Well, I am extremely honored to have this conference today, because I am, I am, I am

somewhat misplaced to talk about it correctly, it is not that I am not of God, I am sure because I have a sense of love, but there is a lot of work I am thinking about, about

mathematics, and I want to show people who are more competent in the history of mathematics and who pass due time correctly, to tell this chapter, which is quite interesting, because it is articulated on the great adventures of Tom Morf, among others, with the influence

that arrive, and then, in advance, there is all the history of mathematics, etc. So, I am not a bit misplaced, because I am not competent in doing that, but I am accepted

to do that as well. A little bit, but you are welcome to do all the critiques and all the suggestions that you are going to offer to me, because I am very excited about these errors, and that you are very encouraged by the registration that we serve, the corrections

to these errors. Voilà! This is another part, like the... Oh, that is much better, like that. The expose by the way, voilà! So, I want to tell you something, so I am not too excited to do an error on the history of mathematics,

I am not too excited, I am not too excited, this is a real error. I am not too excited, I am not too excited about slides, I am not too excited about tricks. So, one minute per trick, that is very good.

So, in a prior part, I talked about exactly what I saw, what I found, and in a second part, I talked about mathematics. In the end, you don't know what you are going to do, and you are always going to believe what you are going to do, and I am not too excited, because I am not sure that this is interesting.

I am going to show you some characteristics, that are directly in the drawing, of what God has given us. Voilà! So, I don't know exactly what you are going to do, because you are going to see it. So, I start by the first part, I am going to tell you a little bit about my vision,

of the mathematics of God. I am good, it is my vision, because, it is part of my work, of the history of mathematics, and it is very true. From the very beginning, it is just a first approach.

I don't know how to speak in English, or if you want to see an automatic introduction, I can say it, but it is a demand. I continue in French. I am part of it. Good. Was it like a story?

Ah, yes. You are right. So, I was wondering whether many people would prefer me to speak in English. The slides are in French, but if you want, I may try to speak, well,

not English, but the kind of language every mathematician uses, which is not really English, as you know, but something you may understand better than French. So, it is a question. Who would prefer me to speak English than French?

Nobody. Okay. I continue in French. So, so, I discovered this in five or so years ago. So, the first part, so, I said classic, because it corresponds, voilà. So, when you do that, you can discover

the time, the time when the writings, as you know, of Godman, are in three. Now, let's talk about the publications. This book is ten years old. In fact, it's very brief. It's ten years old. After that, I chose, I exposed the conferences

and my work in Burbaki. This book is twenty years old. And then, in fact, it produced a rupture that I discovered a few years ago. And then, I realized that this rupture gave me the chance to make another 120, 120, 120, 130 years.

Progressively, this is the world, the world of traditional mathematics, that I call political. In five years, Godman, because Godman is an exorcist of his own algebra. He explains on Mars that there are two human movements, one that is Gosh, that is Unaf,

and one that is different, and that is Gosh, and one that is political. So, that's it. And then, in fact, in Burbaki, something that I've never seen before, which is the reduction of coverage in segments,

and its way of discussing with people. So, that is something that I've always found. Voilà. So, I started by the beginning of the complete standard. So, he went back and forth. So,

I telephoned to Jacques Dixmier, whom I met a few years ago. So, in fact, I wasn't here doing great things. He was Dixmier, he was very charming. But he was nice because he knew French culture, and he wanted to interview me. So, it was... I don't know, I don't speak French any more.

But he was nice, and effectively, he was in the chamber with Godemont, and there was a discussion with him, and then, after that, he met Burbaki, of course. And... there were a lot of details, but he wanted to

reduce it very quickly, and in that way, I didn't feel anything more precise. So, he worked with Carton, and in quarantine. So, when he died, he went back to the Arctic. So, a lot of people found out about him. And then, in the Arctic,

there were a lot of maps. So... I'm going to go there. So, in fact, the debut was... ... ...in a very elegant way, and in a much more pleasant way. And this he did with Carton.

And he did a demonstration, very general, of the dualities of Rio Guin. And... He was very interested in all these things. And then, he went through a lot of all the publications on Rio Guin, the American publication, on the subject, on the presentation.

And... So... Well, the idea was that the Arctic... ... ...was the most important. So, I wanted to show you the list of notes, and show you the notes and reviews.

