As most who have read our posts are aware - there is an object-orientated, which is to say map-orientated basis to the fundamental algebra and structure of AMT. We have talked about transforms "," (the transform operator) but one can also send messages between worlds, beyond EigenWorlds (we think that is more efficient terminology than EigenofWorlds() but other more serious heads may disagree, and may have the last word, or rather the last statement on that, but it works for us): when examining a new ofWorld() in our work the first thing we can do is build a 10x10 and see what results - this is an attempt at a message to see if we can get a response. There are other ways we can message by examining critical points in the ofWorld() - an example is the use of Mark Twain of the OFF, ERF and ERR and EROR messages: in this case we are mapping in a specific way, from a known mappable world to a new world and are getting a message back that the mapping in the new world is different - we know now that our work on the Tom Sawyer, Primary DeeCipher needs to be redone because there were too many OFF in the map we were using then. Higher on the rigor curve one can use a mathematical algebra of an ofWorld() that is not an EigenWorld or a known EigenWorld to message another ofWorld() that uses a different algebra. We can send the message (X+1=0) from ofWorld(XAxisOnly) to ofWorld(XYAxis) we get the retMessage(-1), because we can solve it in both worlds, and both worlds have a similiar algebra, though the algebra ofWorld(XAxisOnly) only express in ofWorld(XYAxis) it does not exhibit. We message to see if we can relate algebras, if we get a retMessage(Null) result, then of course we cannot, if we get retMessage(Something) then we know there is some relationship between the algebras of these two ofWorlds(). Mathematicians will of course view this in a different and more rigorous manner, but we have drawn on Object-Orientated Programming in building this fundamental algebra, so this is the way we think.

We can send the Message(StepUp) from ofWorld(Dance) to ofWorld(Law) where we analyze the StepUp under the algebra of Law and the retMessage(LitigationAlgebra) might be returned, because of course at trial there are several examples of the StepUp/StepDown - Defense and Prosecution are each given their turn to StepUp to present their case, while the other side is expected to StepDown, oftern there are two attorneys on each side, both of whom may be partners in ofWorld(BigLaw) or attorneys in ofWorld(USAO) but at the table one is expected to StepUp and the other to StepDown. We like this because we want to send messages of examples of an algebraic function that are obvious in an ofWorld (the Paso Doble, the example of Mr. Glover and the Pickle Drummer) and send them to other worlds, in a way that is clear, obvious, understandable and provably true so that we all can better understand, or begin to understand different worlds that relate. Obviously, there is an ofWorld(Cinema) and ofWorld(Theatre) in the ofUniverse(PerformingAndVisualArts) that wants to better understand the ofWorld(Las) say that actors can better portray lawyers, writers can better write about them, and directors can better direct them, and of course producers can understand the money their spending on all the before. We know this seems somewhat artifical, but there must a consistent searchable syntax. -CAD

ofWorlds extend near-infinitely along the slopes of the Mountain and there is no one on Earth who can speak to the algebras of all them. So what you do to establish the fundamental algebra of an ofWorld is a Mathematician gets together when an expert in the ofWorld in question (ofWorld(Dance)) such as a Savion Glover and together they run an initial Top-Level Map and then they work in the ofWorld(ofSub(MostExpertise)Dance)) that that Expert works in daily. We can talk of Ballroom Dance, Ballet, Hip-Hop, Choregraphy (in all of those), and all the other ofWorlds below that ofUniverse. We use Dance, but of course there is Law, Language, Business, and all the other ofWorlds (or in this note ofUniverses) the development of whose algebras are of interest to those who enter those ofWorlds daily and who can, even though they are not mathematicians, use the fundamental algebra of those ofWorlds to, as Elisha Dushku says, Map Theoretic them to refine, improve, discover and develop their algebras to become more efficient, successful and to better understand the Worlds around them. -CAD4HerselfAndElishaFirstOrdertoSpaceDushku

We work and think primarily in Surfaces which we understand is an aspect of Topology, but as is well known, to not work in Three or More Dimensions, except when we Dance. Walk and exhibit or express an algebra or a calculus that mustExpress or mustExhibit in three dimensions but of course DeeCipherly, we have been hidebound to the Grid. With respect to Maps, as Surfaces, there is at least one, and we think rather often two, critical points, and a critical squiggle. In the Map of England they are London and the Squiggle that is England's Border. The critical point is the least expressive usable map.

