normalization that the Planck-like phenomena work to allow toward each other works to directly influence the prior eluded to positioning and angling of tying that the stated light-cone-gauge eigenstates exhibit in-between the said Planck related phenomena and their directly corresponding superstrings of discrete energy permittivity.  Planck related phenomena work to form discrete energy impedance.  The angling that exists in-between the wave nodes of one-dimensional superstrings and their counterstrings that are of the same respective genus of nodation -- when based upon the format of fermionic superstrings of discrete energy permittivity that are of a swivel-based shape -- is of one general genus of Grassman constant format.  The angling that exists in-between the wave nodes of two-dimensional superstrings and their counterstrings that are of the same respective genus of nodation -- when based upon the format of bosonic superstrings of discrete energy permittivity that are of a swivel-based shape -- is of another general genus of Grassman constant format.  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Samuel David Roach.

The Fourteenth Session of Course 13 On Stringular Transformations, Part one

One and two-dimensional superstrings may both have a swivel shape at various different times.  For a one-dimensional superstring, such a swivel shape is like the basic vibrating strand of an open string, except that the said string curves in a sinusoidal manner into a general format of a general condition of a curved standing wave at the respective iterations of instanton -- in which such superstrings are topologically delineated under the general condition of being shaped in a swivel-like manner.  For a two-dimensional superstring of discrete energy permittivity, such a swivel-based shape of a vibrating hoop of phenomenon is like the basic round shape of a closed string, except that the given arbitrary string here curves in a sinusoidal timeless-based mapping of topology into a general format of a curved standing wave at the respective iterations of instanton in which such superstrings are topologically delineated under the general condition of being shaped in a swivel-like manner.  The counterstrings of a one-dimensional superstring that are swivel-shaped are also curved in a sinusoidal-based manner, except that the said sinusoidal-based curvature of the said counterstring of the mentioned one-dimensional superstring that is swivel-shaped are 90 degrees out of phase with the sinusoidal-based curved standing waves of the said one-dimensional strings that are topologically delineated under the general condition of being shaped in a swivel-like manner.

Session 13 to Course 13

The substringular encoders encode for superstrings.  Substringular encoders attach to superstrings and their correlative Planck-like phenomena via mini-string-based stratum.  The holonomic topological substrate that substringular encoders work to encode for is branched-out from the directly related substrings of the substringular encoders over to the Planck-like phenomena.  The superstrings in their respective world-tubes -- along with the counterparts of the directly corresponding superstrings -- are attached to the Planck-like phenomena via the multiplicity light-cone-gauge eigenstates.  Substringular encoders each consist of 10^43 substrings that exist well off of any given arbitrary Real Reimmanian Plane in which both superstrings of discrete energy permittivity and gravitational particles differentiate directly in during any given arbitrary individual iteration of instanton.  Each substring of a substringular encoder is the same size and shape as a one-dimensional superstring that is relatively ideal, except that these encoder mers have no partitions in and of themselves.  So, a substringular encoder that is based on a bosonic or closed string pattern consists of 3*10^8 mers of substring that work to form an approximation of a hoop-like pattern that is relatively homeomorphic except for the exception of its partitions, while a substringular encoder that is based on a fermionic or open string pattern that is linearly-based except with the exception of its partitions.  Each substringular encoder that is of normal space has 10^39 partitions in so long that this substringular encoder does not cause a black-hole to form.  Substringular encoders that cause black-holes to form have 10^40 partitions each.  In a one-dimensional substringular encoder, partitions go from right to left, facing the counterclockwise Ultimon general direction.  In two-dimensional substringular encoders, partitions go from right to left while also from up to down -- facing the counterclockwise Ultimon direction.  Even though there more bosonic superstrings of discrete energy permittivity than fermionic superstrings of discrete energy permittivity, there are just as many one-dimensional substringular encoders as there are two-dimensional substringular encoders.  Each substringular encoder has a counterstring that exists in its forward-holomorphic-based direction at instanton.  The partitions of a one-dimensional substringular encoder counterstring go from left to right, facing the counterclockwise Ultimon direction.  The partitions of a two-dimensional substringular encoder counterstring go from left to right while also from down to up, facing the counterclockwise Ultimon direction.  The angle of difference between the partitions of a substringular encoder -- and the partitions of a substringular encoder counterstring -- is part of the conditional basis of another format of a Grassman-like constant that exists between a given set of two corresponding partitions that exist among a given stringular encoder and its counterstring.

