Yeah, okay, so yesterday we started talking about black hole thermodynamics and then we saw how for supersymmetric black holes yesterday we just use the extreme limit one has a definition I mean Sen has proposed a definition of quantum entropy and I don't know if this is really visible I can enlarge a little more I don't know how to do this here I guess that's the best one so there were these so it's all defined in the near horizon areas to region there are these falloff conditions that one puts on the metric and the gauge field and the scalar field and then you want to integrate over the fluctuations these these pieces here that's what you want to integrate over I want to emphasize this because there was some confusion yesterday I got a few questions about this so what I developed in the main part of the story yesterday was the classical entropy so that's a an extremization problem and there everything is constant and the on-shell value of the action is the entropy the Legendre transform of the action but what we really after is this we actually want to do the functional integral okay so I just want to emphasize this and then there was second part of this that what we want to do is whatever your bulk Lagrangian is you want to add so whatever your Lagrangian is you write the bulk action in ideas to add some boundary term now this Wilson line and then such that you choose the boundary term such that this S3 normalized is finite and then you want to do this path integral for the fluctuating fields see here five graph means all those o of one and o of one the sub leading pieces that you want that are fluctuating that's what me five graph means okay so that was yesterday's discussion I'm going to switch this off now start now so today I'm going to do yesterday we gave a very general context we started with four dimensions with a simple example of rational nostrum and then I said that actually this kind of formalism is more general applies to any supersymmetric black hole and in order to do that more general thing you have to go to a two-dimensional way of thinking today we'll give ourselves a very precise context and the context is black holes in n equal to supergravity and this is exactly the thing that Stefan discussed in his first two lectures so I'll be talking about asymptotically flat black holes so ungaged supergravity so there's a very precise context and what we want to do is to apply this formalism to these kind of black holes and these black holes are all spherically symmetric so I'm just making a choice so as to make the discussion clean and therefore we'll always work with four dimension four dimensional actions and Lagrangian again I'm saying this because I got some questions which showed some confusion so whatever system it is it tells you what Lagrangian you have okay so this was sort of a more general discussion but we don't need to do that okay so so why are so it's a class of black holes we're considering but it's a very general class of black holes and in fact these black holes appear in string theory in type two string theory on Calabi how compactifications and what you get is an n equal to graviton plus some nv vector multiplate graviton multiplate vector multiplates plus and age hypermultiply okay so I think this everybody knows so here in the graviton multiplate there is this gravity photon there'll be some nv gauge fields AI and here there will be some number of hypermultiplets which I'm not going to discuss very much today and in these vector multiplates there are also let me say a1 to nv and x1 to xnv those are the complex scalars of the n equal to vector multiple okay and together our notation will be AI okay I goes from 0 to nv okay then as I said I'll only be discussing un gate supergravity here in these lectures and the formalism that I'm going to use is the super conformal formalism that Stefan very nicely discussed and I'll review it because not everybody may be familiar with it I'll I'll take whatever I need out of that but let me just tell you why this formalism is nice to attack such problems firstly there's off-shell supersymmetry which means that off-shell means that you don't the supersymmetry transformations close without using equations of motion their auxiliary fields and they just close algebraically and this will be crucial later when we start to use localization there's also fairly easily allows for higher derivative interactions so this I'll talk about tomorrow today I'll stick to derivatives but the formalism as Stefan he didn't quite talk about this but he hinted how higher derivative interactions can be incorporated it's it's fairly easy and this third thing is a consequence of the first two the Susie transformations are I'm just repeating independent of the action okay and this is nice both technically and conceptually so technically Stefan already talked about it a little bit but as we'll see even conceptually this this fact is going to be very useful in our calculations okay and the theory is based on gauging the n equal to super conformal group algebra let me even say this so in this super conformal formalism I'm going to take this theory is rewritten as so the graviton multiplet is often called the vile multiplet you have nv plus 1 vector multiplets and h plus 1 hypermultiply okay this Stefan already talked about the plus 1 is reflects the extra gauging variance of the symmetry of the theory so the super conformal supergravity has many more symmetries compared to the Poincare supergravity and this plus 1 for instance is a compensator field for the dilatations that you have and this plus 1 is a compensator field for the SU2 gauge transformations you can think about it like that but in any case once you fix all the gauge transformations and so on of this theory you get back Poincare supergravity with nv multiplets and nv vectors and nh hypers alright okay so let me just briefly remind you of the theory it's based on gauging this algebra and of course it's not just a regular gauge theory you have to put some constraints I won't discuss this in detail but if you really want to understand all the calculations you know in all its depth you really have to understand these and encourage you to look at the original papers and so let me just tell you what the symmetries are so the local gauge symmetries are so there's general coordinate transformation okay which is the same as the themorphism although I want to range this this local Lorentz transformations then so these are just rotations local rotations there is the rotation which certainly is not present in Poincare supergravity and then there are special conformal transformations which also are not present in Poincare supergravity there's an SU2 times u1 r symmetry and this q and s supersymmetry okay all of these are local transformations okay and so these are you can think of this as based on some some gauge principle okay and a word about the notation I'm going to use and this is important today as well as the next two lectures so my notation is a mu is a spacetime index okay a which is 0 1 2 3 is the tetradindex or the tangent space index I is 1 comma 2 is an SU2 r doublet okay and these sort of make so if I have a field with some indices then these symmetries are manifest that the representations are manifest if I have some field okay so the reps are manifest and the other symmetries that you want are so Lorentz is as Stefan said is automatically taken care of by this so even say this so diff I just remind you these are all basic things but let me just remind you x mu those two x mu plus c mu right so the mu index tells you how the local translations act a index tells you how the local Lorentz transformations rotate the field and then you're left with so this one gets gauge fixed you're left with what you also have to say how this is this acts so this this one and the rotation and you and R and Q and s are not manifest from the from just the letters here and so you actually have to tell say what those things are so there are tables if you go look at the papers that the theories always presented like this there are some fields which carry indices here and then each field you have to say what are the charges how they transform under all these transformations so for example take so the basic field is the wheelbind emu a so you can see that this has a mu index so how it translates it has it rotates as a vector and but then I have to say what are the charges so under dilatation so under dilatation a mu goes to lambda inverse the emu okay so it has charged minus one lambda affects some local scale transformation and another example is the x i still complex scalars in the in the vector multiplied they have charged plus one under this you and R and under dilatation also they have charged plus one okay so like this so you can just write the whole table I just give you examples okay so that's my notation okay any questions so far either about yesterday or about this much okay let me to remind you what the field content is the field content this is a as I said there's a while multiplied which has the following fields so there's the wheelbind there's the Gravitino rather to Gravitino there are two gauge fields a mu and b mu then there's an s u 2 gauge field called v mu i j so there are three of them and then there are auxiliary fields t i j mu nu and another fermion chi i and the field called D which is a scalar so this is a boson is a fermion boson boson boson boson fermion boson and overall there are 24 plus 24 of shell degrees of field okay this field is is anti-symmetric anti-surf duo okay and we'll be using combinations of the following type t minus t minus a b is defined to be epsilon i j t i j a b or mu nu okay so I'm going to I might go between between the two I mean just a second yes which multi-plate how many delete on why so how many sorry what how many degrees of freedom this year it's another it's another formulation of this okay yeah so I'm going to stick to this formulation what was the question okay then there are vector multiplets so that was t minus and then there was t plus which is t minus mu nu star yeah maybe in the fourth lecture I'll be a slightly more general and my answer right now is yes please do go ahead and pursue pursue that so a vector multiplied has a mu x x is a complex killer then there are two k genie omega I and then there's an auxiliary field why I IG that's a symmetric so there are three auxiliary fields I know this is a reminder for most of you but I don't think that's too bad and there are eight plus eight degrees of freedom okay and I was from zero to NV as we said okay then there's also hyper multiplied which I'm not gonna discuss and you need at least one of them in order to gauge fix the theory but a full-off shell formulation is not known but it's fine so that's my theory and what I want to do now is is to talk about black hole solutions so the black hole solutions of the type of state fund discuss in the first two lectures the participating fields are these so participating fields are mu a T mu nu I j in the vial multiplet vector of course and also the scalars okay and the main difference