So, I told you that I picked the notes and reviews. So... ...this started a series of notes to show you. So, you'll see that the reviewers, who did the reports, are the

most active people in the world. We have Austin, we have Ricard. After... ...we have, of course, Segal. So, it's good that it's not a dream come true to those who are watching these articles. So... So, you have the relation between

Yvette Bergman, who was there. And then... ...we have a version of Fourier. So, after... ...the three articles that represent the essentials of our president. So...

...if you've seen them, I won't repeat them. So, after the first article, there's a... ...a new series of notes to show you. So, it's essentially about characters, about some of them. Whether they're in good or bad

dimensions. I believe that they're going to have a party with Dixmier. They're going to collaborate with Dixmier, but it's not going to happen in the publication. But I know that Dixmier is interested in a lot at the moment. So, I'd like to encourage you if you're good with the subject.

And then... ...a new article that represents essentially our president. So, with... ...the first article you've seen, and then, of course, the second one, it's about characters. So, we're going to find a fifth article with someone who can

read it and read it, which is, as I said, a very important subject. It's the harmonic general, it's the non-sense. Essentially. We don't want to talk about these things.

There's no arithmetic, there's... ...there's no direct automata. There's the harmonic that's already a decomposing of the automata, but it's not present there. It's present in what's here. So, the same thing. So, I'm observing that

there's more articles that were published. So, it's a small note. At the end of the essay, there's an exercise that there are functions of this type to measure a result of the amount of energy. And on the other hand, in Iraq, the exposure was to this minor godman

or to this minor carton, or to this minor burbaki. So, that's the second part. So, the third part, the exposure. So, it's going to be a large, 40,000 feet. 20. And there, we're going to go back to the form of the mouth.

The mouth is not all the same. The mouth is slightly, but it's a little like the mouth. So, there's not... So, 50,000 feet, that's a little too long. And at the end of the essay, there's a carton. Boom!

It's working, it's working a lot. And after 40,000 feet, 20,000 feet, it's a minor burbaki. 20. And at the end of the essay, it's at the end of the essay, and it's not ready yet. So, it's going to be a real rupture. So, the part that emerges

is 20,000 feet. 20,000 feet. So, at the end of the essay, I'm going to give you the list. I'm not... I'm not going to give you the list of similar cartons. I'm going to give you the list of similar burbaki that's going to be more significant. So, the first burbaki begins with the trick of

Gelfond, which is called Daimark. It continues in the space of Hilbert. It's going to be in the game of Noto Contrendu. It's going to be in the character. That's the whole debut. So, we rest in the Armonique. And then we go to Paris. We're there, we're there, we're there, we're there. There's work to be done.

And then, four weeks later, I thought that it was practically the soul to enter in France to, well, if you think about it, at the time, it was very interesting to enter in France.

For example, it's not good. And, after that, it's hard. But, from that point of view, it was an advance in that time. even in the world, you can't work on these things. So, in the last three weeks, there were things extremely important to understand in the work of the game.

So, and then, well, let's see, in 17, 17, everything that is interesting in the work of Selberg, there are these articles on the, pardon, there are two works on the functions of the game, which are the precursors of the game with Jackie.

And, so, there, the game was really present. For the players, it's not direct automorphs, but it's common hierarchy for automorphs. And, the game is about Selberg as a source of problems.

So, that's the main problem. And then, the three most important things, for me, when I was 11, it was the one that was most interesting. So, then, there are the functions of the game where you do the deconstructions of the game

for cell 2, and delete. And, then, there are the introductions of the game, and then there are the productions of the game. So, the game was really the source of the

automorphs. And, he was, in particular, very comfortable with the importance of Selberg, and also, on the game, and at the time, he was not very well in the game. And, I believe he played an important role in the popularization of the game and in his recognizance,

even if, finally, we recognize the first game of this year, this year, and so on. So, in the end, he was very comfortable with the game. So, he was very comfortable. So, so, yes, he had a very good experience

with the game of Schrodinger, and the game was not easy. So, there was a lot of experience in the conference. There was not the roll-in... in the group we are at, a group of NRS, I don't know, I was not able to research. So,

there was an experience, in 1950s, so it was in the Arctic. After that, he wrote his book about a guy who wrote a book that was in the middle of the classic era, and then a note about the reform of the hospital,

which, well, these were things that, at the time, when the 50s started, were very clear, but it was really the beginning. So, I said, I've heard a lot of stories, and there's a lot of work to be done to find out exactly what to do, as a conference here, but I don't know.