Part Three Of The Twelvth Session of Course 13

The Grassman Constant for such a superstring/counterstring inter-relation is in part the multiplicitly-based  angle of difference that exists in-between the partitions of the given one or two-dimensional superstring, respectively, and the directly associated one or two-dimensional counterstring.  So, at the norm-to-forward-holomorphic Laplacian-based  maximum of a given arbitrary two-dimensional superstring, the directly related counterstring has a partition that angles here toward the directly associated Planck-like phenomenon that here works to form the discrete energy impedance of the corresponding said discrete unit of energy.  And at the directly corresponding norm-to-reverse-holomorphic end of the just mentioned given arbitrary superstring during the same during iteration of BRST that appertains to the same "Instant Under Consideration," the counterstring that is here directly related to the corresponding two-dimensional superstring that is here being evaluated, has a partition angling inward and yet away from the holonomic substrate that works to comprise the said directly related two-dimensional counterstring.  Of the latter mentioned locus of the said format of partition-based topological substrate, (that here works to define the physical behavior of discrete energy that corresponds to a two-dimensional superstring and its directly corresponding two-dimensional counterstring), the point particles of such are displaced relatively transversally by one point particle in diameter -- while yet being also displaced just to the Njenhuis side of the given arbitrary topological mapping of the Laplacian-based trajectory of the ensuing first-ordered point particles, in such a manner that goes outward for the said topological mapping of the said two-dimensional superstring when going from the norm-to-forward-holomorphic static-based positioning of the said string while yet simultaneously (through a central conipoint) going relatively inward for the directly related two-dimensional counterstring from the same norm-to-forward-holomorphic static-based positioning of the said related two-dimensional counterstring.  The topological substrate that works to form the field that inter-binds a two-dimensional superstring with its counterpart is fed into its locus, in part, from mini-string segments that are initially fed into the directly related Fadeev-Popov-Trace that works to form the discrete energy impedance that directly corresponds to the discrete energy permittivity that the said superstrings work to comprise.

A Correction As To Conformal Dimensionality

First of all, an ansantz to anyone who knows very much about math -- anything to the zero power is 1.
So, the conformal dimension of a one-dimensional superstring of discrete energy permittivity is:
0+ 2^((3*10^8)/(10^43)) to 0+ 2^((1)/(10^43)), which is just over 1 (yet about 1) -- while the conformal dimension of a two-dimensional superstring of discrete energy permittivity is:
1+ 2^((6*10^8)/(10^43)), which is just over 2 (yet about 2).
This is because a one-dimensional superstring of discrete energy permittivity needs to be at least 1 in order to define a dimensionality that is not pointal-based, yet, the conformal dimension of such a superstring can not be exactly one on account of the condition of their discrepencies.  Likewise, a two-dimensional superstring of discrete energy permittivity that is two-dimensional needs to be at least two in order to define a dimensionality that is bears a widthwise flatspace, yet, again, the conformal dimension of such a superstring can not be exactly two on account of the condition of their discrepencies. The conformal dimension -- as to exactly what it is considered during specific cases -- depends upon how many partitions that are imbued upon the said given arbitrary superstring.
So, for one-dimensional superstrings, the conformal dimension is more specifically:
0+ (2 (to the # of discrepencies (partitions) that exist for the said string during the Polyakov Action during a given arbitrary metric of BRST)/10^43)), and, the conformal dimension for two-dimensional superstrings of discrete energy is, more specifically; 1+ (2(to the # of discrepencies (partitions) that exist for the said string during the Polyakov Action during a given arbitrary metric of BRST)/10^43).
Just a tid-bit to help the reader! To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Part Two To the Twelth Session of Course 13