from this simple right known as term solution and Maxwell Einstein that I presented yesterday is really the fact that the scalars play a very crucial role in this theory okay so you'll see in a second and it's really it's it's that that's the technical difference and once we just know how to deal with that the philosophy is exactly what we did yesterday okay so before telling you what the solution is let me write down what the action is so the action in this case is very exciting unlike in some previous lectures and because of that I will write it down so here is the Lagrangian is good to write it down once it's actually quite exciting so so first let me say that let me say somewhere here in the action is the action that I'll write here at two derivative level is completely governed by what is called the holomorphic pre-potential by one function of Xi and this is a homogeneous function of degree 2 okay what that means is that it should scale if all the Xi scale if you take Xi goes to lambda Xi the function should go to lambda square times f okay that's all it means so it could be x1 x2 or it could be x1 x2 x3 over x0 anything like this okay and my notation is be here is f i is ddxi of x and similarly f ij is 2 derivatives g mu of i xj sorry xi plus i f ij f ab minus i minus plus and minus here means self-tool and anti-self-tool minus quarter x bar i t minus ab times f minus ab j minus a quarter x bar j t minus ab okay here is this function f ij they are all functions of x minus and eighth times i fi times f plus ab i minus a quarter x i t plus ab times t minus ab minus i over 8 f ij yi ij yj ij minus i over 32 f times t minus t plus square plus so these are all written in some kind of holomorphic notation they are always minuses here okay and so that's the chiral part of it and you have to add the Hermitian conjugate okay and that's the full action okay at two derivative level that's the full action well not quite you have to add the gauge fixing terms which I won't write down which you won't see written down in a book immediately because that depends on your context okay and if you want you can add higher derivative pieces okay so let's look at this action it looks essentially a generalization of Maxwell Einstein what are the differences one difference is here right in the fact that the it doesn't start with Einstein Hilbert but there is some I didn't tell you what k was e to the minus k is defined to be minus i times x i fi bar minus x i bar okay so that's a combination which will keep coming up it's very important in fact let me make one more comment here that there is a gauge freedom in the theory which is dilatation and if you remember I've written somewhere x scales with charge plus one and the wheelbind scales with charge minus one and therefore the metric which is the square of the wheelbind scales with minus two and therefore this combination g mu nu capital which is e to the minus k times g mu nu so let's go through slowly x scales with plus one f is a homogeneous function of order two so it's like x square so one derivative also scales with plus one so this is plus two so e to the minus k scales is plus two and g mu scales with minus two so this is actually gauge invariant okay and so this is the let me call this the physical metric okay and if you make this change of variables this e to the minus maybe I should write it here that just becomes square root of g that plus this of course square root of g times r of g okay so that's this is a transformation many of you might have seen it's like so essentially this e to the minus k of x acts like a dilaton if you've seen it either in string theory or in some other context okay just make this transformation and in terms of the physical metric you have just Einstein Maxwell as you show okay so yeah so maybe I've already solved for something it's possible just maybe I have cheated and solve for just for D which is algebraic maybe yeah so I said I cheated a little bit so there should be there are a few more terms here which I got rid of because for what we're going to say next it doesn't matter but you're actually right there are boring terms of the type D and you can get rid of the boring terms and write it in this clean way thank you very much it's a good point there are other terms if you want the full if you just check off shell transformations of this it doesn't quite close so there is some term here which is there's a coefficient here r and minus minus D and you have to solve it and so on now so what I'm saying is that you might as well think of it as the full off shell theory I didn't in all my calculations I really take the action that you give so I just didn't want to clutter the board so the cheating is only for presentation it's not for calculations all right yeah here no so that's the one I think I get after solving the the constraint there's some 1 6th usually and then you solve it and sorry here I'm pretty sure of this but I just check this these are all good questions unless someone knows already either Stefan or Val or one of the experts the Dutch school Flemish school no I think it's okay I think it's okay okay in any case so if there are errors please go and correct them I just wanted to show you the form of the action so that's one difference between the usual Maxwell Einstein okay the teachers in in when you begin teaching they say that you should you should always make small mistakes so that people get engaged and so on so that's not why I made it but it seems to know but here there's no mistake I think okay let's go on the other difference which I want to point out is that the kinetic terms so this the fact that the kinetic term is not canonical it's just a gauge artifact okay so you get really the canonical kinetic term for the gravity for the vectors and the scalars it's not an artifact really the kinetic term is a scalar dependent it's a field dependent kinetic term and that's the main difference in these n equal to supergravity is compared to simple systems okay okay so now I'm going to talk about the in this with this action there is a bps dionic solution okay and we're just going to go directly near horizon like according to yesterday's philosophy so I'll just go near horizon so the bps is actually one half pps so it preserves four of the eight superchargers and the near horizon geometry actually is a full bps solution in its own right it's a you can just decouple it and the metric I'm just going to remind you of this metric of yesterday so I square minus one d theta square I'll be quick now d r square plus 2 square so I'm going to use star for this near horizon system of this black hole that's going to be my notation for this it will be called the attractive black hole so this particular system of black holes that I'm studying I'll call it star so fi is minus i e i star over 4 pi d r wedge d theta plus pi over 4 pi sin psi d psi pi we've seen all this together and x i is some constant x i star and there's another field which I said is t minus r t is also v star and the other t's are determined by the anti-symmetry and anti-self duality of this okay and these are the only non-zero fields these and everything related to this by symmetry the only non-zero fields in the solution okay now we can now ask what is this classical entropy and the classical entropy you can just use this extremization prescriptions that I procedure that I described yesterday here is the action here is the non-zero horizon solution all these are constants this plug it in to a Lajano transform minimize it so this is an exercise for all the students slightly involved but still eminently doable you'll spend 20 minutes half an hour and so what did the classical entropy function did do it did two things first it told you the values of all these constants in terms of the charges and secondly told you what the entropy is okay and the answer is the following the answer is i x i so the imaginary part of x is p and the real part of x such star the real part of x equals this electric field okay so the imaginary part of x x is complex is equal to magnetic field and real part of x is the electric field so another way to write that is x i star is e i plus i p i over 2 so that still hasn't completely solved the problem because I need to now say what is e i e i should be a function of the electric fields and that's essentially the difference as I said if I have one just one Maxwell field and the canonical kinetic term e i e equal to q the electric field is equal to just charge but now because of this mixing because this field dependent netic term essentially it's a linear algebra problem we have what is called kinetic mixing right so you have to then diagonalize the thing and this is a solution for that problem and that the solution is written like this I fi minus sorry fi bar minus fi so that's the imaginary part of f i is given by q i okay so it's a system of equations so this is some function of x i you have to solve and of e i and p i have to solve this to get what e i is so that's the solution of this problem and v star equals one so you speak up please that's great so I'm just going to make a comment about it in a second yeah let me just make a comment about this and then if you have a question you can ask it so first let me just explain the yeah this this set of equations oops are also called the attractive equations okay sometimes they call the stabilization equations depending on which language you speak and I think Stefan also discussed this and essentially this goes back a long way to Ferrara Kalosh and Strominger and then many other people also Ferrara Gibbons and Kalosh yeah and there's an alter so the historically the there's an alternative route which was followed to get this equation so this here we really haven't used super symmetry we just use extremality and we just use that there's an ad s historically what was done was just use full bps solutions and and just that turns out to completely constrain the problem so you get first order equations and then you get this as a consequence so the reason is called an attractor is as I said if you think of the full geometry this is a row star which is the horizon and think of Xi so this is some Xi star if you look at the full geometry this scalar fields can take any value at infinity and if you follow the bps equation the bps equations give you first order equations which are like flow equations and those flows essentially just always bring you at least when you're within a certain range to the same value x star okay that's why it's called attractor it attracts it's an attractive point it's just a first order system okay now about Jean's question so note that here these equations are not gauge invariant right x has a charge as I've been saying so the way I wrote it it's not gauge invariant and that was common then indeed I have I have chosen a certain gauge in which I write these equations and there's a way to write this in a gauge invariant way which I'm not going to do but it's it's fairly standard and the gauge I've chosen can be just thought of to be the fact that V star equal to 1 remember V star was essentially so square