Serenus Zeitblom
Apr29-04, 11:46 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I vote for\n\nhttp://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0404220\n\nBy saying that it\'s the best, I mean most interesting, not that I\nagree with everything they say. In particular, I would like to know\nwhy they think that decompactification is "more generic" than a\nbig crunch. I mean, let\'s leave aside technical complications\na la Linde et al...at a very basic level, surely among all functions\nasymptotic to zero, the non-negative ones are decidedly in a small\nminority...or is there some sense in which non-negative potentials\nare favored in this context? If so, they don\'t mention it....\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I vote for
http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0404220
By saying that it's the best, I mean most interesting, not that I
agree with everything they say. In particular, I would like to know
why they think that decompactification is "more generic" than a
big crunch. I mean, let's leave aside technical complications
a la Linde et al...at a very basic level, surely among all functions
asymptotic to zero, the non-negative ones are decidedly in a small
minority...or is there some sense in which non-negative potentials
are favored in this context? If so, they don't mention it....
http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0404220
By saying that it's the best, I mean most interesting, not that I
agree with everything they say. In particular, I would like to know
why they think that decompactification is "more generic" than a
big crunch. I mean, let's leave aside technical complications
a la Linde et al...at a very basic level, surely among all functions
asymptotic to zero, the non-negative ones are decidedly in a small
minority...or is there some sense in which non-negative potentials
are favored in this context? If so, they don't mention it....