A Certain Aside As To Assymptotes

Let us consider an orbifold eigenset, that is moving into the general reverse-holomorphic direction -- in an assymptotic directorial-based manner, towards a plotting that may be mapped-out as being of a general relative y-based axion, -- to where this happens in such a manner, that may be described of as a cohomological index, that behaves as if it is moving as an eigenstate that is as well moving in a tangential manner, via a respective correlative Fourier-Transformation, that is initially being translated via an even manner of acceleration, over time.  Let us initially consider that one is dealing with a "real-to-'life'" relatively planar motion (as a figure of "speech"), that is basically moving in a strictly two-dimensional manner, as the said orbifold eigenset is to approach the so-stated relative y-based axion, in an assymptotic manner, over a sequential series of instantons.  Let us next consider, that at some point in time -- as the said orbifold eigenset is to then be relatively very close in proximal locus to the said mapped-out relative y-based axion, -- that the so-stated orbifold eigenset, that is to here be kinematic in displacement, via the so-eluded-to Fourier-Transformation, is to be tugged-across the Laplacian-based mapped-out y-based axion.  Since this general genus of a perturbation out of the initial assymptotic mode of motion, will be an alteration out of the general genus of the so-eluded-to approach -- that had initially been tending to get nearer and nearer to the plotted-out relative respective y-based axion -- in such a manner of which is to here be moving as is according to the so-stated initial even acceleration, over the initial so-eluded-to sequential series of instantons,  such a perturbation out of an assymptotic flow of the respective eigenindices of the said orbifold eigenset, will blatently work to cause a change in the initial rate of the acceleration of the said orbifold eigenset, -- to where such a genus of a kinematic-based perturbation will then work to cause a definite metrical-based Chern-Simons singularity.  Yet, since we are here to be initially discussing the actual versus the theoretical -- the actual approach of the so-stated orbifold eigenset that is towards the said Laplacian-based y-based axion, -- will work to bear, in reality, an external angular momentum -- that is to work to bear more of an abelian geometry of approach than a non-abelian geometry of approach, -- since the earlier said assymptotic motion of the said orbifold eigenset towards the so-stated Laplacian-based y-based axion, is to here, only be the physical result of what is simply an approximation of an assymptotic method of behavior.  (Nothing that is actually physical, is likely to just get more and more infinitely closer to any mapped-out axion, without ever to be able to spontaneously cross such a given arbitrary axion, no matter how long such an activity is to happen.  So, in reality, if such an approach is to be prolonged, such an orbifold eigenset will always tend to eventually alter from the theoretical assymptotic behavior, that has here been eluded-to.)  Based upon this just mentioned physical condition -- such a genus of a crossing of a Laplacian-based axion, will, in the "real world," not necessarily work to involve a Lagrangian-based Chern-Simons singularity.
I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Samuel David Roach.

Part One of Session 8 of Course 19 -- The Klein Bottle and Orbifold Differentiation

Let us say that a majorization was the process of double integrating the spatial parameters of a given arbitrary initial phenomenology -- this being done without an alteration in the directly corresponding time-based integrand, this said spatial alteration of which would be correlative to the change in the supposition of the Ward-Caucy-based conditions of such a respective given arbitrary case scenario. So, if one were to majorize the state of a point particle-based phenomenology in time and space  -- one would get, as a result in this given arbitrary case, a basic planar-based phenomenology in the here renewed postulation of the substringular.  If one were to majorize a basic linear-associated phenomenology from an initial of such a so-eluded-to postulation -- one would get, as a result in this given arbitrary case, a parabolic phenomenology (often, of a spherical phenomenology) in time and space.  If one were to majorize a planar phenomenology from an initial postulation --one would get, as a result in this given arbitrary case, a parabolic entity that is to here bear, let's say, an orbital tensor in time and space (as may be denoted by the extrapolation of an added orbital-based axion here).  If one were to have majorized a parabolic-based configuration from an initial postulation, or, in this case, if one were to majorize a spherical-based configuration from the so-stated initial postulation -- one would get, in this given arbitrary case, a sphere with the two added tensoric spatial entities in time and space, that would here directly appertain to the addition of both a spinor-based axion and an orbital-based axion, in the so-eluded-to changed consideration of the substringular -- this being the denoted spatial alteration, that may be considered here as a change in the postulation of the spatial parameterization of the so-stated initial conditions of the holonomic substrate -- as going from the so-eluded-to phenomenology that was initially of the said basic spherical-based nature, To the so-eluded-to changed extrapolation of the Ward-Caucy-based conditions that would be of this eluded-to case scenario in the substringular.  I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Sam.

The Third Part of Session Seven of Course 19 -- The Klein Bottle and Orbifold Differentiation

When one is to spatially majorize a basic planar surface that acts as a Hamiltonian-based operand in time and space, that is of a simple flat-space-like configuration,  when this is in terms of what the tendency of what you will physically get in the process -- one will tend to have a three-dimensional physical field that works here to bear an added tensoric-based genus, that will here tend to be related predominantly to the physical existence of a spin-orbital-based coniaxioin -- to where this said spin-orbital-based coniaxion will here tend to curve in so as is the relatively local general curvature of the directly related space-time-fabric would then have a tendency to curve as such.  When one is to then here work to extrapolate a majorization of the directly previously mentioned three-dimensional spatial field -- that would here have an added spin-orbital coniaxion that is incorporated as had been eluded-to into the Hamiltonian operand of that particular eigenstate of space that is to bear any of certain given arbitrary Hamiltonian operators, that would here be functional from within the just-eluded-to general region, one will then get a set of two additional tensorsic-based operators "on top of that"-- that will here tend to be related predominantly to the physical existence of both a transversal-based coniaxion and a radial-based coniaxion -- this said set of both a transversal-based coniaxion and a radial-based coniaxion of which will here tend to curve, in so as is the here relatively local general curvature of the directly related space-time-fabric would then have a tendency to curve as such.