root of oops if you look at the metric the square root of G is V star square and if I because the metric itself is charged under the notation like we had this discussion here I could just use that to to gauge fix and that's what I've done and it's in those coordinates okay so it might if you've never seen this before it looks it might look a little funny that it looks like the area of the horizon is one but that's a gauge artifact because the real area of the horizon in the physical metric is that time some function of the scalars like we just discussed okay so it's in this capital G and indeed you can ask what is the what is the entropy the classical entropy continuing this this program is minus pi q i e i star plus 4 pi times the imaginary part of f of x i star okay so that's part of the exercise so that's exercises to show this and that okay and again just to connect to other treatments sometimes you might see at two derivative level which which is what we have been talking about so far you can this you can show that this expression is also equal to pi times e to the minus k and that's in some of the original papers that's how the entropy was first presented I think it's a nice paper by I'll have me Gibbons and kalosh and two or three is some subset of Gibbons kalosh Ferrara stronger okay okay so so that's the end of one topic let me pause for questions I'm not making any claim about that but I think the answer is yes if you give the black hole charges such that the area is positive then there is a bps black hole solution right so I don't need to the charges actually can be fixed at infinity so the answer is yes but I'm not using using that in this in this system I have ungain supergravity so in this in all the as I said in the beginning I even wrote it down today and tomorrow and the day after I'll only work with ungain supergravity given some charges of the black hole this you can measure just at infinity just by one over our square fall of rates I did because so that's what I'm saying so sorry so what I said what I didn't write but I said was that there is a half bps dionic black hole this is the solution that Stefan wrote and I wanted to avoid repeating yesterday's discussion all over again so I directly went to near-horizon okay because all my entropy business is anyway we saw yesterday is sort of only defined near the horizon okay other questions very good so you see two things there are two remarks to be made one is that you see that the classical entropy has a very nice form for these black holes so the action the whole action was at two derivative level is completely governed by this one function f it's called a pre-potential it's a very important function that completely determines the theory at two derivative level that's the thing that tells you how the kinetic mixing takes place and the entropy should also be only a function of that and the charges and it's a very beautiful function of that it's just a Legendre transform of the imaginary part of the pre-potential evaluated at these attraction another small comment is values later if you work this out if we so everything of course is a function of the charges so if you scale qi pi to lambda times qi pi you can see that s black hole is classical entropy scales as lambda square okay and the reason is related to the so of course now this is this is not a gauge invariance anymore I'm just saying if you really change the charges the scales but of course technically it's related to the fact this as that this has way to under scale okay and that's going to be important later very good so any other questions okay very good so let's move on to the quantum entropy now okay so what do you want to do we want to now you want to fix fall off conditions sorry I mean fix boundary conditions fix boundary conditions these are v star e i star x i star etc t star etc okay and then there are these fall off conditions that I gave you yesterday that we saw in poor handwriting over there at the beginning and then you want to integrate over these fluctuations so you want z radius 2 is the exponential of minus i qi integral e i so ad is to here means precisely that there are fall off conditions and finite means that you have to take the action there will be divergences and you have to renormalize it in the sense that I talked about yesterday before I actually so the goal in the rest of today's talk and and the next two lectures is to actually calculate this function functional integral for the system that I just showed you so it's a very concrete context and everything is so there's something there's a black hole in n equal to supergravity with some charges and you want this function and this as we saw yesterday is only a function of the charges okay and I want to actually compute this function okay that's my goal and before I start doing that I want to make a few comments but let me also again pause for questions if there's any confusion about what I'm doing so yesterday I had some question about near horizon versus maybe I'll make the comments and become clearer okay so one comment the first comment is that if you take maybe I should repeat the philosophy once more because there was confusion so what we've done is yesterday we said that the classical entropy can be understood purely near horizon that we proved and then there's a proposal that the quantum entropy can also be understood in the near horizon you can take that as a definition of the quantum entropy and then in string theory you'll have to match it with some counting and you have to make sure that that counting agrees with that near horizon entropy okay so that's the philosophy so one comment one technical comment is so everything reduces to the calculation is some path integral on ad s2 so if you think of Euclidean ad s2 there's always this cutoff so that's r and just take a free Maxwell field on this ad s2 you'll find that so just Maxwell field and solve the equations of motion near the boundary you'll find that there are two solutions it's a quadratic thing and you'll find that two solutions go like this so a is let's say a theta is a times r plus a1 times r plus a2 so there are two modes which solve the equations of motion one linearly diverges with r the other one is a constant okay now this is the gauge field and therefore this this component is the first derivative with respect to r and therefore this component is the field strength e okay or equivalently the charges okay those are just related by some algebraic equation this component is the potential now typically if you think of ad s spaces in in d dimensions for d greater than two what happens is that lots of have two two modes but the potential modes always dominates at infinity over the the charge mode this is in flat space it's almost trivial just take a charge it goes to one over r square potential is constant therefore potential wins at infinity but this is also true at in ad s space for d greater than two well d greater than three strictly for d equal to three there is some there are two possible choices of boundary conditions which I won't discuss but in d equal to two you see that gets flipped so the charge mode actually dominates over the potential mode okay and therefore if I want to do path integrals functional integrals on ad s too it's that that I have to keep fixed okay so that means that I am oops that I am in the micro canonical ensemble okay that's very important and that's the fact that this path integral is only depends is only dependent on the charges it's a function only of the charges yes oh there no so just a second so let me first make a comment and then I'll ask the expert to to answer so I don't think in ad s you can make a choice in fact it's so okay so the common sense choice of the canonical choice is always that the one that dominates you keep fixed right because okay now you can ask what happens when that's not the case that's not being studied very carefully there will be the some papers by I think Don Marov and maybe maybe other people here I don't know and that's a very strange quantization you're asking the sub leading term is fixed and the leading term fluctuates so this is in general is it's not a good theory maybe there are some situations where you can do this it doesn't make sense but maybe sometimes you can do it but okay but what I wanted to say something else no not at all the standard one is that the dominant one is fixed no but it's not in the in the window of double that's some very subtle thing you're talking about so sorry yeah that's that's that's that's one case yeah that's right that's right that's right in the thing yeah yeah yeah yeah but generically in see if I just say if I have if I give you some ads d say one two three four five six whatever right the easy one to do the canonical one to do is keep the dominant one more fixed that's the one which has that's that's that's what my answer was but there might be cases where where both are allowed but okay I'll be very curious to know how to do the quantization in ads two with the other choice because that's interesting for a certain reason let's talk about this after the after the thing okay but generically you always keep only the dominant mode in ads cft so that there might be situations where you have a certain field of a certain charge and a certain mass such that you land in a window where you can do both and maybe in low dimensions that's that becomes that window becomes bigger but as far as generally ads cft or ads path integrals are concerned the most straightforward thing to do is just keep the dominant one fixed this and and integrate the subleading okay no but you mean the the finite piece coming from the boundary yeah so that's the boundary term right the renormalization is an addition of a boundary term right the bulk Lagrangian is given to you I wrote it down there so it is the final result when defined only up to no no so let me answer that so first let me clarify the question the bulk Lagrangian is given to you by the theory okay that has some divergences and you want to renormalize it renormalization means that you add a boundary Lagrangian to to cancel the divergent pieces okay so yesterday made this comment but I'll repeat it in theories where you don't have non-canon where the kinetic terms are all canonical or derivatively coupled you can easily prove in this case and I sort of went through it yesterday that there is no ambiguity it's a very let me just tell you again take a gauge field it goes like that and there are maybe one over r corrections okay so if you look at the gauge invariant variable which is f mu nu so this constant that's zero and that's one over r square one over r square integrated over the boundaries one over r so that dies constant integrated on boundary is linearly divergence and that is just killed by a cosmological constant there is no constant term right and that's true for all gauge invariant variables in the theory or local gauge invariant variables okay the type of variable is not true for is just a itself so Wilson line itself does contribute a constant term and if I have something which is just x it will