Partitions of one-dimensional superstrings of discrete energy permittivity go from just to the Njenhuis right of the general topological mapping of the said format of string to just to the Njenhuis left of the same general topological mapping of the same format of string -- from  the reverse-norm-to-holomorphic end of the said superstring to the forward-norm-to-holomorphic end of the same said superstring..  For two-dimensional superstrings of discrete energy permittivity, the said partitions go from being off of the general topological mapping by being both just to the forward-holomorphic direction and also just to the Njenhuis right of the directly related topological mapping at the same metrical duration To being off of the general mapping by being both just to the reverse-holomorphic direction and also just to the Njenhuis left of the directly related topological mapping at the same metrical duration -- from the forward-norm-to-holomorphic end of the superstring counterclockwise to up to all around the general topological mapping of the said string.  The format of point particles that work to comprise the topology of superstrings most directly are first-ordered point particles -- as I have described in prior posts.  The fabric that works to comprise first-ordered point particles is a holonomic substrate that is comprised of a "yarning" of substringular field -- a yarning of what I term of as mini-string segments.  Such mini-string is a composite of second-ordered point particles that are beaded together in so as to have a cross-sectional thickness of 10^(-129) of one meter thick in the substringular.  Again, the diameter of a first-ordered point particle in the substringular is 10^(-86) in the substringular.  So, even though most phenomena tends to be radially dependent, point particles are dependent more on a basis of their diameter.  The counterstrings of superstrings -- that are here of discrete energy permittivity --  have partitions that are reverse delineated when relative to their directly related superstrings.  The partitions of one-dimensional counterstrings  that are of discrete energy permittivity go from just to the Njenhuis left to just to the Njenhuis right of the topological stratum of the said counterstring -- from the reverse-norm-to-holomorphic end to the forward-norm-to-holomorphic end of the said one-dimensional superstring of discrete energy permittivity.  For the partitions of two-dimensional counterstrings that are of discrete energy permittivity, the format of the directly related partitions goes from both just to the Njenhuis left and to just to the reverse-norm-to-holomorphic side of the general mapping of the topology of the corresponding string to being both just to the Njenhuis right and just to the norm-to-forward-holomorphic side of the general mapping of the topology of the corresponding superstring.  Again, just as with the superstrings that are directly related to the just mentioned counterstrings, the partitions may often be delineated from the norm-to-forward-holomorphic end of the said counterstring all of the way around its topological stratum in the counterclockwise direction of assorted Laplacian-based distribution(s).  I will continue with the third part of this session later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Prelude To The Second Part of the Twelvth Session of Course 13

A one-dimensional superstring of discrete energy permittivity has anywhere from one to 3*10^8 partitions -- as I have described in prior posts what I mean by partitions.
A two-dimensional superstring of discrete energy permittivity has anywhere from two to 6*10^8 partitions -- as I have described in prior posts what I mean by partitions.
When a one-dimensional superstring of discrete energy permittivity is fully contracted, it has one partition that is localized in the general center of the topological Ward Neumman bounds of the Gliossi-based field of the said superstring.  If the Lorentz-Four-Contraction is 0, then, the said superstring has 3*10^8 partitions that are evenly localized along the topological Wared Neumman bound of the Gliossi-based field of the said superstring.  So, the number -- to the integer-based digit -- that works to describe the degree of Lorentz-Four-Contraction of a one-dimensional superstring of discrete energy permittivity is the inverse of the number of partitions that exist along the topological Ward Neumman bounds of any given arbitrary Gliossi-based field that directly appertains to the mapping of the Laplacian-based surface area of the said given arbitrary superstring.
With two-dimensional superstrings of discrete energy permittivity, the physically-based behavior is similar, except that this here works to involve twice as many partitions -- as I have described in prior posts what I mean by partitions.
If a one-dimensional superstrings that I have described in this post has only one partition, then, this partition is in the general center of the superstring as I have described.  Yet, if a two-dimensional superstrings that I have described in this post has its minimal of two of such partitions, then, these said partitions will exist at the center of the relative norm-to-holomorphic end of the said superstrings & also at the center of the relative norm-to-reverse-holomorphic end of the said superstring.  Superstrings that go at the speed of light will also have minimal-number-based partitions localized along their topological stratum.   I will continue with the twelvth session of course 13 later!  Sincerely, Samuel David Roach.

