<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 09 Dec 2016, at 15:50, <a href="mailto:tozziarturo@libero.it">tozziarturo@libero.it</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Dear Joseph, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Hi!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US">I quote your 2010 manuscript (by the way, compliments! yours is a noteworthy paper! Furthermore, you were also able to make the unreadable Lupasco very clear!) that the FISers can find here: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><a href="http://apcz.pl/czasopisma/index.php/LLP/article/viewFile/LLP.2010.009/967">http://apcz.pl/czasopisma/index.php/LLP/article/viewFile/LLP.2010.009/967</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US">"<i>The key postulate, as formulated by Lupasco, is that every real phenomenon, element or event e is always associated with an anti-phenomenon, anti-element or anti-event non-e, such that the actualization of e entails the potentialization of non-e and vice versa, alternatively, without either ever disappearing completely. The logic is a logic of an included middle, consisting of axioms and rules of inference for determining the state of the three dynamic elements involved in a phenomenon (“dynamic” in the physical sense, related to real rather than to formal change, e.g. of conclusions).<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><i>4.2. Axioms<o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><i>The three fundamental axioms of classical logic, in one version, are the following:<o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><i>1. The axiom of identity: A is (or =) A.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><i>2. The axiom of non-contradiction: A is not (or 6=) non-A.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><i>3. The axiom of the excluded middle: there exists no third term ‘T’ (‘T’ from third) that is at the same time A and non-A.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><div>That is the principle of non-contradiction. That is: non (A and non A).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The axiom of the excluded middle is: A or non-A.</div><div><br></div><div>In classical logic they are equivalent, but when you throw out the axiom of the excluded middle, then they are no more equivalent, and all logics (intutionistic, quantum) keep up the principle of non contradiction. Intuitionist logic abandon the axiom of the excluded middle, but most quantum logics keeps the axiom of the excluded middle. They weakened p -> (q -> p) instead (eenough to lose the distributivity axioms.</div><div><br></div><div>When a machine introspect itself, it discovers five ways to see "truth":</div><div><br></div><div>p</div><div>justify p</div><div>know p ((justify p) and p)</div><div>observe p ((justify p) and (consistent p))</div><div>feel p ((justify p) and (consistent p) and p)</div><div><br></div><div>which can be shown to define arithmetical interpretation of many non classical logics. We get quanta as particular qualia, as should be expected from some thought experiences. In that case p is restricted to the sigma_1 arithmetical proposition (which emulates the computations).</div><div><br></div><div>I feel you assume a physical reality, but with computationalism, the only way to solve the mind-body problem consists in deriving the statistical appearance of the physical by the true (not necessarily provable by the machine in question) ((justify p) and (consistent p) and p), but with p sigma_1 (= shape is "it exists x such that P(x)", they obey "p -> justify p") we get already a quantum logic for the knower ([]p & p).</div><div><br></div><div>It is the Gödel-Löb incompleteness theorems which prevents those logics to collapse. Incompleteness introduces all the Parmenidian nuances of "the one".</div><div><br></div><div>I am not sure to follow what you explain next. I don't and can't assume a (primary) physical reality, as digital mechanism is my hypothesis in cognitive science, and space-time dynamics is obtained by a statistics on first person view related to some sheaf of computations. Arithmetic contains a differentiating universal consciousness flux (assuming mechanism).</div><div><br></div><div>Bruno </div><div><br></div>PS second, and thus last message for this week.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p><i> </i></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><i>Based on his “antagonistic” worldview, according to Basarab Nicolescu (see Nicolescu 1996), <o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><i>Lupasco “rewrote” the three major axioms of classical logic as follows:<o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><i>1. (Physical) Non-Identity: There is no A at a given time that is identical to A at another time.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><i>2. Conditional Contradiction: A and non-A both exist at the same time, but only in the sense that when A is actual, non-A is potential, reciprocally and alternatively, but never to the limit of 100%.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><i>3. Included Middle: An included or additional third element or T-state (‘T’ for ‘tiers inclus’, included third).<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p><i> </i></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><i>The evolution of real processes is therefore asymptotically toward a non-contradiction of identity or diversity, or toward contradiction. The mid-point of semi-actualization and semi-potentialization of both is a point of maximum contradiction, a “T-state” resolving the contradiction (or “counter-action”) at a higher level of reality or complexity.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><i>Lupasco deserves the historical credit for having shown that a logic of the included middle is a valid multivalent logic, with the indicated terms. At a single level of reality, the second and third axioms are essentially equivalent. In Nicolescu’s extension of the logic, the T-state emerges from the point of maximum contradiction at which A and non-A are equally<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><i>actualized and potentialized, but at a higher level of reality or complexity, at which the contradiction is resolved. His paradigm example is the unification in the quanton (T) of the apparently contradictory elements of particle (A) and wave (non-A). In contrast to the Hegelian triad, the three terms here coexist at the same moment of time. The logic of the included middle does not abolish that of the excluded middle, which remains valid for simple, consistent situations. However, the former is the privileged logic of complexity, of the real mental, social and political world.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><i>The logic of the included middle is capable of describing the coherence between levels of reality. A given T-state (which operates the unification of A and non-A) is associated with another couple of contradictory terms at its higher level (A^1, non-A^1), which are in turn resolved at another level by T^1. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><i>According to Nicolescu, the action of the logic of the included middle induces an open structure of the set of all possible levels of reality, similar to that defined by Gödel for formal system</i>s"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><br></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><br></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US">Lupasco’s “linguistic joke” (forgive me this expression, but, in this context, is something positive, not negative!) is very intriguing and well done, but the problem is always the same, as every kind of logic (…including maths, to be honest…) is based on axioms that stand just for who believe they are true. I give you an example, by examining Luparsco’s postulates. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">(Physical) Non-Identity: There is no A at a given time that is identical to A at another time.