and I'm going to I want to discuss this today but maybe a little bit tomorrow but otherwise it's yeah and in our case what makes it unambiguous is supersymmetry supersymmetry okay so let me just continue on my comments and we can take up the discussion later so it's micro canonical ensemble and in the so in the definition so this is implemented by the insertion of a Wilson line right what I mean is that if you just do the classical let's do classical dynamics in ideas to suppose you have a Maxwell field f mu nu f mu you do a variational problem you'll get a mu box a mu plus a boundary term right now that boundary term usually becomes zero because you freeze the you keep the potential to be the boundary term looks like something like delta of a d a or something like that so if you say that that zero then this boundary term is zero but here it's not you want to keep this fluctuating so and this is some q so this is in our case this just becomes delta of a times q and so you want to cancel that and that's exactly what the Wilson line does for me okay so the Wilson line insertion just implements this this ensemble for you in the gravitation here all right just ask me if this was not clear later it's a very simple thing I'm saying okay now the next comment is you see you have some functional integral on ideas to it's natural to think of some CFT living on this boundary all this are not and the partition function of the CFT is this trace of e to the minus beta times the Hamiltonian of the CFT where beta is just 2 pi r not that's the the length and you see that so suppose h is let's take a CFT where h is positive definite states which have non-zero energy so this will become there's some ground state which starts like that okay times you'll have a trace of one okay so this comes from states which have zero energy and plus there are subleading contributions which don't contribute when r not goes to infinity okay so that's just 2 pi r not is the argument clear okay so it's minus e to the minus 2 pi r not e times trace of one now if I do a renormal if I do a change of the zero point energy of the boundary theory I can just make this to be zero that shift is exactly the same as a as the fact that I killed the linear linearly divergent piece in the boundary theory okay so that's so that's one thing so after renormalization so suppose I just say that e not equal to zero it means that z CFT one is just trace of one over states with h equal to zero and that's just just the number of states okay and this is what is called the d micro whatever the theory is I'm saying that so according to ADS CFT logic if there is some ADS 2 functional integral quantum gravity function integral it should be due to some CFT one I'm saying that's CFT one you just count the number what happened the partition function of that CFT one it's just the number of states of that CFT yeah so you're given some so you you you're saying I need to specify what this is yes indeed in in some string theory this is possible so I won't discuss this so Joao might discuss some part of this so yeah so typically we'll have so what I'm saying is that the e to the so z ADS 2 is equal to z CFT one so that's supposed to be ADS CFT is the same as e to the s s black hole quantum equals d micro okay so this what Baconstein Hawking had said at at leading order in El Plunk gets promoted at least in the supersymmetric black hole context to an exact statement it's just that the quantum entropy equals d micro that's what that was one of our goals we wanted something like this and that statement is just exactly the statement of ADS to one one consequence of ADS CFT okay can I just finish because otherwise and then I'll take both questions just just one second I have one more comment and then so the third last comment for today is that sorry there are two quick comments one is that if the maybe I'll postpone maybe I'll postpone this comment and instead make the fourth comment which now becomes three so what is S bulk okay that's another clarification I want to give I gave you a Lagrangian here so S bulk is just the integral of the Lagrangian but what I really want to do is full quantum gravity right so what I showed you this action this exciting action that I showed you here was a two derivative action okay but as we already saw yesterday in general there could be higher derivative terms in the action local higher derivative terms and I should keep all of them if I really want to do the problem well I should keep all of them okay so S bulk contains and you know all possible terms so including higher derivative and then you might think so you might think then this is some infinite action and so it's not even well defined as far as physics is concerned and in some sense that's that's true and that's the problem of the the fact that gravity is not UV finite it turns out that for this particular problem of quantum entropy because you have super symmetry we're going to use the method of localization and although our priority looks ill-defined because the original functional integrates not well defined because of this we're just going to follow our nose and just use the same rules of localization and you get some very nice well-defined answer and then you can turn it around and take that as a definition of the quantum entropy okay so that's the but I want to stress this that what I told you today is just two derivative tomorrow I'll do higher derivative but that's where we are heading we want to keep all possible terms and then it's a technical problem how to deal with it okay so I'll stop here thank you so so there were two questions


So I would propose that, well, we have a good 40 minutes for discussion, so we already tackled a number of issues. I would start by asking the audience whether you have what you may call technical or specific questions for any of the speakers. And then once we are done with that, we can go to more general discussion around the points that have put there as a proposition. We are welcome to propose other things as well. But, you know, let's start by making sure that whatever specific technical question on the projects or the work that has been reported today and that we may have is raised. So, any questions for any of the speakers? Yes, go ahead. Okay, so you claim that more letters means faster evolution. It is partially, I understand that this is not partially a joke partially, but it's a very serious question. Because more complexity means more flexibility once, but higher dimensions are a longer optimization. Well, do you have any idea what is the optimal number of letters for faster evolution? Seven. No idea. You know it's four. Yeah, actually, I think four. Me too, me too. Seven. Okay, these are questions that I would like to return later in the next session. Any other specific technicalities? Yeah, all right. Yes, I would like to ask Morgan about the self-made systems that he is investing in so much, because it's very interesting. So, you mentioned that the Sylvus Megaterium set the extract. So, what are the advantages of the kind of protein yields? I think our strategy was to essentially take a lot of organisms that we think have utility. So, Megaterium has been proposed as a potential organism for industrial production of proteins. And I guess we just wanted to have some sort of comparator that we could compare, you know, E.coli, the Sylvus Megaterium, the Sylvus Subterus, pseudomonas putata that our chairman is very interested in, and other types of organisms. And then just try and get some understanding about is there any correlation between how they, you know, the organism or phenotype, if you like, and how the extract behaves.  But it's just a sort of interesting question, you know, and so if we can do it really quantitatively, we might find some interesting differences. So, Megaterium does seem to have, so it could be, you know, the number of ribosomes, it could be the efficiencies of some of the translation processes between... Who knows? I don't know what the answer is, but the idea is to try and explore that in a more systematic way. But, you know, typically, you right now see that it behaves better than the other expects, or it's just... It certainly starts to produce more of our standard-prating GFP, yes, that is correct. You know, under the same, you know, in the same conditions, in the same volumes, etc. But there is one thing I have to mention is that cell-free extracts are quite heterogeneous, and you need to optimise them for some quite strange parameters. One is the potassium ion concentration, as well as the magnesium ion concentration. So there's obviously some salvation going on, there's some strange behaviour within the extract. I'm talking about the function of the reader, this transcription translation, that's our reader. And for that to be effective, you have to optimise the extract using these particular ions. I'm not clear why, it'd be very interesting, and it's clearly something to do with salvation, but we haven't got... But ATP needs to be used, right? It varies from extract to extract. How do you break your cells off? Is it like nutrition-based, or mechanical? Yeah, mechanical. We'd usually use sonication. Yeah, but sorry, the optimisation seems to vary from extract to extract from organism to organism. And even from batch to batch, so obviously there's... When we're working there. I'm especially curious, now that you start to look after therapy, will you test your monomers for cell toxicity? Yeah, which I couldn't. We have just done cell toxicity. In this case, it's not so big toxicity. I had a question for Paul for your Turbo Sigma 70 promoter that doesn't perform in vitro, but not in vivo. Is this related to RNA levels or protein levels? Did you check in vitro if it makes...? Yeah, it's a good question. We're doing it now. I'm sorry, I can't answer that. The only thing I can say about these series of synthetic promoters we made, there are very small differences between them, and this one is a small difference. So we'd be very interested to know exactly the question you've raised, and also the context issue as well. But sorry, I haven't got the data yet. Just following on from that, have you thought about using that promoter in vivo as a readout and then doing the mutagenesis to find out what's holding it back? That's a good question. No, we haven't. That's a very good idea. We should do that. That's interesting. Thank you. Okay, great. So once we're done with these technicalities, I would like to invite you, and not just to raise questions, but also to actively participate in this more real discussion that is connected to some of the topics that have been raised by the speakers and by myself. So let me just fire by raising the issue of standards. We have heard about the importance of standards. Standards have been one of the tendencies of the biology through ND, IGN, all these things. But the standards are at the same time. When you talk about it to our colleagues, at least as my experience, people don't get precisely very, very excited about that. So everyone recognizes that it's an important thing, but no one is really very