But, of course, I'm not a good historian, I don't know what to do, so... Well, yes? There's a lot of work to be done, including the notes on Jacqueline's hands. So, it's good to know. And it's not a conference.

For people who don't know, in general, I went to my house, and, well, it's very thin in this area, and then I went to publish the article, and I found out that, well, God knows what he's talking about.

But, well... Well, I believe it's going to be brutal. And when I saw his reviews, we saw that God knows it's perfect, and God knows what he's saying, and it's perfect for me. It's more than just that.

But that's the topic that I wasn't able to publish, and I wasn't able to talk about it. So, there was an article in my book, and I discussed it, and what I said was contradictory, and what I said was wrong. So, I repeat, what I said was wrong, because it's a story,

so I said that I was wrong, but it's a story. So, he worked, and he made some reductions on the gender, and on the different varieties. So, what I said was wrong,

I said it was wrong, or it was the integration, etcetera, and I didn't do it, but it was good. So, I did it. I did it, and I worked in the city of Burbaki. I didn't do any work, I was on the telephone. So, he explained to me, he told me, and I said, well, that's not true.

I didn't do any work. but I was on the phone on the phone, so I didn't continue to work. So, that's what I did. So, I arrived, I arrived at the 30th period,

if I may say, the 30th period, the 30th period, because there was a period of two, where we saw in the publication, in the participation of congress, in the conference, there was an important activity in the publication, I think it was in the 15th, after a number of episodes,

I was on the phone, and then on the phone, and essentially, it was not complete, because between the 30th and 32th, he participated in a conference, there was an event, but that's all. And now, here... So, I...

I saw... these things happen, and from there I saw... There are two worlds. Yes, from there I did not go on and on. I saw... There are two worlds. I lived in my home, On my note, what is it?

What is it? I lost it. Was it not there? Ah, it's there. I'm not sure. Yes, it's not completely logical. Excuse me. Excuse me. So, what I said is that, yes, from 1773,

there was the right to progress things, to have the note of the lecture, the note of Jacqueline Glance, but it did not change anything, so there were people who did not copy. No, sir. We can't have a copy of an institute. Yes, we can't have a copy of an institute. Yes, it's accessible,

but it's not complete. It's not even on the web anymore. I'm not sure. And then, on a small note, I said that QTIS, the transformation of Meline, and the functions of ETA, but it's not complete. And that's all. So, there is no publication.

No publication. There is no research. There are a lot. But there is no publication. So, I repeat, however, for me, if you want to see this work, what God really thinks, you have to do this exercise of the algebra, this is really a shadow, of love, and of,

and of humanity. So, I, really, I'm very happy to be here, and with you today, with the same delectations. And then, this position was sufficiently small, because we were, in fact, in fact, the scales,

the chemicals, that were in the apartment, were plasticated, and now they are two. It was one of the most great plastics I've ever seen. My dad, when he was in prison, he was in Cuba, and it was great. Because the water was awful. So, it was serious.

So, this was the, the, the, the position on Algérie, but, it was not, not, the position on, the world, the world of mathematics, traditional. So, the things are, they are, progressively, I'm not exactly,

well, at the moment, we've discussed, well, I'm767 as everyone in the United States. I've never met that guy. And, been discussion. We discuss that but, we're aware of these political convictions. I've also discussed really, how did it,

how did it go in a place like that. So, I spokeou the latest, I spokeou the latest ardiouke-en-au-glance, and at the time, I spokeo the first 90 years, I was exposed to Williamstown in 22, and then I was exposed to the Portuguese in 24. But the rest were not ready.

I was exposed to Williamstown in 22, and then I was exposed to the Godman. And Godman told me, we are already together. And, in fact, I did not have anything to do with it. I did not have anything to do with it at all.

So, there you go. So, when you grow up, this was the end of your certificate. So, this was already a philosophy for some time. So, what I told you is that this was the beginning of a great deal, a great deal, and I will tell you about it later.

