(clapping)
- So, this is the program
we heard from of this
professor John Ralston
saying that Wu-Ki had this
uncertainty principle,
delta T greater than one
and then John was telling us
that the delta E here is the
difficulty of experiment
(laughing)
and delta T is the
difficulty of the theory
(laughing)
and that's always product
greater than one meaning
that if you pick a project
that's more difficult
in the theory than probably
the experiment is easier
and so that's what he
decided to do is to pick
something experimental is more
difficult and so the theory
would be easier.
(laughing)
But today in fact I would
like to say another aspect of
Tung's relation about this
equation. So that's what I want
to talk about today.
So, as Chip already told
you that back in the 1990s
pretty much this is high
energy physics at that time.
The theorists and
experimentalists they pretty much
don't talk to each other
and I remember when I first
joined the CTEQ and in that
meeting you can hear the
question experimentalists
asking that what does that mean
about these measurements?
And then you also heard that
the theorists making
predictions but then immediately
people are look at that
number I say but that's wrong.
It does not agree with data.
(laughing)
But theorists was still very
happy that they developed
some new mechanism doing
something. So that was at that
time. So then '91 and so
that's what Wu-Ki realized
that these situations need
to be improved. It's very
important like Chip was saying
something has to be done.
So that's why that Wu-Ki
established that the CTEQ
collaboration just to
join the theorists and
experimentalists and the
CTEQ is here. Coordinated
theoretical experiment project
on QCD. So that's C-T-E-Q.
That's what the CTEQ. So
this was the 1991 and Chip
already told you that 1991
that Wu-Ki already started
this project. In '92 that he came here.
The CTEQ is this was built,
at that time it was built,
again Wu-Ki established
this collaboration and
it consists of theorists
and experimentalists and
the goal is to interpret the
existing data and to propose
a new measurement to test
some theory either in a model
or on the standard model
and then making prediction.
Then experimentalists had
to build new experiment. So
all these goals can only be
achieved by the very intensive
discussions among the
theorists and experimentalists.
So they have to talk
to each other in order to
make move forward about this
great project. So that was
what the CTEQ about and still
that's what CTEQ is about today.
So, at this moment today
the CTEQ collaboration
consists of 39 theorists and
experimentalists at the 22
universities and five national
lab. And then the main
collaborative activities
involve this field, there's a
CTEQ summer school and
Dave Soper has been on that
a committee for many,
many years to organize the
summer school. And then they
will say another Wu-Ki Tung
award for early career research
on QCD and Joey is the one
that has been in charge
of that committee to give
out this Wu-Ki Tung award
every year to recognize the
early career theorists and
the experimenters working on
the QCD within the CTEQ
collaboration. So there's a PDF
global analysis is another
collaborative activities within
the CTEQ collaboration and
currently we have all the three
different kind of the
analysis, global analysis.
One is a CTEQ-TEA that is Tung
et al, that's our group here
and then our collaborators
elsewhere. I will talk more
about this later on. And
then there's another one is
CTEQ-Jefferson Lab collaboration
also within CTEQ and
then there's nCTEQ that's yet
another collaboration to do
with global analysis but they
are dealing with different
aspect of physics. Like our
CTEQ-TEA as I'm going to tell
you it's more toward the
implication relevant to to the
LHC Physics and high
energy collide for example.
And any CTEQ will be more
likely to cross the nuclear
physics community and then
the CTEQ Jefferson Lab is
in between. That's why that is
within these collaborations.
So it's a big project within
the CTEQ. And then we are
working on this PDF global
analysis. So then what's PDF?
So let me just say a few
words about this PDF. It's
called parton distribution
function, a PDF.
That's parton function. So,
what's the physics of this
parton distribution
function? Why it's important.
The parton distribution
function this is saying the
following. Suppose you have
proton as a moving with a
very high speed in the collision
then the way we deal with
that collision process is
to think of all the partons
inside this proton. And it's
the partons they're intact
and from that we know how to
do a creation involving the
partons. Then we multiply
that quotient together with
the probability of finding
these parton carrying a momentum
fraction X inside the
proton. So therefore it's a
distribution function that at
this moment we don't know how
to calculate yet. Not yet.
But, we have the framework
of the theory to tell us how
to do the measurement. Then we
have to compare data with
theory prediction in order
to extract this important
information about this probability
functions that's called PDF.
Now, why do we need PDF?
Well in fact, it's needed
everywhere for example at
LHC. That's collision of
proton and proton or at
(inaudible) from a lab in
Chicago that's a proton
an intact proton collision.
We need to know what's the
probability of this partons
go into interactions.
Because this is the part
that we know how to apply
our theory to do calculation.
But, this is the part we
don't know yet. This is the
part that what's the probability
function of find this parton
in the proton or what's the
probability of finding another
parton inside this intact
proton. That need to be
determined by comparing the
experiment data and the theory
prediction. So that's what
we do. That's what CTEQ PDF
global analysis is dealing
with. Is to provide this
information. Without this
information, none of the
theorists in the world can make
any prediction. Without
that calculation none of the
experiment data can be compared
to the theory prediction.