willing to put effort and money into developing with standards. So that's one aspect. The other aspect is that if you look at the history of standards, and I was looking before, standards in many cases have been adopted by what you may call bottom-up initiatives, but in many cases they have been implemented by brute force, and I think that the case of Napoleon is a good one. So the reason why we enjoy the metric system in the continent, and partially in the UK as well, is because of Napoleon, you know, because before that it was a whole chaos of standards for measurement and establishment. I mean, how do you see this topic developing? I mean, do you find that this is really important? When I was listening to you, I was thinking, well, maybe you don't care at all. You don't care at all about the standards. You do things and you ignore whatever standard may be involved with that, and you are actually happy with that. In other cases, people may claim that standards are bottlenecks. So unless we have a common standard for doing things, there are some areas of biology and things that we'll never develop. So what is your sentiment? What is your feeling about that? So maybe Paul can start advocating standards, and maybe others may disagree. No, I'm a great proponent of technical standards. I mean, the thing we've got to differentiate, I think, is a little bit between standards, as in the ISO, International Standard Organisations Certification, and the sort of thing I think we need now, which is more a greed set of technical standards among the community of how you measure things, actually. And I would pin it down onto that metrology. So I just think it's, you know, when we measure something in one lab and we measure it in another lab, can we ensure that the measurements are comparable? And even in biology, I think we don't really push that envelope too much. We're better than we were, but I think, you know, so for example, if someone's doing a fax analysis, I'd like to know what the gates are, what the whole metadata is associated with the measurement. Very tedious stuff. A lot of biologists are interested in that. But I think if we're going to get this kind of quantitative comparative sense of measurement and standard processes and standard operating processes, then we're going to have to push that forward. You know, assuming we want to make this field a kind of engineering type field, because I can't see how it can progress without that. I don't think we could have an engineering field without standards, because of me. Yes, Eric. Yeah, so I've been involved with generalisation for a long time. So I have several things to say there, but I just would like to say so. Measurement is obviously one domain that is extremely important, but that's kind of general science. You want to have proper visibility in your papers and so on. I think what we have to look for is not standardisation as a purpose in itself, obviously, which has sometimes happened a little bit, but really try to find those points where we want to exchange things. I mean, I think a standard is something like an interface where you start doing something, and I can then take it and continue it, and then somebody else can again continue those crossover points. Those are the ones that we have to identify, and this is what we should standardise right now. I think measurement is one of those. The exchange of designs is another one. The information that goes into the paper that we publish is still, usually it's still like a really big pain to actually identify the sequences, the DNA sequences that go with all those nice synthetic biology papers, and I think that's a little bit embarrassing, and so that's something that the S-ball community where I'm involved is working on, but also the S-ball community kind of lost track of that a little bit because they then focus a lot on systems biology modelling and the higher level, but the very basic level, I think this is what we should go for, like basic problems like I have the paper, I have five or ten or five hundred plasmids that are described there, and we have to make sure that I get this design out again and can use it, and then I make a measurement and I want to make sure that I can actually work with this machine. So I think those are the things we should focus on. Okay, so let's have a brief introduction, so we have a more dynamic discussion. Thank you. One more comment and then we move to the next topic. I agree and I disagree with Philippe, but if I want to understand biology, I am against the standard. It's a way to block the innovation and I think the lighting organism is exactly what you said that exists today. It's because they are not standardised at all. If from an engineer point of view, I want to propose a product to the population or if I want to make something, I need standard. So if I am a scientist, I don't want standard, I don't want to be blocked by any kind of standardisation.  Okay, so I think that you can see the entire landscape of opinions. I think they are all very good. My own take is that we should concentrate for a time being in metrology to really have good standards for measurement of things that is very weak in biology. So yes, one second. It's not a comment, it's a question of a report. Do you say that this problem of establishing standards is a technical problem because it's very difficult, it's a human problem, or is it more a conceptual problem? You have to understand deeper to your field to be able to establish standards. So there is a link between what this person said. It's too early for him and it can come together. I think the word standards is off-putting, Victor said, and maybe we should not... standards means something to everyone differently. To me, standards, I'm talking about technical standards, reproducibility, standard operating processes. That's all I'm talking about. So I know that if I follow exactly everything you did in that paper, I'm going to be able to reproduce that measurement. And to be truthful in a lot of biological research, that is not the case now. We've got to move from that. Of course it's a human thing because it means I've got to persuade my post-ops and students to put down all that ridiculous extra bit of data called metadata about the measurement. I've got to replicate multiple times in the different conditions. It's really tough. So that's why automation, I think, is the way forward. So a lot of our labs are developing automatic platforms for characterizing promoters and parts so we can have throughput automation and standard measurement. I'm talking about the engineering of biology, so it's not about blue sky biology because that's different. That's completely unencumbered by anything you want. You just got to do what you want. But if we're going to build a synthetic biology that has applications and it's going to produce a new kind of way of doing biotechnology, then I think we have to have it. And it hasn't happened today. That's my case. We have one more question. Any other discussion? I just want to say, I think standardization is very difficult. We should know that. So when we just determine the DNA or protein concentration, it's still very difficult. Do you know? We know. All right, so I would like to take the next point of discussion about this modularity that has been raised first by Paul, but then to an extent has been raised also later. So what do you think? And this is a question for the whole audience. Is biology modular as it is? Can it be made modular? And if we manage to make it modular, will it stay modular? Questions, opinions about that? Or maybe you never thought of that. Yes. I think we have to talk about modules because if we are able to define modules, if they exist, then we can also think about standards, how to link the modules. Otherwise, the standardization makes not a lot of sense. And if we talk about modules, and if I look at systems biology, are we able to separate organisms in modules and describe them by sets of equations and link them? I think we have not been very successful. All right. So the motivation for this question is that you look at the textbooks and then you see, you know, metabolism.   But at the end, you know, there's this growing evidence that the same protein may make at the same time many, many different things. Like some proteins involved in glycolysis may, at the same time, bind DNA or some protein that makes interaction at the same time is a structural component of this other thing. So even though our brain may be programmed to see modules all over the place and to see divisions, maybe this is something that does not happen in reality. And I think that you may agree with me that every time we want to have a perfect model in biology, sooner or later we'll run into problems. But maybe there's some hope perhaps through xenobiology or perhaps through physical containment or with other strategies to remake a model of reality. Why do you think about that? Do you think that this is our way to go? Yes. So I think that as a biologist, when thinking about modularity, you need to consider whether the modules are insulated from the system or whether they're part of the network as you were getting at. So if they are, for example, part of primary metabolism, they're likely to be pretty well networked. Whereas if they are specialized metabolic pathways that are lineage-specific, they may be sequestered away with less... So it's the connections between the components of the module and the rest of, let's say, metabolism. So if there aren't any, there are very few, you have to have your precursors. But if the specialized part is insulated, then that may be easier to deal with in a living organism than the whole of primary metabolism. All right. More opinions? Yes. So I guess there's another term that people have used which is orthogonality, right? Which gets to this idea which I think Paul mentioned too, which is whether what you design does not impact the original system when you introduce it. Though I'm not entirely sure that's necessarily the modularity we're discussing with the arts, but in terms of the systems, whether the design component has no effect on the non-designed component, which is the organism itself that we so are. Very good. Mark, you want to share your thoughts with us? Do you want to share your thoughts with us? I'm just saying, this is a flow of information that you can see from part to part. If these different questionations, this network, we can call the model if not using a model, right? You know that, say, in the brain, there are models that have connections in certain regions, much denser than some others. In reality, you raise the problem of orthogonality and orthogonality along with the standards and other magic words are one of the preferred terms in synthetic biology. Is orthogonality a realistic objective or we will always run into different bits and parts? I think modularity is a reasonable goal and the only way to get somewhere is to start addressing it and trying to make things modular because we're going to learn things that we didn't previously see when we weren't looking for this