I know that when we discussed a little bit about life, a great deal, a great deal, and a great deal of others. So, it was a great deal for those who were there, and he started to reflect on the way the military applied in terms of science and math. This was the moment that he was interested in,

but this was the beginning. He was also very fascinated by the atomic bomb, and everything that turned out. So, for me, the turning was very evident a little while back in 22, there was the preparation, the conference in Denver,

and I saw the occasion of that great Godman on the phone, on the telephone, on the phone of Jean-Pierre Serre, and this was explained to me as extremely brutal, as he was transparent in the text, which is a text that was published by Godman,

and he said clearly in his terms, that the things are dead, that's why. So, I can tell you of the records that started this day, and also, he said that he thought that Jean-Pierre Serre had said,

that at that moment, even we are professionals, in terms of the conference, and that we were paid, we are professionals, and Godman reported, ah yes, you are professionals, as we are professionals, the rest of us. So, well, the answer is more explicit,

but it is going to be the same thing. So, I don't want to talk about it, but I don't want to talk about this text. So, I wrote a book about it,

so I prefer to accept people, or to talk about them, because I am a person, that's the reason. So, that's all. In my head, I wrote with an F or two Fs, and then I wrote with two Fs in the text that I copied.

I copied it, I am happy to hear it, I am happy to hear it. So, you can find this text, if you want to use it on the web, it is accessible, it is easy to use, so you have to pay a lot, and you have to obtain it.

Ah, so, well, Van Gogh, you can't think about it, he doesn't speak English at all, he speaks English here. So, after a week or two, he told me that he had started,

and so we saw that his first conference, for example, in 2011, because he started to tell us that when he was seven, he started to talk about the military crisis that had happened in different countries in the world. So, that was a moment, that he turned around, and it happened. The day was five,

and he was not happy, because he was the person who was the military. So, we saw that he was not happy to talk about the border crisis, because, as I said, he felt that he wanted to grow, and that he was not happy, he was not happy, and he was furious. So, he sent this text,

a lot more jolent, than what he said about the military crisis. It is not all about his style, it is about himself. No, I don't think so. So, as I said, finally,

he was, at the end, refused to do anything. So, this was his first conference, he was silent and profound. And, well, I should say, that, effectively, here we are in a place where he was

marked by the mission of the United States, because he had observed, that he was going to be a little bit out of source, rather than completely clean. I'm sure he knows that he is not the only one who knows that. Ok, ok. Is that it? Do you have any technical techniques?

No, I don't think so. Ok, ok. So, well, well, well, I'm not going to do that. I'm always going to continue. Yes, yes. Of course.

His presence at Princeton, and at the time, I must say, the time was at the time. So, that's what he was thinking. I think so. I think so. I think so. Effectively. So, there, he talked to JK a little bit.

Yes, yes, because the students, the students who came to see us, are saying, this is our first year. For the critics, I'm so sorry. I didn't realize. Why did you leave? Why did you leave? Why did you leave? I left. It was terrible. Yes, it's very sad that I left.

So, so, so. So, so... and well, and the way he had done it, and completely left. We all felt that he was a good guy. And he didn't expect the idea, but he thought that other people a moral code that allows them to resist the Syrian military.

So, that's it. So, I'm not sure, because I'm sure that it was in 22 that I heard the discussion between Sarah and Godman, but it's still a matter of time. I'm not sure about that.

So, that's also a history work, so it's not very important. So, what's most important is what I'm doing. Godman is a great leader, not only in the past, but also in the future. I'm going to tell you something, if I'm honest. Groton Dicke is not going to do a scandal.

He's going to protest. And, well, there are some things that I really appreciate about this conference, but not all of them. He was in particular in the text of England. And, well, he lived well. He participated with the young people.

And not with the young people at the time. So, that's it. So, there was an interview that everyone can find very easily by the SMF, by Clozell and Meingler. And Godman's critic, the continuity of the work.

So, I find that interesting, because I'm not aware of this position at all. It's clear. It's very clear. In fact, he said that there's not a lot of interest, because it's not really interesting. The stillness of what it is. It's clear. So, I'm going to tell you the text of an interview that's interesting.

And, how do you say it? Well, it was also a divorce between the ideas of Groton Dicke and what we call mathematics.

So, in the case of Brubacris, for example, Dicke and Meingler, Godman and Groton Dicke were together. They were together for the first time. And he said that he wasn't going to talk about it.

So, we talked about it. At the same time, he said, well, he's going to talk about it. So, that was their place. But, well, after mathematics, there was a divorce between the philosophy of mathematics.

I won't talk about it later. So, Godman is going to talk about it, and then he's going to read books. So, I'm going to talk about it later. So, I'm going to talk about books, because I'm going to talk about various ideas about them.