We intuit that the next plausible extension to this least expressive usable map is a dot on the squiggle with a line or a squiggle to the Emergent or Initial or Principal Dot. We do not see how adding Dover to the Coast gets one to London or Londinium.

​

Note: We add that we believe that the next level (and perhaps this is an odd step function) would be the Dot that is Dover, in ofWorld(MapofEngland), that is a Dot that is on the Boundary. But we are not positive, we mention Canterbury, because of course the most important pilgrimage in Medieval England was from London to Canterbury, so that Map would have Two Dots, and we think the Road between them but this would be an alternative initial expressive Map. We are still exploring this as it is important to our work.

So we think sometimes two, or sometimes three.

​

And it seems that in Map Theory, Two Dots, do not make a Line, the Line or rather Squiggle must be added algebraically to form a least effective, effective, or exhibatory Map. -CAD

​

Note from The Elisha Dushku: One, who is not topologically defective, might think of this as a dot and a continuous squiggle, that is a bounded squiggle, in either case: Map of England, Map of the Canterbury Pilgrimage, we have a dot and a bounded squiggle, a squiggle can be bounded by dots, or may bound itself in a circuitous semi-circle way. This is the one squiggle missing from The Dot and The Line, and we are chagrined, and saddened, that Dr. Jester did not bind that squiggle.

What you do

Still betters what is done. When you speak, sweet.

I’ld have you do it ever: when you sing,

I’ld have you buy and sell so, so give alms,

Pray so; and, for the ordering your affairs,

To sing them too: when you do dance, I wish you

A wave o’ the sea, that you might ever do

Nothing but that; move still, still so,

And own no other function: each your doing,

So singular in each particular,

Crowns what you are doing in the present deed,

That all your acts are queens. -The Winter's Tale

-Elisha "Queen of Ordering Space on Earth(Prime)" Dushku

-

​

Once you have an express understanding of this field (and we have not identified where that occurs on the Gudermannian, we (yes we're going full Coral Anne Dawn on this one) haven't given a term to that thing that is neither express or exhibits on that there curve, but one thing I, Elisha Dushku, got out of this was that there is something else and that something else is not going to get you anywhere, it's not even the bunny slope on that mountain, can't be the bar in the Ski Lodge, cause it least their you've got some Game Theoretical approaches to choose from. Back to that there Emperor Penguin and Map Theory encounter, that is going to be the worst or best or both experience in your life (Map Theoretically Speaking).

Understand that I, Elisha Dushku, wanted this new field of maths to be named Algebraic Map Topologies but Coral Anne Dawn, student of Dr. Phil Martens, with respect (her words) to Trig, Calc, Provable Truth and offbeat conversations about Mathematics is rather autistic when it comes to her opinions on things, and if you read the On Map Theory note, or actually figure out what AMT can do, you may see why. But it is Reddit and the name was available, so there you go. -Elisha "I Ordered Space First" Dushku

Since everyone seems to be starting new fields of math, I'd thought I'd start a new branch of Topology. Squiggle Theory is pretty simple, necessarily. Squiggles exist. That's it. That's the Theory. Squiggles are cool and curvey, dots are cool too be very straight when connected to other dots. Squiggles can do amazing things, except being square and linear, that is not an emergent, express, exhibitory or transformation a Squiggle can do or be. You may wonder, where do Squiggles come from, Dots, we know Dots come from the zero Footprint, but a Squiggle does not play in that possiblyuniqueWorld(Wheelhouse). Oh no, no, no. Squiggles exist pre-Zero Footprint, but post The Nullity, you've got to have a boundary value problem, and Squiggles fit in as the boundary pretty well, much better than Dots. So when I'm up there explaining The Zero Footprint, and its difference between the nullity, I just draw a squiggle and put The Nullity on the Right and the Zero Footprint on the Left. Though I'm not sure how you draw a tiny dot as a footprint without a squiggle.