goal of isolation or orthogonality. But the counter to that is if we make things completely modular and remove orthogonality, remove those networking connections, we're also going to inherently become even more complex and less efficient. So, after we build in that modularity, we're going to have to build back in efficiencies once we completely understand if we can ever get there. So, there's sort of a... I think the reason nature is not so modular is because it has to be more efficient than what we're aiming for right now. But you argue that one of the ways to get into this modularity would be to use your approach to really isolate physically whatever biological components that you have at hand. That's my personal goal, yes, is to isolate it in that way. Yes. I'm sorry, I came back because the example of CAPSI is an example of modularity. So, you have a face. You have 150 faces and you connect with the same brick, one brick only, you connect everything and you do a complex object. So, this is an example of modularity. My question before is to know if this modularity is imprinted in DNA or not. But is it a p-genetic phenomenon? That is my main question. I think we like to believe that it's completely imprinted in DNA, but it's also controlled by many other things like you were saying, the salt concentrations or... So, the information is there, but we also need environmental conditions tonight. Good evening, Rick. Yeah, I think this discussion comes up a lot. Basically, nature is in... I mean, biology is incredibly modular, I think, because otherwise none of this genetic engineering that we have been doing in 30 years would have ever worked by taking a gene from one organism, putting it into another organism and actually having a product out. So, it's clear that at some level there's an amazing amount of modularity because we can do that. It's not a perfect modularity, but even a computer that we have engineered is very modular, because all those circuits on the chip, even though they're very modular in the layout, they all depend on each other with the MPS or with the current that they're using and so on.  So, obviously, in biology it's even less perfect because there's, as you said, there's this tendency to integrate things, to make them more efficient, but then evolution tends to break them apart again, and that's exactly what we're looking at. So, it's a continuum between it's definitely not a perfectly integrated system, it's definitely not a perfectly modular system, but it's modular enough to have a starting point. Okay, so I look at the clock and we have just a few minutes left, and I would like to finish without raising what I find a very, very interesting discussion on genetic alphabets. And that was initiated before, but I would like to get more feedback from you and from the speakers. I mean, how far we can go in developing new alphabets in the sense of developing new functions and new life forms and so on, or it happens that evolution has found that kind of optimum, and that's it. So... Wait, wait, wait, let me... Okay, so the idea is, I mean, by having, you know, the Phoenician alphabet has 20 few letters, the Latin alphabet has 28, and Chinese alphabet has many more. Okay, whatever. So... The question is, by having more letters, can we write different stories? To me, what is important? You know, because maybe the option is to have a small number of letters, and with that, to make a combination of them, and with that, you have enough to write all types of histories from the Iliad all the way to the latest Nova. So by having a different alphabet, you can write different things. All right. All right. Wait, wait, wait, wait. So those that are more engaged in this type of developing an alphabet, can you say your opinions? No. You can do Iliad with zeros and ones. Can we hear from those that have developed new letters for the Iliad alphabet? I'll defer to a chair. Okay, please. No, no, because... No, no, it's not. You have to say something. But... Yeah, through my experiments, so on Earth, four base, 20 aminarsity is the best one. Well, 23, you know. Yeah, yeah, that's right. But so it depends on the, maybe, fidelity. So that is very important. So if we make a DNA, so replication, in this case, so 20 aminarsity polymersity is important. And in this case, maybe the fidelity is a present fidelity is the best one. So that's why our letters are limited for. So if we add aminarsity more than ready, so maybe we can much more try a fidelity as polymersity. So that we can improve. All right. I have a question. You have a new alphabet. You make code with this alphabet a huge amount of information. You produce something like a DNA system, but it lives in an environment. Therefore, it has. You cannot take it off from that because you have to transfer this information loop. You have to transfer it in the reaction of the environment. And therefore you couldn't use any chemicals or substances putting up an alphabet. You had before what kind of pieces of alphabet, for your alphabet, was it parts of DNA, or what was it? What were the substances you used for your system? The precursors that give rise to the altered base, the chemical precursors. What did you use? I mean this must be compatible with the environment. Otherwise it doesn't work. So our natural basis can make forms of nature so just completely man-made. So that's different from natural basis. You had a natural basis. Natural basis it's astrobiology. Actually I don't know, but natural basis can make on us or from the universe. Alright. A couple of comments. Real quick question. Maybe someone should run the experiment and see if they can evolve better after this. Exactly. These questions are addressable experimentally. Organisms with additional amino acids or with additional bases or challenged amino acids or whatever. They could be put in competition with wild type species or whatever. Another experiment which should be very something restricted instruction set computers. So that you try to restrict and modularize and so on. It will be very interesting to try to attempt to make organisms with an amino acid less, not more, less to see whether and put to the test the notion that the more the bigger the alphabet the more evolutionary and adaptive options. We believe so, but it is not an experimentation. Yeah, indeed. I think these are fascinating questions and also the other question of how to reduce the alphabet and what happens when you reduce it. And I know that some of you are working on that. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we have just enunciated. Is there any super... I just wanted to say it depends what you want to do with the alphabet. If you want to include information zero and zero and one, so it's enough principle, it's just a string that's very long. But if you want functions if you want these things to fold up into three-dimensional shapes, I think it's pretty clear there's also classic experiments from Jerry Joyce's lab. That if you reduce the alphabet from four to three to one functionality drops and Mishir Israel suggests, certainly there's a first glimpse that if you increase the alphabet functionality, the functional potential the adaptability goes up. So one has to distinguish between that and the other. Great. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I'm after you have to maintain the program in time or less to have some time now for refreshment, but I would like to close without thanking the speakers.


Welcome to the broadcast. I'm David Feldman, DavidFeldmanshow.com. Please, friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, go to DavidFeldmanshow.com and sign up for my newsletter. On today's program, Congressman Alan Grayson, the progressive, Bernie-loving firebrand who speaks truth to power and then cold cocks it. Let's get right to it, Congressman Alan Grayson. This is the David Feldman Radio Network. First of all, let me apologize to you because I rolled out of bed this morning. Howie Klein, who is on the show once a week, he is the founder and treasurer of the Blue America Pack. He raises money for progressive candidates around the country. He also writes the down with tyranny blog. He is unavailable for the next couple of weeks, and I said to him, can you find for me somebody who can fill your shoes? Hint, hint, Congressman Alan Grayson. He said, I'll make a call, and when Howie makes a call, people jump. And I rolled out of bed and I see Alan Grayson in my email and I just wrote back, I just have to do this and you have to put up with this because my mother is going to be furious with me. I didn't call you Congressman. I just wrote you this quick email that said, can you do noon? And then I got my coffee and I went, oh my God, you don't write to Alan Grayson and say, can you do? So I apologize for that email. It was slightly disrespectful. Well, I just want to point out to you that I put my pants on one leg at a time. I put my sweater on one head at a time. That's how brilliant I am. I have two heads. All I am, that's all I ever be. I'm still, you know, the kid who cleaned toilets to get through Harvard. Nothing has changed. You're from the projects in the Bronx. You went to Harvard undergrad. You worked your way through Harvard Law School. You're from the Bronx and you moved to Florida. So you're not that smart. You moved to Florida. No, everybody moves to Florida. Later it's the law. Yeah, but come on. Got a little bit ahead of other people. That's all. I did it in my 30s instead of my 60s. Before we get started, I did a benefit for you with Sarah Silverman at the improv. Oh, that was so wonderful. That may have been my favorite campaign event of all time. And I actually wrote, I have to find them.  And I think Breitbart went after us. They said it was inappropriate for a congressman to be mixing it up with Bulgarians like Sarah Silverman and David Feldman. Do you think that's true? I actually think about this sometimes. I love Sarah Silverman. I love Al Franken. I sometimes wonder if we're, I'm not putting myself in the same category as them, but do liberal comedians push voters away? Is it dangerous for a candidate to be too close to comics? Well, you know, you don't see a lot of people's political careers have been ended by a close association with Sarah Silverman or for Bill Maher or any number of other somewhat controversial political comedians. And I would include Sarah in that. I think that her comedy is largely political and sociological and always brilliant. I do know that there's a lot of really craving people in Washington DC and both parties who take no chances whatsoever. And Cower, whenever anybody criticizes them for any reason, I would never think of any time spent with you or Sarah Silverman as guilt by association or from it. There is a sort of an underlying issue about whether the joke is funny or not. You know, if you tell a risqué joke and it's not funny, everybody suffers. But, you know, the test is very simple in my mind. Does it make me laugh? And if it makes me laugh, there's nothing wrong with it. It is true that the event was criticized by people on the far right because they wanted to try to use their whining about political correctness against us. And that happens from time to time. You know, I'll give you an example that's from my own career. I went on the floor of the house to lampoon the Republicans' absence of anything resembling consideration for people's health. I remember vividly you said their plan is for them. Don't get sick. Yeah, I love that. Don't get sick. And if you do get sick, quickly, now in my mind, that is political satire or comedy, if you will, that's in line with someone writing the Irish who are suffering through famine should maybe consider eating their own children. Jonathan Swift. Jonathan Swift wrote that a couple hundred years ago. I can't imagine why anybody would be offended by that. But the Republicans immediately, the next four speakers on the floor of the house, you can actually go back and look at the clip on Two-Span, all said that was terribly, scolded me basically, scolded me for satire.  