In particular, the first. You can see the books that have been made. The first was not the speciality of Godman. He didn't work with them. And he introduced a text that was the Bible of the subject for decades. I don't remember the number of citations. So, it was more than 200 books.

It was in the other books. And it was really the reference. And it's even more interesting. I think it's a book that's useful, I think. So, it's a good performance of mathematics.

Well, there's also the point of mathematics. The point of view of philosophy is interesting. Philosophy and politics. It's very interesting. I think it's a good performance. I think it's a good performance, too.

After the book of Godman, I think it's a good performance. I think it's a good performance. I think it's a good performance. And there are some ideas from Godman, but I don't think there's any real.

I think it's a good performance. Well, I told you all about it. It's just normal. But no, I believe in that work that Vicky was doing here first. So, after a few years, her introduction to the book of Godman, it's been really beautiful. and it has been reduced a lot, so it's not bad.

And then, for the last series, there are a lot of mathematics analysts who are also in a hurry. So, I'm going to go back to the beginning because I found it interesting. And of course, the French editor contacted me. He asked me a few questions

regarding all the discussions about the mathematics that was done. So, I went back, and he asked me, and I told him, and he said, no, I can't talk. And then I came back. I accepted that I could talk, and it was very good, like that.

So, the reason I came back, is because of the French people. And in the early 50s, you saw the Jardin de Dévisemes d'Uen and the mathematicians. I saw the titres. I thought that the titres were a better way for me. The continues were interesting, but the titres were a perfection.

Voilà. Well, I'm not sure how to say it. So, in God's love, there is a certain number here. There is one that is not there, because we are here, and there is a small one. So, there is one that is not there because there is a small one,

and there is a small one, and there are difficulties to place. But, if not, well, I was there. I was there, and it was not there. No, it was not there. And then, there was the school.

So, I did not know. I did not know if it was really a story with God, or not at all. It was not just God but God's love. It is there. Voilà. Voilà. So, everything was referenced in the Magenialogies project. And there is a certain topic,

like the car car, that I did not know. Apparently, I did not know what the car was. And I did not know. I did not know. And there is another one that I have to say. So, there is the orphanage. Well, it is different, because there is the text of Giro that I found here on the SMF,

which is interesting. I went to Paris, and I found this orphanage. I wanted to find things on the web, and I found that. So, in fact, like everything else, I was able to find people. There were people who were interested in this matter, even though they were part of the United States. So, I found everything.

But this was an idea of the influence, as a professor, of God. It is an extraordinary space that exists. So, there is Giro, who is here with us.

It is a little more than that. So, there is something that I can tell you, as my friend, that he is not alone in the development of God. He is working with God and with me, when we are working together in the form of the three of us.

So, in my opinion, God is like a director, so, for me, it was not a bad thing. When I told you, you can't hear me, you can't hear me. You have to listen to me. So, for me,

God is like a director, and then, when I came to the service, God made me feel like I was in the three of us. So, I was in the three of us, and I was very good. So, it was a fundamental thing, because I thought,

it is a new direction. I thought that if you follow the Bible, you will be able to see what you are doing. So, I was extremely recognized. So, because it was human,

it was a new direction. But, in fact, even though I did not have any opinion on the details, I was able to go there, talk to some other people, etc. No, it was not in this way. So, that's it. So, we are there. Voilà. So, after a while,

it was a minute ago. So, I said things that were not correct, but it was an impression. I did not know what they were. I did not know what they were. So, I did not know what I was saying. So, I thought, this is the difference between the three of us,

the two of us, the College of France, but I was not able to find a lot of ideas, a lot of suggestions. I did not know if we were going to make a series about a series about exposure, whether it was going to work or not. I saw a lot of others,

but I did not, I was part of our process. So, there was a lot of work to do, if the people were interested in this. What is it that we are going to expose, or what we are going to expose, all that we saw at the time, on the theory of the morph. The exception of the details,

the three of us, was that it was something that happened, but it was not really in the right place. So, we were in the right place. So, so, I saw some redactions in this area, but I saw a lot of things.

There were a lot of things that were actually very interesting to to find and react to. So, the similar to Godman, he disappeared with the disinvestment of Godman in the 70s,

in the early 70s, and Rodier, and Jardin, and Moi, and so on, were their enemies. We were exposed, in particular, to the work of Godman, and also to the scholars. And that's it. So, what did I tell you about Godman?