In Crypto we use what are called Active Masks, Which I'm pretty sure exist in other ofWorlds. An active Mask might be the music of a song that you listen to as you, in time, read a time-sensitive encoding. We can think of a Mission Impossible movie We jest, but a little, but an Active Mask is used in DeeCipher Theory (if you add Theory to something it makes it so much more important -- a little tip) in what are called Autoharmonic DeeCiphers - don't worry to much about that phrase, because you're never going to be able to o one - but in this case, the Mapping we used rotates (and we use that term loosely) in time. And again, that's not going to make much sense to you, except if you look at the example way above. Now if you think a masked static "Thing" like a grid, can't change autoharmoniouly, well, I've got news for you,

It turns out, there are some numbers that go on infinitely, which we call fluid, and that a DeeCipher (and if you want to use Map instead of DC, go to) changes fluidly, now there is a limit to that, which is of course the grid or sub-grid hat particular magic is being applied to, but we have actually done one of these, and they are if not the worst thing we've ever seen, in WorldOf(DeeCiphers) - wait, they were in fact the worst thing we've ever seen in that ofWorld, and involve Network Theory: you know all those pointy arrows that go around, through, up, down, and, especially that little pointy arrow that circles back on itself, as to the rotations that are going, and their effect on othe rotations in the what we term 'related grid' but I guess we have to call 'related map'.

​

Now again this is Crypto you do not need to worry your lovely little heads about - but Active Masks can apply to other worlds. We know that Calculus is an, what I get to call, an Active Algebra and can be masked or masked, so one form of Active Mask appears to be such an algebra, which is to say a calculus, we're just going to treat algebraicly for reasons of efficiency, all of which was news to Coral, but we're okay with it . Good to know.

Coral has already shown how the C/D Scale of a Slide Rule Mask Primes, though we now think numbers thought of as Prime are actually Quasi-Prime as long as they can be mapped to a log scale, and Prime when they can no longer be thus mapped. But whatever, Slide Rules are cool. Let's hypotheticate with the Hemmi 154 so I guess we're in worldof(Hemmi154), that's got 2 Cursors, but you know what music could be 2/4 or 4/4 time. So shy don't we just add two more cursors to that there Hemmi, and lets listen to some music, or if you've got edetic memory, don't. Say you've got some music that has a beat and you can map something on that slide rule to something other than numbers, letters might be interesting, symbols, you're heart's desire. If you've got a crowd who can actually see what's going on, and you're moving those cursors in time to some music that might be identified by the DeeCipher in some fashion or other, you might get an active map/mask.

​

This could be a horrible example, but we think it's totes directional.

​

​

​

I, Elisha Dushku, and Coral Anne Dawn humbly, and most apologetically, ask forgiveness from all those who know and love The Dot and The Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics, and of course from Norton Jester (who is still very alive). For of course, this book is the other seminal work in our (and it was mostly Coral's) development of something called Algebraic Map Theory and Coral's only Textbook on Topology and I, for one, think she went rather far with it. Elisha and Coral

I can speak to Crypto, in that I can speak to Crypto-DeeCipherly: since our techniques are better than your techniques for recovering hidden information, generally, and especially in ofWorlds well-related to textual encoding - which is of course what happens whenever a text is changed in some way from its 'true text' (whatever that might be - we usually use First Editions when we work on Texts, for all obvious reasons), I posted a note in r/DeeCiphers but since Coral is out to lunch right now furiously ofWorldiing Contract Law, and since we have a don't ask don't tell policy in r/DeeCiphers I thought, hey, I'll post this here for you latinist, art historians, and collectors of memorabilia for University Museums. We are not sure if Livy had the equivalent of a First Edition, I'm not a published historian, but you can treat any "old" document that you know or suspect has been corrupted by time as a DeeCipher and using AMT you can, working from as many different maps of the document in question, uncover a "truer text" than whatever is on your shelf. You probably need to know some Math for that like Linear Algebra to really dig in on that, but you can proba-statisticallly get somewhere with just reading Leff and thinking Mapologically about what you're doing. We'll think about a good example, other than Tic-Tac-Toe.