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">It is not true: an atom of hydrogen today is identical to an atom of hydrogen tomorrow. I would also say that a square is always a square, or in my mind a centaur is always a centaur, but I suppose that you are talking in a physical, not mathematical or psychological sense, therefore I prefer the example of the atom. And do not say that the hydrogen atoms of today and of tomorrow are two different atoms, because, according the definition of hydrogen atom, I cannot distinguish the one from the other!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Conditional Contradiction: A and non-A both exist at the same time, but only in the sense that when A is actual, non-A is potential, reciprocally and alternatively, but never to the limit of 100%. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Actual and potential reminds too much the scientifically untenable Aristotle… How can you say what is potential and what is actual? Actual and potential compared to what? The bullet that killed John Kennedy is actual when you think that it reached Kennedy, but is potential if you think that it did not kill Jaqueline… Therefore, your concept of actual and potential requires a subjective observer who states what is actual and what is potential. You may argue that you are talking about Lagrangian and Hamiltonians, but it does not help, in this case. Indeed, the concept of energetic gradient descent, for example in Fokker-Planck equations, this time, cannot help you, because they do not talk of the EXISTENCE of potentiality of actuality, but just of an energetic path of a random walk towards lesser energetic levels (on the other side, at which low energetic level can you say that potentiality finish and actuality is present?). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US">3. Included Middle: An included or additional third element or T-state (‘T’ for ‘tiers inclus’, included third).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US">This axiom reminds me… the Borsuk-Ulam theorem! Two antipodal points (call it A and non-A) become a point T, when projected in a different dimension… The only difference is that, according Lupasco, A and non-A become T in a dimension higher, while, according the Borsuk-Ulam theorem, A and non-A become T in a dimension lower…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><br><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; text-align: start;"><font face="courier new, monospace"><b>Arturo Tozzi</b></font></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><font face="courier new, monospace">AA Professor Physics, University North Texas</font></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; text-align: start;"><font face="courier new, monospace">Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy</font></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; text-align: start;"><font face="courier new, monospace">Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba</font></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><font face="courier new, monospace"><a href="http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/" style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(5, 68, 126); line-height: normal; text-align: start;">http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/</a><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; text-align: start;"> </span></font><br></p></div><br> <br> <blockquote> ----Messaggio originale----<br> Da: "Joseph Brenner" <<a href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch">joe.brenner@bluewin.ch</a>><br> Data: 07/12/2016 15.15<br> A: "fis"<<a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">fis@listas.unizar.es</a>><br> Cc: <<a href="mailto:tozziarturo@libero.it">tozziarturo@libero.it</a>><br> Ogg: Fw: [Fis] Fwd: R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ??? Logic<br> <br> <!-- --> <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Dear Folks,</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Arturo wrote:</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">"therefore logic, in general, cannot be anymore useful in the description of our world. </font>I'm sad about that, but that's all." </font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2">The answer is to change logic from one of propositions (<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Lesniewski-Tarski) or mathematics (Zermelo-Fraenkel) to one of the states of real processes (Lupasco; Logic in Reality). Why this is not even considered as an option for serious discussion is a great mystery to me.</font></font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div>Arturo also said:</div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div>"The concepts of locality and of cause/effect disappear in front of the puzzling phenomenon of quantum entanglement, which is intractable in terms of logic."</div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div>Here, I fully agree; Logic in Reality also does not apply to quantum phenomena. It is limited to description of processes involving thermodynamic change in which there is a mutual interaction between elements as individuals, including people. I do not claim it allows causal prediction, but logical inference. </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Arturo:</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div>"The same stands for nonlinear chaotic phenomena, widespread in nature, from pile sands, to bird flocks and to brain function. When biforcations occur in logistic plots and chaotic behaviours take place, the final systems' ouputs are not anymore causally predictable."</div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Here, I agree with Arturo but for a different reason. The non-linear phenomena mentioned are <em>too simple. </em>In crowd behavior, individual interactions are absent or meaningless - information_as_data. Brain behavior of this kind is of lower complexity and interest, involving mostly lower level</font><font face="Arial" size="2"> functionalities, although they they may accompany higher level cognitive functions. </font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2">I look forward to point by point refutation of or agreement with the above.</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Best wishes,</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Joseph</font></div> <div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div><blockquote id="mail-app-auto-quote" style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 10px; BORDER-LEFT: #85af31 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite="14810194750000006369"><div class="js-helper js-readmsg-msg"><div id="style_14810194750000006369_BODY"><blockquote><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 18px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 10px; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(133,175,49) 1px solid; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; orphans: auto; widows: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px" cite="x-msg://63/14801811490000025350"><div dir="ltr"><div style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri"> <div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div></div></blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote><br></div></div></blockquote><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><hr><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>_______________________________________________<br>Fis mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<br> <br> </blockquote><br> _______________________________________________<br>Fis mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<br></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><a href="http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/">http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/</a></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></body></html>