Well, I've already told you, and I'm going to tell you in a minute, to show you his characteristics. So, so, I'm going to start by telling you, and I'm going to tell you everything, what happened. So, so, I said,

to Godman, yes, the truth is, the truth is, the same thing happened. One day, a man was killed in the global war, in the past. One thought, it was a binary threat. But, so, there weren't any things made or made

in all characteristics. Well, there, I think there is a chance that it will also be made in all characteristics. No, but, yes, you can't feel it, because it's a good example. But, there is everything! Everything is done properly, and it's really a great exception. The second exception is that it's not proper. It's what I've done with England.

It's the first time we've worked in all characteristics. I've exposed my Budapest in all characteristics, and it has been re-digitized in all characteristics, and it's written on the form of the book. So, I've had a reaction, and I don't want you to think about it anymore. So, there were a few things that were done in England,

and I'm happy about it. Well, I lived in the middle of the West, I had a special composition in all characteristics, and it was a very beautiful book, and it was written on the form of the book, the Artic of Dungodak, and it made sense to me, but I wasn't able to tell you

how complete it was, if I told you anything. So, if you're concerned, the form of the book is positive. Well, I'd say that the extension of the Artic of Dungodak I'd say it's good, it's good for others, and it's not normal, but it's good for others. So, I'd say it's good for others.

So, the form of the book is positive, the stabilization of the book is good. So, I'd say that, regarding the categories, well, it's true that the conditions form all characteristics, and there's no difference. But it's true. So, it's for that good,

and for others, and for me as well, we'd like to suggest to Bertrand Le Maire, that as a good specialist of the positive characteristics, of seeing what we can do to return to the positive characteristics, everything is true. The author and the others are true.

You'll have to accept that name, and I'll tell you that you'll accept that name. So, it's the R, and it starts with R, it's the first in the list, you can't even see it. Well, so, I'd like to quickly start to form the three, that's all. So, when a group enters, for example, in Jacqueline Glance,

to achieve the elements of the four of them, you have to do the form of the three, much, impeccably directly, in the same compact, it's all in one hand, and there's an idea, it's a little bit too perfect, so you have to make the elements inseparable, but it doesn't seem to be a problem.

It's a compact form, like elliptics, in the same compact. So, in the case where you're not in the three, you have to do the three, as we said, so, for the number of numbers, the three, were at the same point,

by Jim, the author, I'd like to say that the social element of the community was somewhat due to Glance, Arthur might say, if I'm correct, but, well, the operator of the four, or, well, the operator of the production, he was not quite sure about Glance,

or if he was going to apply it, or if he was going to adjust it, with the good form, so he did the abstract, the calculation of Glance, the general, that's what Arthur did, but, a good part of the community was a very implicit part of Glance. Well, these four have utilized

a community of partitions, in my case convex, defined by inequality, for example, racism, poverty, etc., for the space vectorial, and, well, I'd like to give you, I'd like to show you a trick, yes, it's the use of inequality all the time, and

and, well, it's a kind of like that, it's a kind of like that that's extremely common in seminars. The people are not part of Glance, but, well, it's not quite, the people are part of Glance, but it's not quite, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so,

so, so, so, I'd like to give you this trick, as to when someone goes, and, well, there must be something, something in between, but when someone goes, it's easy to work with. So, if the work was done by a Glance researcher,

we can, really, to get this done, in a general case. And, once the model goes, if it works, function in positive characteristics. And so, of course, the only difference is that we utilize, in all generality, an amorphism for a life, for a life, in a vector space,

one and the same. And in the course of numbers, this application is subjective. So, in the course of function, the image is a result. So, it's not in Paris, and this difference, it's in Paris today,

and it's going to take place in two or three days, it's going to take place in a local area, or in a local area, or in a local area. But, in fact, the president of the United States, for example, is going to take care of frontiers. We have to understand, if the points are on frontiers,

it's going to take place very properly, because it's exactly the same. We don't have everything in the same order. It's really exactly the same order, and so, if it's in the same order, it's not a problem. So, from the point of view of the combinations, in Paris, it's not a problem.

So, right now, we're doing the combinations, in terms of integrals, and there, there's a slight difference, because we're going to have the same series, or the same integrals on the convex. So, when it's not on board, I think the frontiers are going to pose some problems.