Every time anybody mentioned Joe Wilson, the Republicans have to somehow counter with Alan Grayson. So clearly it is a political tool that the other side uses from time to time to try to put us back on our heels, make us embarrassed by being funny, by being clever, by using literary illusions or figures of speech or other criminal acts in the body policy. And I don't buy it. I just don't buy it. But I think it's okay to be funny. I'm happy that people who have a sense of humor support me and that includes you. Thank you. And you also supported Bernie Sanders in the last election.   No, that, no, I'm kidding. Sorry, that is not true. Debbie and I have a very constructive relationship by respect to her. She's, you know, I know that she made some very controversial judgments during the campaign for president. But Debbie would never say that about me. Okay. You are here by courtesy of the great Howie Klein. I would like to call this up with tyranny. Howie Klein writes down with tyranny. I would like to call this up with tyranny because I think Congressman Alan Grayson is the other side of the populist coin when it comes to Donald Trump. And had you been running for president as a progressive or had Bernie Sanders made it to the top of the ticket with the Democratic Party, I would be all in favor of up with tyranny. Fascism, as long as it's progressive fascism, I'm joking around. But are you afraid of Trump? Do you think his days are numbered, or do you think we're one terrorist attack away from absolute tyranny? I wouldn't say afraid as though I were to use him sort of afraid for the future of the country.  Let's think what would have happened if his inauguration speech had been one that sort of tried to placate the millions upon millions of voters who voted against him and said we're going to get on with the business of the country now.  That would have been an even worse-case scenario than the scenario that we're experiencing right now.  And his answer was events, dear boy, events. No market crashes, no serious wars. We continue to send our drones and bomb in any number of different places, but that's not even considered to be a war any longer. No earthquakes or other natural disasters, no hurricanes ripping through Florida. Nothing has really happened since Donald Trump has been president other than his self-immolation. And that's fortunate for all of us, but it doesn't have to be that way. And I am worried and concerned for the country. I'm not afraid of him. I'm afraid of what would mean for the country if we do face some real challenge, particularly an economic one. And we have an oath in the White House who has no sense of what it's like to live in the lives of ordinary people. I feel bad about that. He thought he was taking a constitutional oath. When? Right. Well, on a serious note, it marks the one-year anniversary of the worst mass shooting in American history that took place in your district in Orlando, Florida at the Pulse Nightclub, a gathering place for the... Eight blocks out of my district. Sorry, eight blocks out of my district. But yes, the first responder came from my district and was there in a few minutes. But go ahead. I don't want Fox News to be running story later on today about how Alan Grayson lied about the Pulse Massacre. So it was eight blocks outside the district. Right. But your district has been redrawn more times than my family portrait. Right. That's correct. My chin. Can't you bring the chin? I shouldn't be making jokes. Imagine had that shooting taken place today as opposed to last year. What do you see happening with Trump in the White House? Well, I think that it would have been used as a distraction at least temporarily. The White House machinery would have tried to use it to try to get people to stop thinking about the theft of our election machinery to stop thinking about the betrayal of the country to Russians in exchange for large amounts of campaign support and cash and so on. Basically, I think the White House machinery would have tried to change the subject from the first 48 hours or so. I think Donald Trump would have tweeted out something like, too bad, all the patrons weren't carrying heat. And then, of course, the effort at changing the subject would have collapsed. And he would have embraced the LGBT community as a cloak to push his anti-Arab travel ban and gun rights. All in the name of protecting the LGBT community. Well, actually, it's very interesting that you mentioned that because it's true that it was an LGBT nightclub but it's supposed to be known very much at the time. It was an Hispanic night at the club. So well over half of the victims were Hispanic at night. And in Orlando, we have an international Hispanic community. It's not like some parts of the country where we've been in large Hispanic communities locally for 300 or 400 years. That's not the way it is in Orlando. Generally speaking, a lot of our Hispanics are first generation or second generation in the continental United States. Puerto Ricans are citizens automatically. What I'm referring to is the fact that two of the victims have parents who were outside the country who would have been affected by a travel ban against Hispanics. And we had to make special arrangements for them to attend my office. We had to make special arrangements for them for the families of their children since they had to come from outside the country from America. It's true that they didn't have to scale a wall in order to get to Orlando. That's not where the wall would be. But at a moment like that you realize that there are all sorts of personal ties that have nothing to do with porters. Let me ask you about Russia. I don't trust anybody. I trust you. I trust Bernie Sanders. It's fine. And everybody else I'm skeptical about. I don't believe there's an opiate crisis in America. I think we have police officers who are just constantly looking for reasons to fund their business. The Russia problem. How big a threat is Vladimir Putin to America, to our elections? Wasn't Jeb Bush a bigger threat to our electoral process than Vladimir Putin could ever be? Scrubbing all the African Americans off the voter rolls in the lead-up to the 2000 election? Isn't that the biggest threat to our electoral process? Vladimir Putin could never do that. Wow. Operation Cross-Check is something that gets no publicity at all. What was that? That was a concert effort by Republicans that removed a million Americans from the voter rolls because those Americans had the same first name and last name as a sub-voter in another state. So, John Smith and, well, you'd be typically talking about minorities that were moved from the rolls, so John Smith would be a misleading name to use. Maybe Harold Washington would be a better example. Harold Washington in South Carolina. Harold Washington in Indiana. Two of them have the same first name and last name. Therefore, they must be the same person according to Operation Cross-Check. He was the mayor of Chicago, wasn't he? I'm just picking a random African American name.  But as Greg Palis pointed out and Greg would be a great guest on the show, more than well over half of the people who were knocked off the voter rolls by Operation Cross-Check were minorities, particularly African Americans, Hispanics, and to some smaller degree Asians.  So, for example, this was a crime of a voting crime that took place right in front of our faces. It was made possible by Supreme Court striking down part of the Voting Rights Act because it was implemented without prior approval by the Department of Justice which never would have happened.  I mean, think about this. If they have a different middle name, they still counted as the same person. If they had a different birth date in the voting records, they counted as the same person. It didn't matter what other information was in the voting records. They're the same first name, the same last name in certain places in the country that were heavily minority. They were struck off the voter rolls on the theory that it was the same person in both places and that person had registered to vote twice. That's crazy. And that happened right in front of us and Vladimir Putin had nothing to do with that. So, you're saying this took place after the Shelby County ruling from the Supreme Court. It started beforehand but it was implemented in large part afterward. The Shelby County ruling by the Supreme Court, which kind of reversed a lot of the voting rights act with the old Confederacy. What it said specifically is that in the parts of the country where there had been demonstrated violations of minority voting rights in those places, and this was in the original voting rights act in Section 5, in those places the Department of Justice has to approve in advance, had to approve in advance any change in voting practices. And that would include striking off people from the rolls because they had the same person last name as somebody else in a different state. That's the kind of change that was possible after Shelby that was not possible without DOJ approval before Shelby. Was Florida being monitored by the Justice Department after the voting rights act? Part of Florida was. We had certain counties that had been established as counties that had violated minority voting rights in those counties. We needed prior DOJ approval, but as a practical matter, since Florida election law is uniform throughout the whole state, getting prior approval in those parts of the state meant getting a prior approval in the whole state. That's just a practical matter. So where was the Justice Department in 2000? If they were, I don't want to call it a consent decree, I don't know what you would call it, but according to the Voting Rights Act we would consider the way African Americans vote in Florida. The other side's argument for what it's worth is that they weren't doing something that was new. What happened in Florida in 2000 was not they struck down people off the voter rolls because it had the first name and last name as someone else. They took people off the voter rolls if they had the same first name and last name as the convicted felon. Which is not the same thing. It's