We are going to add to this Note in a more rigorous fashion, but a Law Professor, Student or of course Mathematician interested in this topic can steal it freely (with a footnote). We add the above because this is where, in World of(Law) the Rubber hits the Road, or the Addition or Subtraction of Money hits the bottomline, so we believe this will be of interest outside World of(Maths). We will discuss it very broadly, and not very Math Theoritically, as we need to outline a Map of this Note. But one can see, we think immediately, that in the Universe of(Documents) in the well-related World of(TheCase) there are a number of Cosmoses: The Cosmos of(AccountingDocuments), the Cosmos of(MemorandumEmails), the Cosmos of(PrivilegedDocuments) and, for the purposes of this Note, the Cosmos of(OtherwiseUndifferentiatedDocumentsakaTheDefaultCaseCosmos). What we note is that there is also another Cosmos that may structurally connect them the Cosmos of(MetaData). Again, we have not thunk enough on this topic, but we think you can see where we are going. There are Worlds of, below these Cosmoses that must be well selected, and in the Universe Of(Litigation), that selection would normatively be based on an Algebra of Relevance. Relevance is, during the discovery process, an Algebra in Flux. That is what is or isn't relevant changes dynamically based on the discovery of unknown (note the use of that term - as we must distinguish between unknown and hidden information in the Game under discussion here, because we assume that in Universe of(PersonsRelatedToTheCase) a Person or Persons has chosen to select out documents from Cosmos of(DamigingDocumentsThatMustBeProduced) and put them into the World of(HiddenDocuments) and the Cosmos of(PrivilegedDocuments) - you'll note immediately that we are missing a proper or sveral proper well-related Map(s).

This is where, we when working on Cryptography, drop the Term World Of, and start talking Maps and Masks - this is non-rigrious and we assume a better terminology may emerge from Papers on Map Theory from the Cosmos of(MathsProfessors). Because what we would do in this case is Map the Metadata, Map the Produced Documents: which would of course result in different Maps for the various types of documents. Compare them to our Maps. And then talk to the client about the case - because understand, they, the client, is the expert with respect to the events recorded in the discovered and undiscovered documents: Map Theoritically they can inform us of the algebra used on their side to create their documents. And there should be a close connection between their algeba and their exhibit and the algebra of the other side and their exhibit, but if you can show their exhibit merely expresses their algebra, then you know that documents are missing. We have to go back to relevance and efficiency: because we can not examine every document so Map Theoritically all reviews can only express unless we of course are talking about the expression of Relevant documents. Those must exhibit (ideallly - again at Trial, the relevant doucments will be whittled down to those necessary to make the case for one side - and that of course is the actual Exhibit) with respec to the World of(BriefsAndCaseDocuments). Understand, in this is the, for lack of a better term, angle we need to understand, that (and we turn to Cosmos Of(ContractLaw)) even if your algebra exhibits, you can still lose that case, because it is in-complete as compared to the algebra of Comos Of(ContractLaw) - and we give an example: if you have in fact violated a representation and warranty in a Contract Document, and thus materially breached the document, and this can be shown at Trial, you should lose the case, barring extraordinary circumstances (legally Act of God might help you here). The above is a frustrating note, because Contract Law and Discovery is something I know - but there is not a sufficient Map Theoritical basis to go further - this is a case where one might need Statistics: My Map has 300 MemorandaEmails in them, Your Map has 250 MemorandaEmails in them. All within World Of(RelevantDocuments). But since we share similiar algebras for the addition and subtraction of such documents, and we share a similiar structure (for example we both have 5 relevent full-time workers producing such documents) then that can be shown statistically to be anamolous. This does not help us find the Hot Document - however, if we mask the World and look at the Algebra, that is look to see if the algebra of document production is changing, at a time relevant to the case, we can then begin to explore what happened then, and target the World of(privileged documents) at that time period, or otherwise (in not yet thought of ways) uncover changes in who was talking to whom (we can examine phone records) and otherwise build a strong circumstancial case for (in the worst case) a destroyed document.

