Talk:T-duality

Mass formula

The mass formula seems to be wrong if it is for the Bosonic string. I don't know what the formula is for the fermionic one so I dare not edit it. In any event, left and right movers aren't distinguished, and there is no zpe contribution--Lionelbrits 17:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, only variables m and R are explained in the text. What are N and w? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to expand things a little and explain this notation, but I still want to make this more accessible.HissingFauna (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are circular dimensions useable as representations of sylogismicism / circular arguments?

Anyone else experiencing an intuition that circular dimensions might have some relation to circular arguments, sylogisms, or some such notion? Do concepts such as T-duality have some application in such fields as representation, meaning, implication, comprehension, reference, circular reference, omains of disscourse, universes of discourse, or some such notion(s)? Knotwork (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also of interest is whether in T-duality 'distance' can be timelike? As in can the mapping of small to large and/or vice-versa include small time to large time and/or large time to small time? Knotwork (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"wrapped"

Is this notion of wrapping (and/or the seeming invoution/evolution of inside as in small and outside as in large) related to, or of potential application to the 'problem' of, involution as in notions along the lines of David Baum's holographic universe? Knotwork (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]