similar, but it's not the same thing. In Florida, to make sure that convicted felons don't vote, in fact, this is really odd, but roughly half of all the people in the country who can't vote because they are convicted felons within Florida. We have almost 2 million people who can't vote and about one, little more than one-third of our entire African American male population is disqualified for voting in Florida because they are convicted felons. So what they did, what the Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, in 2000 in Florida, was she said, I am simply implementing the existing rule that felons can't vote. And that's how they were able to finesse that situation. But you couldn't have cross-check. Cross-check really is something new and even more deeply equal. I was reading the Constitution the other night. I'm serious. And I saw either an amendment or a clause that says you cannot deprive somebody the right to vote because they serve time. Did I misread that? It does not say that. I actually introduced the first constitutional amendment in the 200-year history of the United States that would have made it say that. I introduced an amendment to change the Constitution to say that. But in fact, it does not say that. Now, you might have been reading the California Constitution. You know what? No, I'm sorry. It was the warranty for my breadmaker. Well, you obviously have a very wise breadmaker who's trying to make for social progress. Constitutionally, you can deprive convicted felons the right to vote. And you introduced legislation, constitutional amendment to reverse that. Yes. I mean, honestly, at this point, if we had a fair Supreme Court, Supreme Court might decide that the current law is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection under the law. And even in some respects, violates. I mean, for instance, a convicted felon can vote at some point in his life in all but three states. Only Florida and two other states have your barred forever rule. The fact that you can move from place to place in the United States and in some places you can vote is very suspicious from a constitutional point of view. But we have such a conservative Supreme Court and we've had such a conservative Supreme Court since the 70s that no one has had any urge to have that issue decided by the Supreme Court, which seems to be preoccupied in making the rich richer and the poor poor and very little else. Russia, are they a threat or are we just looking for things to throw dirt in the Trump administration's eyes?  Those people who have been getting the briefings certainly seem to think that they are a threat. These so-called intelligence agencies issued a public report a few months ago indicating that they had the Russians had, in fact, Russian government had interfered in our election and the Russian government was responsible for the hacking of the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign staff. The Russians have denied it, but what would you do? I mean, there is some ambiguity at this point because Julian Assange and others have suggested that it wasn't actually the Russians that was the people acting independently of the Russian government like, for instance, some Bulgarian hacker, but the intelligence agencies for whatever that may be worth have come to the conclusion that it was the Russian government that actually did the hacking. That hacking you know, it was a close election. Anything, almost anything could have changed the result of that election. 100,000 votes in three states determined the outcome of that election. So, in a close election, everything matters, and if you take the intelligence report on its face then there's that much at least. Now, there's been speculation which may be well-founded that there was much more. For instance, there's speculation that the Russians took either oligarch money or government money wandered it through various organizations and then injected it into the Republican campaign, not just for president but the Republican House and Senate campaigns as well. There is some evidence to support that. Which would explain why they're reluctant to investigate that. Of course, I mean you know there's a rumor that there's a tape of Paul Ryan talking about the fact that they're taking Russian money. I mean I don't know if it will turn out to be accurate or not, but there is that out there at this point. Also, in addition to that there is some degree of evidence that the Russians did micro-targeted persuasion political ads directed toward voters whom they thought they could persuade. They did some heavy number crunching and then some degree of actual expenditure to message news, including fake news to those voters. These days when there are so many independent expenditures flying around it's always going to be hard to attribute anything to anybody. There is evidence that the Russians had an organized effort to interfere through micro-targeted persuasion advertising to American voters. Honestly, we don't exactly have clean hands in this regard. We have done everything from radio broadcasts to military invasions when other countries do their voting but it doesn't somehow alleviate the problem that things like that happened in the past in the United States and even happen in the future. Noriega just died. Noriega was an elected leader of Panama. To give you one example we invaded Panama, occupied it for a certain amount of time, captured him brought him home brought him to the United States, to our home and then imprisoned him for the rest of his life. So that gives you an idea of the degree to which the United States can interfere in the political processes of other countries. I can give you other examples as well. Juan Bosch was elected if I recall correctly, one Bosch was elected president of the Dominican Republic five times and he served once. We took care of the other four times when he was elected president of the Dominican Republic because we didn't want him to be president. So you know, but that's not the point. Just because these things happen in the past doesn't somehow excuse the Russians doing it to us. It says in my breadmaker warranty that foreign governments cannot give money to candidates. Correct? That's correct and the Citizens United decision actually specifically says that that is still of a constitutional law. Is there hard money and soft money? Is there a work around that the Trump people can claim this was soft money being given to us by Putin, not hard money? Is that a possibility? It would still violate the disclaimer rules because when you when you do an independent expenditure whether it's hard money or soft money and from whatever source you have to identify the source. That's why you hear at the end of every ad saying pay for by blah blah blah blah blah and there's no indication that anybody saw any ads saying pay for by Vladimir Putin. Nobody remembers seeing an ad like that. Before you go and this is an honor to have you on the show. I'm sorry for my jokes. I can't help myself although when you said Bulgarian actor I didn't say Bel Lugosi. I held that but I don't even think he was Bulgarian. Possibly Romanian but go ahead, Hungarian. If I had to guess, I would say someone named Bel Lugosi is probably Hungarian. Okay. Let's go on. In the words of the great Don Rickles that's better? Mm-hmm. Anyway, if you're ever sad and depressed go on YouTube and just watch Don Rickles. It will cure everything. He's a miracle anyway. Well, you know a lot of what he did was he was able to do today. A lot of his jokes would not be accepted today and he could get into trouble that would go beyond the kind of trouble that we saw this past week for Bill Maher. Obviously I would love to talk to you for the next five hours but you have to pack.  We don't want to leave that out there just sort of lingering. Grayson has to pack. That could mean any one of a number of different things, okay? Let's try to be specific about it. I'm going on a trip. And I won't even ask you where you're going. You're entitled to that privacy. Before you go we're obsessing on Russia. We're obsessing on Trump. It's a carnival. It's a freak show. It's bread and circuses. It's MSNBC, round the clock. Meanwhile, you have a guy named Steve Bannon in the White House right now and he wants to get rid of the administrative state but they're using the administrative state to reverse a lot of executive orders that Barack Obama instituted. What are we not paying attention to? What do you think is the single most important issue facing Americans that Donald Trump and Russia is distracting us from? Very simply, if we repeal Obamacare as the House bill would do then 180,000 Americans will die. There it is. Alan Grayson is one of my heroes up there with Howie Klein and Bernie Sanders and I hope you come back and I hope you run for office again. Thank you for your time. And sorry for my jokes. It's fine. As long as they're funny, it's okay. Again, sorry for my jokes. One quick second please. This is the David Feldman Radio Network. For more of my conversation with Alan Grayson please go to DavidFeldmanshow.com and while you're there sign up for my newsletter. You'll also find a treasure trove of all my other shows and interviews. Please make sure to hit the contact button and say hello. Special thanks to Howie Klein from Down with Tierney for helping me get Congressman Alan Grayson to play PFK Studios in Southern California. I'm David Feldman, Medicare for All. This is the David Feldman Radio Network.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we discussed the following question which says, Draw an oblique sketch of a cylinder with radius 2 cm and height 4 cm placed on a hemisphere of radius 2 cm. First let's see what is an oblique sketch. An oblique sketch does not have proportional lengths still it conveys all important aspects of the appearance of the solid. This is the key idea to be used in this question. Now let's proceed with the solution. We are given a hemisphere of radius 2 cm and a cylinder of radius 2 cm and height 4 cm. Now we need to draw the oblique sketch of the cylinder which is placed on the given hemisphere. To draw the oblique sketch we would need a squared paper and on that first we will make the hemisphere of radius 2 cm. Now I will see radius is 2 cm so the diameter would obviously be its double that is 4 cm. So we will take 4 blocks on the graph paper. So now taking these 4 blocks on the graph paper we have drawn a hemisphere which depicts that the radius of the hemisphere is 2 cm. Next we need to place a cylinder on the hemisphere of radius 2 cm and height 4 cm. So this would become the base of the cylinder. Now as the height of the cylinder is 4 cm so we will take 4 blocks. So as you can see we have taken 4 blocks to depict the height of the cylinder which is 4 cm. So this is the cylinder that we have drawn whose radius is 2 cm and height is 4 cm. So this cylinder is placed on the hemisphere of radius 2 cm. This is the oblique sketch of the hemisphere with the cylinder placed on it. This completes the session. Hope you have understood the solution for this question.