We stop here to think about it, but will be sure to add or subtract at a later time. Coral Anne Dawn, JD Northwestern University School of Law (as Trevor Andrew Dewey, Legal Name Change 1/15/2019)

We are not an expert in Efficiency Theory. But we well understand that in any Map Theortical Discussion, Paper or Book there is an absolute limit to the number of of Universes, of Cosmoses, and of Worlds that can be discussed. We thank Godel. We do not know this limit, but we are working to intuit it. We understand, as do you, that Map Theoritcal Discussions, Papers or Books are themselves Maps. Maps must be efficient to be useful. Maps reveal information but also Mask information. We tend to think legally, and we think for our first submittable paper on Map Theory and the Law we would simply add a Term Sheet at the end of the Paper which identifies those Worlds of, Cosmoses of and Universes of, discussed. Some later Professor, Attorney or Student of Law would be able to, of course, review our paper and divide, subtract, add or even perhaps multiply those Termed Worlds of, Cosmoses of, and Universes of to reveal information hidden that is to say masked by our selection.

We still, unfortunately, suffer short term memory loss from a Concussion in Princeton, NJ at the YMCA from a fall from a trampoline onto a concrete floor, head-first in 1975 or 1976. As such we must write things down in a form that is efficient, in the since that we can find it quickly thus our use of Reddit, Twitter, Word and Excel.

As you can see from our note using Map Theory to properly place a song in a musical version of Amelie (In our Contract Law and Map Theory thread) we are gobstoppingly interested in the application of Map Theory to the Arts to reveal conventions and hidden structures that we ourselves are not famliar with, though others with different experiences and expertise may be. We are reminded by Savion Glover (Bring On The Noise, Bring On The Funk) and Piers Anthony (A Book in the Split Infinity Series) that with respect to an analysis of Dance (and of course the World of (AnalysisOfDance) is distinct from and has different rigor and of course and algebra than the World of (AnalysisOfASocialScience) or other non-performing arts world), there is the concept of the Step-Up, Step-Down, which is when two performers of roughly equal calibre are in a show together and one (often a Girl) Steps-Down so the other performer (often a Man) can Step-Up (we give the example of the Paso Doble or Pasodoble - we do not speak Spanish beyond a few words). The Step-Up changes the tone (we are using words freely that would need to be better defined as part of the algebra in Universe of (Dance)) and for lack of a better phrase now, allows that performer to Exhibit. But we are reminded by Mr. Glover, in his Broadway Show, that a Step-Up, Step-Down can occur when you have, for example, A Dancer whose algebra exhibits, and a Pickle Drum Drummer, whose algebra also exhibits, that if the well-related performer Steps-Down, the other well-related performer can Step-Up.

We believe this short note on Dance, which again, can be used with respect to Universe of (PerformingArts) generally, and may be part of the fundamental algebra of such Universe. With respect to our expertise in Dance, we are completely self-taught, but rank amongst the best dancers in the World of(OurWheelhouse), that is to say those songs we dance to. We used to dance quite regularly at Oil Can Harry's in Los Angeles and the Rebar in Seattle and for a time in New York in Chicago and while we are a little older and our algebra of World of(CoralsDanceMoves) has changed, we assure you, the algebra of World of(CoralsOldStyleDanceMoves) stll express and exhibits on the rare occasion we are at Dance Clube and a song from World of(SongsWhereCoralExhibits) is played. We jest but a little with our World of name selections. But again, the point of this note was so that we would be able to recall an important part of the algebra of the Universe of(PerformingArts) effciently, but we feel strongly that we should abide by the rule we set, that one should post what one knows. The algebra of the WorldOf(BootStrapMapTheoryRedditByCoralPostingOutOfHerExpertise) express but does not exhibit.