Relating The Polyakov Action to the Regge Action

As to the Regge Action that I described last Friday, the just mentioned Action happens through what is known of as the Regge Slope.  The contraction of the directly related superstrings during the Regge Action is equal in scalar amplitude to the manner that it was contracted during the Polyakov Action.  The slope of the motion of superstrings during the Regge Action is roughly equal in scalar amplitude -- yet in an isometrical assymetric manner -- to the Laplacian-based slope of the light-cone-gauge that is borne between a given arbitrary superstring and its directly corresponding Fadeev-Popov-Trace.  So, when a Kaeler-Metric is acting upon a given arbitrary superstring, the slope of the activity of the said string is equal in an inverse-based scalar amplitude as to how this would act if there were to be no Kaeler-Metric acting upon it, yet, this kinematic action that happens over the course of the projection of a slope will then here be spaced further in the relatively forward-holomorphic direction of the trajectory of the just mentioned superstring than if there were no Kaeler-Metric acting upon the said string.  This happens, as a general example, in each case in which there is a superstring leaving BRST in order to  go into the generally unnoticed portion of Ultimon Flow.  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincererly, Sam Roach.

The Polyakov Action And The Regge Action

The directoral trajectory that happens in correspondence with any given arbitrary Regge Action eigenmetric is assymetrically in the opposite general angling of the directly prior hyperbolic Laplacian-based mapping of the first-ordered light-cone gauge eigenstate -- that is associated with the field eigenbasis that is affiliated with the interconnection that exists between the correlative superstring of discrete energy permittivity and its corresponding Fadeev-Popov-Trace. This happens in consideration of the condition that the eluded to discrete physical unit of energy is in, during the corresponding Polyakov Action eigenmetric that happens over BRST before the directly related said Regge Action eigenstate happens.  Again, if the Kaeler-Metric is directly associated with the activity of a given arbitrary superstring over the course of a given arbitrary instanton, then, the Kaeler-Metric will work upon the said superstring right in-between the affiliated course of BRST and the affiliated course of the directly related Regge Action eigenmetric.  Yet, if the Kaeler-Metric is not directly acting upon the said superstring over the course of any given arbitrary instanton that is directly associated with the said superstring, then, the affiliated Regge Action will happen immediately after the said related course of BRST.  Either way, the directoral trajectoral path of a superstring over the course of any given arbitrary Regge Action eigenmetric -- in which the said superstring is to be influenced by such a metric, in order to be brought into the generally unnoticed course of Ultimon Flow, will always assymetrically be in the opposite sub-Fourier-based general angular direction of projection that the correlative hyperbolic mapping of the related field that is appertaining to the interconnection that exists in-between the said arbitrary superstring and its affiliated Fadeev-Popov-Trace over the course of the syncrounous Polyakov Action eigenmetric and Bette Action eigenmetric.  The Polyakov Action and the Bette Acton happen at the same general duration of metric -- which is during the course of BRST.  So, the fractal of the angular momentum-based pull of the impedance of a superstring that happens as the basis of the directly related Lorentz-Four-Contraction that is Gliossi upon the said superstring over the course of BRST is basically the assymetrcal inverse of the fractal of the angular momentum-based push of the permittivity of the same said superstring that happens over the course of the Regge Action.  The spin-orbital wave-tug that happens to a given superstring during the Bette Action works to cause the reason for any potential aberration as to why the eluded to inverse is not completely kinematically non-trivially isomorphic -- in an assymetrical manner.  (The span that works to separate the relatively inverse operations that I have described here works to allow such an isomorphic differential pulse to be practically non-trivially isomorphic in an assymetrical manner, instead of practically isomorphic.)  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

A Hint As To How Light-Cone-Gauge Eigenstates Curve

During the individual Polyakov Action eigenmetrics that happen during group instanton, the directly associated second-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates curve hyperbolically in a manner that is hermitian, yet, at the same time, such a topological extrapolation is not necessarily curving over the period of the corresponding eigenmetric in a way that involves a unitary Euclidean genus of curvature over the period of the mentioned Polyakov Action.  For instance, the individual second-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates that work to comprise the first-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstate that operates for a specific given arbitrary discrete unit of energy may appear from a vantage point "above" the cross-section of a discrete unit of energy to have a mapping that sweeps-out a smooth trajectory in a flat-based space over the period of a given Polyakov Action eigenstate.  Such a scenario that exists at an arbitrary locus may be extrapolated via a genus of a Sterling Approximation.  Yet, the directly associated second-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates may often be delineated over BRST in such a manner that twists in a combination of tesoric topological sway through multiple dimensions over the corresponding duration of the said Polyakov Action eigenmetric during the consequent duration of BRST.  As such an activity occurs -- both during and/or after that Clifford Expansion that allows superstrings to expand to the inverse of their apparent Lorentz-Four-Contraction -- this happens in such a manner in so that the apparent smooth extrapolation may be mapped-out from one vantage point of what is here a seeming unitary kinematic projection. This happens via the tracing of the directly related mini-string in such a way that is here working to determine the relative delineation of the proximal light-cone-gauge eigenstate.  Such a mapping, though, may also involve hermitian-based twists in multiple Minkowski Ward-Caucy bounds that may here denote alterior torsions that are not necessarily appertaining to a unitary flow of a  Euclidean-based Lagrangian format of curvature that has no topological sway, in spite of what other-wise appears from one standpoint to be a tensoric-based unitary projection of a substringular field generation that here exists between a given superstring and its directly associated Fadeev-Popov-Trace.  The wording here may need a little bit of help, yet, I can see what I am trying to say.  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Math As To Layers Of Reality

