The "Sam Roach" Series -- My Present Perception

I recently came up with a series, that potentially works to describe the relative spatial dimensionality, for certain heuristic Calabi-Yau spaces, (as such a said “space,” or superstring, is here to be heuristic in its typically maxed-out “stretch,” along its relative norm-to-holomorphic Stoke’s-Based plane, of the respective superstring; to where, as such a respective string-like phenomenology is to vibrate, in a typically thought of manner, the implied oblong mappable pattern of such an inferred “maxed-out ‘stretch,’ “ is to often tend to oscillate “back-and-forth,” — from the initially inferred tense of such a stretch, to a relatively orthogonal mappable projection of such a stretch (the latter of which is here, to be mappable, along the inferred relative Nijenhuis-norm-to-holomorphic Stoke’s-Based plane, of the respective superstring) — which is Not even considering the general gauged-action, that is here to be due to the general respective kinematic activity of the Polyakov Action.), when the Polyakov Action is maxed-out. (Which is when the Lorentz-Four-Contraction is theoretically here to be zero.):

The basic series (which is here to be of a Laplacian-Based nature), of which is what I currently perceive to be of the right nature, is the following:

The Natural Log Of [[ The summation from N=0 TO N=D-1] (to where D equals the total overall number of spatial dimensions, that are here to be present in a considered respective Calabi-Yau space) of:

((e^((n-1)*2PI*i))/e^(N-1))*((PI*i)/(e^(2*N-1))) ].

So; If I am doing this Right, If one were to have a heuristic Calabi-Yau space, (as to be when such an inferred superstring, is to be maxed-out in one relative tense of its vibrational “stretch”) that is here to have a maxed-out Polyakov Action -- to where there is HERE to be no effective Lorentz-Four-Contractoin; then, the spatial dimensionality of such an inferred "D-field," will thereby be:

((PI*i)/2)*(the natural log of PI) (i hat ) + (((PI*i)/2)*(the natural log of PI)//e^1)( j hat) + 

((PI*i)/2)*(the natural log of PI)/(e^3)(k hat) + ((PI*i)/2)*(the natural log of PI)/e^5)( l hat) +

((PI*i)/2)*(the natural log of PI)/(e^7)( m hat) + ((PI*i)/2)*(the natural log of PI)/(e^9)(n hat).

So; as the inferred superstring is to typically vibrate in a heuristic manner, the relative oblong Stoke’s-Based plane of “stretch,” is to oscillate back-and-forth in its orthogonal relativistic tense, as in the exhibition of its display of relativistic spatial dimensionality, in so as to often tend to keep reverting back-and-forth, into a relative Ward-Polarization of dimensional contortion. I apologize if this concept is not conveyed just so; yet, together, we’ll “get to the bottom of this.”

Now; if there were to be a Lorentz-Four-Contraction, that is here to be applied to such a given arbitrary case scenario, that is to be of a magnitude of "10," then, one will keep the initial value, in terms of "i hat," to remain of the same relative scalar amplitude, YET, all of the other 5 of the six spatial dimensions of the directly associated superstring -- that are here to be of the Calabi-Yau nature of such a case scenario, (for a D field), are thence to be divided by a scalar magnitude of "10."

P.S.: This is if the Planck "Length" is to be most associated, with the monomial group that I had mentioned, when in terms of the directoral in this particular case, of "I hat."

This is my present perception as to this; So, if any part of this derivation seems to be wrong, please do not feel nervous about letting me know about this! Remember; -- Dialogue means, "I'm wrong, You're wrong, I'm right, You're right, let's talk!" TO BE CONTINUED! SINCERELY, SAM ROACH. (1989).