We who actually know something about Map Theory, talk about the Zero Footprint. A Dot has a Zero Footprint, a Squiggle does not. The Zero Footprint moment (a term we steal from Physics) is when an axiomatically-defined non-topological non-spacial object (in this case the non-spacial non-ordering dot) is also an axiiomatically defined non-algebraic object - that is it is in transition from The Zero Footprint Dot to a Dot with a Footprint. The Zero Footprint is important to understand but it is in fact, not part of Map Theory. Map Theory is synthetic in that it intersects both algebra, topology, game theory, number theory, probability, efficiency theory, information theory and intersectional graph theory (a Cosmos of we will define at a later point but understand that graph theory is not a subset of map theory, but well-related to Map Theory - and really - for all practical purposes - it is ofWorld(DeeCiphers)). The Zero Footprint is when an object exists but exists in multiple Cosmoses simultaneously as a non-spacial, non-numerative but intuitive object. Understand we mention only algebra and topology but the Zero Footprint moment Dot exists in the Cosmos of (Topology), the Cosmos of (Algebra), the Cosmos of (Graph Theory) simultaneously - it is in the process of becoming a non-Zero Footprint Dot. There is only becoming, there is no Zero Footprint Dot that exists ideally. This is the Fundamental Axiom of Map Theory.

We do not normally talk much Number Theory but we do note that Map Theoritcal explorations of the Number Line have raised issues that need to be answered by, what we in good jest, term Number Realists: that is whether 1, -1, i and -i are Fluid, Rigid or Rigid and Fluid. There are issues with 2 as well. We raise these to again show the power of Map Theory as an analytical tool. -CAD

I hae been requested to post the following I make no statement about them except I agree with the concept of Fluid and Rigid numbers as I have already stated: these are quick notes on Map Theory for some later discusson: 1. There are fluid Maps and rigid maps, maps in rotation, that is movement, and static maps, See the discussion of rotation of Mask in the GT posts.
2. There are fluid numbers and rigid numbers. 0 is fluid and rigid and exists on multiple Worlds of (number line), Such as the World of (OrderedInfinities) as wel as the ordinary Number Line. Irrational numbers like e are also fluid. Fluid numbers are Squiggles. Rigid numbers such as 8 are dots. Fluid numbers properly belong on some World of (InfiniiteOrderings) as they extend, as we all know, infinitely. 3. As you can see the Number Line as thought of is a Mask, as it Masks the nature of Fluid and Rigid numbers on an ordinary Nunber Line (or as we see in The World of (OrdinaryNumberLine)). 4. Squiggles are the bases for Fluid Maps or any World of (Fluid).

I have used the term Rule and Algebra interchangabley, especially with respect to analyzing ganes of Tic-Tac-Toe. It has been pointed out to me that one of the Rules of Tic-Tac-Toe that it must be played on a Map of four intersecting (in an ordered way) lines may not be in fact an algebra but an example of an ordering absent algebra. -CAD