So, we're going to form a little bit more complicated, to manipulate, but good, it's not dramatic. There's also a little bit more general. When we do that, we also utilize the space in the room. You can see there's a section in the center of the room. So, it doesn't exist at all in positive characteristics,

because the center of the room is not objective, for example. So, there's no chance of having a section, and even the whole room is not completely hidden, etc. So, there's a little bit of complication. Now, it's not, it's,

it's too late, we're not in the right place. So, it's complicated at the moment, but we're going to have to work on it. A little bit easier, and there are things that are considered to be simplified, is that you have to have a space vector, and you transfer it from space to infinity, and you transfer it from space to infinity, and the parameters are also compact. So, all the kinds of convergence that are difficult to find.

So, from this point of view, we've simplified a lot of life. Voilà! We haven't already finished the part, just now, of the development of spectral fun.

We haven't finished the part yet. So, I'm not sure that everything is perfectly fine, but I'm optimistic. So, another point is the development of Jordan's decomposition. So, as everyone says, in the positive characteristics, Jordan's decomposition doesn't exist.

It doesn't exist under the algebraic culture, but it doesn't exist under the rational culture. But, in fact, there are all kinds of things that need to be replaced, elliptically, elliptically regulated by primitives. Primitives means that the conjugation class

doesn't have any parabolic properties. And with that, we have a set of Jordan's decompositions. We can create gamma, gamma mu, with which primitives are unipotent. Not only that, there's not enough. But it's a rational decomposition.

And that's enough to replace the semi-simple elements. We can define them as semi-primitives, for example. And that's up until Paris. So, the geometrical development can be defined by primitives,

such as elliptics. So, that's up. And the convergence demonstration, from the geometrical point of view, is up until Paris. So, there's a little technique. So, algebraically, it's not a problem. But, in fact, if you want to have an amorphism, which is compatible with the action of the geometrical power,

that exists. So, that's up to do the demonstration. It's a kind of reduction. We can expect that it won't be a big problem. Well, you need to create the duet, because it's not easy. But, it's not easy. So, we think it's easy.

It's a stabilization. So, the idea of elliptics is to work with the geometrical power of the geometrical power. At one point, for example, when I was working with other geometrical powers,

there was the idea that it would not work with the geometrical power, because the geometrical power is a positive characteristic for these problems. But, with Bertrand, this is something that, in fact, if we look at the literature, and if we look at what he said, it's that, for us, we work with a group called Connex,

it's not a problem. Or, if I were to tell you, since I already told you, we can all reformulate in terms of complex, of tour, of productive Connex.

So, it's the complex of Connex that we also work with in Galoisia, with PLAR, in FPPF. So, in fact, there is a change, the condition of the preconsure, to work with complex of Connex.

Today, for the adelic community, if we work with the adelic community, it's necessary to have a characteristic zero. Today, the main problem is, after an hour or so, if we work with a group called Connex, if we don't have the preconsure for complex of tour, for example, for example,

in Nueyo, and other things like that, the Galoisian community, it's important that we work with the adelic community. We need to utilize the complex. The complex of Connex is very good. So, if we want to replace an object,

it's fine. However, one thing to understand is that the centralization of primitive elements are partially separable. We don't have the adelic groups that are completely trivial. So, for example,

we don't have the adelic groups. It's a case of adelic groups, such as the examples. So, if the group is not the core adelic group, the adelic group, for example. And, well, I'm going to stop there, but I'm not very good at it. I'm not very good at it, because the restriction of the adelic group is very transparent, and we have to work with the

adelic groups to make them reductive. So, I think that this aspect doesn't cause a big problem. I hope. So, right now, the big news is that the Anis-Armani-Clocal, because there are a lot of

big difficulties at the same time, and there are, frankly, the need to utilize an Anis-Armani-Clocal to do stabilization. It's an aspect that I don't know much about, I should say.

So, I'm very, very happy to talk to you. Well, I'd like to talk about a few technical problems in the JLN. There's a paper that you've found on arXiv, you can see the reference for the integral orbitals

of the JLN. And there, they analyze the problems, and how to solve the problems that happen in an Anis-Armani-Clocal in Scala. We know that, for example, the development of Shalaika

will cause problems because there's an infinity of the JLN that will change completely the point of view. There's a plan to denote the finitude of the JLN. There's a plan that was based on this finitude and that explodes. There's

a finitude that's compact, etc. So there are big problems at the JLN, and that's just the beginning. I'm totally incompetent. I'm totally incompetent, but I'll be there.