Albert Fils-Aime Nick, try saying that again to someone who is trying to understand the CTMU, and I'll report you. Mr. Davis, I only postulated a four-aspect substance by paying attention to the fact that the components of the HCS are extensions of each other and could therefore be formulated differently. I believed that a four-aspect line of extensions could be the most general, and therefore the default. But then I went on with thinking of how the QPS is emotional in comparison to the LMS, and found that this is similar to applying a subfield of mathematics like number theory to the entire spectrum of physical law. So I believe it is more like a two-aspect substance where the duality of the ETS and QPS components contain the duality of the LMS and STOS components. The technicalities of self-containment relations lies my problem with understanding the CTMU mathematically, though I understand it in general. As far as I've read, the three metalogical principles combine to form supertautology, so please explain your assertion that the three are each supertautologies. And if I were to give my word to Chris Langan, I'd say he should put forth a simplification of his theory that pays high attention to the deepest of technicalities and uses a simpler style of expression for his principles. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.