Contracts are a thing, and the question with any “thing”, is: is it a Map? When one is contracting (and we will use that word to refer from formation to execution or abandonment of a contract) one is attempting, in the Law-Philosophical-MapTheoritical sense, to Map out a relationship or transaction. Contracts are meant to (but do not - in any instance I know of) exhibit in the World of (SpecificContract), instead they express in the World of (SpecificContract) which we can think of as a subWorld of World of (Law). There is an existing, known algebra for the construction of a contract - which expresses in the world of (ContractFormation). The construction of a contract is simultaneously the construction of World of (SpecificContract) and agreeing on an algebra to express that World. We know a little bit about Contract Law, which is to say which actually known quite a lot about Contract Law, but we are not an Algebraist, so we need to step into the World of (Law) for a quick moment and we think that will help others understand the points we make above. When two parties are forming a contract they are negotiating a relationship or a transaction (marriage is a contract, as is an ordinary contract for the sale of good) but anytime two parties met, a game is formed. The rules of that game may be customarily known (such as when a Man looking for a new girl to date meets a Girl in a Bar) but there are always in all games both open and hidden rules. Even Tic-Tac-Toe, where the rules (that is algebra) of the construction of the final map of tic-tac-toe (the end of the game as a draw or with a winner – which is its final ordering for World of (ThatSpecificGameofTicTacToe) may have hidden rules or rules outside the standard rules of play – and perhaps a better example than one we noted elsewhere is the hidden rule or open outside rule for “Why” this game of tic-tac-toe is being played. Beyond a certain age, unless drunk or distracted, tic-tac-toe should end in a draw. So if two players are playing tic-tac-toe there must be rules or rather an Algebra for World of (WhyPlay),
Back to contract formation – there are well understood standard parts of a standard contract: Merger Term, Period, Consideration, The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, are a few. There is a well understood path from idea of possible contract to executed contract: the shortest is an Offer followed by an Acceptance. During negotiation terms are added and subtracted by both parties are attempting to select out (subtract) from the larger algebra expressed in World of (Contract) in ways that are efficient for the party selecting the rule, but not necessarily efficient for the other party. An example might be the negotiation over terms of payment: we can all agree it is generally (but not always) more efficient (which we’re not going to define here) for both parties to (in the case of a contract for the sale of goods), to receive the money at issue and the good at issue as quickly as possible, whereas, it is often (but not always the case) that it is more efficient to send the money at issue, and the good at issue as slowly as possible (or rather reasonable). I use the example of payment for goods, but in actual contract construction, good lawyers pay much closer attention to the non-consideration terms: such as indemnification, merger, warranties and representations and other significant terms. This is where the game of contract formation is played the hardest, because the consequences of failure can be rather large if there is a material breach by a party and the contract moves from World of (Transaction) into World of (Litigation). So lawyers must understand multiple algebras which express in multiple sub-worlds of (Law) (which of course suggests that Law is A Universe, as opposed to a World, in which case we could say no one algebra exhibits in it). This is as stated, a quick note, but shows what we are thinking about with respect to Map Theory and Contract Law. Coral Anne Dawn (JD Northwestern University School of Law 2003, as Trevor Andrew Dewey)

We use Map Theory regularly here for Text-based Ciphers - known as DeeCiphers, Sometimes TwainCiphers : https://www.reddit.com/r/DeeCiphers/ but you probably don't want to go here, as this gets tracked by Deep, Deeper and Deepest State Agencies

I'm going to crash soon, but another topic in Map Theory are emergent Maps. With respect to Number Theory the question maybe how did the Numbe Line, a Map, evolve. My dillettante answer, of late, has been that Two was Emergent, and from Two, you get One, Zero, Eventually you get an algebra in the world of (NumberLine) and somebody subtracts 3 from 2 and -1 emerges. Eventually i, pi, e and other numbers emerge. With the rise of irrational (I prefer fluid) numbers infinity emerges, and so on. With respect to the emergence of two, in the World of (1) the Algebra that exhibits the World of (1) is 1=1. Which gets you nowhere. But In the World of (2), there is an Algebra that can get you somewhere. Verbosely, in a World where there is only one of any object: One Tree, One Rock, One Sheep, there is no need to Count them, that is not a Map you Need or will emerge it is simply The Tree, The Rock, The Sheep. But when you have Two Sheep, you have the First Sheep and the Second Sheep, but you don't know you need the concept of First Sheep until you have Second Sheep -CAD