The math as to what phenomenon is in what relative covariant layer of reality is based upon the curvature angles that may be subtended between two or more conicenters of light-cone-gauge eigenstate-based hyperbolic curvatures at the metrical center of eigenmetric of a Polyakov Action that works to appertain to different respective codeterminabe, covariant, and codifferentiable discrete units of energy. 

So, let us say that in the middle of a given arbitrary Polyakov Action eigenmetric, two different adjacent discrete units of energy have their directly corresponding conicenters of light-cone-gauge eigenstates at a subtended angle that averages at 90i degrees -- the one relative conicenter of one light-cone-gauge eigenstate that has just achieved its directly associated Clifford Expansion relative to another relative conicenter of another light-cone-gauge eigenstate, that has also simultaneously (through the vantage point of the center of the proximal extrapolation) achieved its directly associated Clifford Expansion.  This just mentioned condition of angling would work to determine both said discrete units of energy as belonging to the same genus of codeterminable layer of reality -- even if both of the said discrete units of energy were not of the same universe.

If two different discrete units of energy that are of the same genus of codetermiable layer of reality are off of adjacency by one layer of substringular stratum, then, the angle of subtention that may be extrapolated from the conicenter of one of the two directly corresponding light-cone-gauge eigenstates to the conicenter of the other given light-cone-gauge eigenstate -- at the center of the duration of the directly associated dual Polyakov Action eigenmetric -- would be 32pi(I)/63 degrees.  So, if the said two different discrete units of energy were off of adjacent by 63 layers of substringular stratum, then, the angle of subtension that may be extrapolated from the conicenter of one of the two directly corresponding light-cone-gauge eigenstates to the other given light-cone-gauge eigenstate -- at the center of the duration of the directly associated dual Polyakov Acton eigenmetric -- would be 32pi(I) degrees.  The format of angle that would exist at another layer off of adjacent would then be 32pi(I)/65 degrees.

So, if the codeterminable layer of reality of two different discrete units of energy are off of adjacency by 159,000 layers of substringular stratum -- when under the conditions of universal history here involving no layers of reality being completely frayed -- then this would here involve an angle of subtension between the conicenters of their light-cone-gauge eigenstates at the simultaneous (through the vantage point of the center of the proximal extrapolation) center of the dual duration of Polykov Action eigenmetric -- would again be 90i degrees.  Yet, if 9,000 layers of reality were completely frayed at a given moment in universal history, and if also the said format of subtension of 90i degrees happened instead at 150,000 layers of substringular stratum off of directly adjacent, then, at this point instead, the two directly eluded to discrete units of energy would here be of the same layer of reality.
Again, to sum up the main consideration that works to determine what is to be the correlation as to the covariant layer of reality that one discrete unit of energy is from -- relative to another covariant layer of reality that another discrete unit of energy is in is based upon the subtention of angle that the conicenter of one first-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstate at the conicenter of one Polyakov Action  eigenmetric bears relative to the conicenter of another first-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstate of the other extrapolated discrete unit of energy at the dual state of the same dual Polyakov Action eigenstate during a given arbitrary group instanton.  This differs from the determination as to what universe that one discrete unit of energy is in relative to another one -- the latter of which, instead, involves the angle of subtention that exists between two different covariant Fadeev-Popov-Trace eigenstates.
This is for one set of parallel universes.  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincererly, Sam Roach.