So that's how and why it is
so important. So therefore
that we need to have these
PDF. And this is the framework
based on some theoretical
framework that need to be
proven that whatever
approximation we make is valid
and this is for example, based
on the factorization theorem
by Collins-Soper-Sterman and
David Soper is sitting there
and Dave is one of our
sitting members and also he
provided the foundation of
the theory allows us to do the
kind of calculation needed
to describe today's data
using the theory that we
know about. So '92 to 2007.
So this is what Wu-Ki came,
as Chip was saying that 1992
Wu-Ki and I joined MSU. And
then Wu-Ki after he came here
he immediately engaged the
theories that Jon Pumplin,
Dan Stump, Carl and myself
to work with Wu-Ki on the
QCD aspect of the theory and
then also that at that time
and within that period we
have Wayne and Liz Simmons and
Sekhar and myself are also
working on electroweak physics,
that aspect. And for the
experimenters' side mostly
that Wu-Ki was working with
Chip and Joey and Harry Weerts,
our former colleague who left
in 2004 to Oregon National
Lab. And those are the main
members working in experimental
group, working with Wu-Ki
and the PDF related analysis.
I'm going to say a few more
about the important work
they did in that period.
So this, as Chip was
saying that Wu-Ki played an
essential role to bring the
experimenters and theorists
all together at MSU and then
also to make the important
program, physics program out
of it to provide the CTEQ
partons distribution function
which has been used since
'90s to today and indeed that
I did a little bit of search
on the internet just to find
out what's the citation and
indeed it's more than some
that are 15 thousand citation
based on this CTEQ or
the CTEQ theories papers.
Even one single paper like
CTEQ six has citation more
than five thousand something.
So this is the great impact
of the work Wu-Ki left the
group to work on these particle
physics. So, 2007 then
Wu-Ki retired from here. So
we in a second Chip and
we organized a symposium
for Wu-Ki that's one day
symposium and if you're
interested you can see
this program in there.
Just say goodbye to Wu-Ki
and since he has done so much
for our group and so as Chip
was saying, we really miss
him and this is the program
that will help in 2007. But,
it's not, before he left
this is what the conversation
between Wu-Ki and me.
(laughing)
So, Wu-Ki
(laughing)
Wu-Ki said, it's a difficult
and tedious task but needed
by the whole HEP community
as I explained to you. This
PDF global analysis without
it no theorists can do any
prediction for the future
experiment. No experimentalist
could compare their data to
the existing theory prediction.
So you really need to have
that information and someone
has to do it and let me
remind you that at that time
in fact the CTEQ PDF was even
today, really is the only
PDF variable from the United
States and also is the one
of the three most commonly used
PDF in the world to describe
today's LHC physics. So,
Wu-Ki says very difficult
and asks me to take over
the CTEQ project and as
Wade was telling you that
my main interest really is
in the electroweak physics.
I have fun of working with
the Goldstone boson equivalence theory.
(laughing)
I have fun of thinking about
what top quark physics can
provide us about these high
energy scale. This underlying
dynamics. But, being a member of the MSU
so I after two weeks
(laughing)
I thought that it's very
important to have someone
that means me to take over
this project since that project
was the only one at that time
could take over this project
in the theory group. So we shake
hand then so as you can see
that we did shake hand
(laughing)
so there you go.
(laughing)
So, 2007, 2009, well it
doesn't mean that Wu-Ki said
okay.
(laughing)
You have it. No, it's not that.
So, 2009 and Wu-Ki had played
very important role in the
development of our group
here. So at that time then we
proposed and then, oh
sorry, this is a typo here.
And awarded, sorry, I will
correct that. We proposed and
and awarded the five year
NSF grant from MSU. So,
I was the PI and Wu-Ki, Jon
Pumplin and Dan Stump we
were all in that proposal
and during that period
then Wu-Ki called from the
home at Seattle frequently to
advice on how to perfect this proposal.
But sadly Wu-Ki passed away
on the March of 30. On the
same day we were told that
our grant was awarded.
At 6:30 PM, I received the
email. I wrote the email and
to his family, Fred Cooper
and then I wrote to Wu-Ki
saying that our grant
been awarded. But, yeah.
That was at that day. And
then just the day before that,
Wu-Ki was still calling us.
(laughing)
About the physics project.
(laughing)
So that's what Wu-Ki was.
(laughing)
So, you see Wu-Ki's devotion
to physics research.
So that's up to the 2009
and then the 2009 to present
we then, since then we
called our collaboration as
CTEQ-TEA project. TEA is
the Tung et al project.
We wanted to find a name
that so the saying that, okay
he's Chinese American. He was
also a member of the oversea
Chinese Physicist Association
and also played a very
important role in that organization.
And he likes tea anyway.
(laughing)
So we called it TEA. So that's
our TEA collaboration and
at present that we have
the Michigan State, that's
Joey Huston, and then Jon
Pumplin, Dan Stump, Carl Schmidt
and Jan Winter is our post
doc and that's our MSU
and then also from Southern
Methodist University
Pavel Nadolsky,
he's the leader there and he
was my former PhD student.
And then this is his two
other students, two students
at SMU. Then at Xinjiang University, China
that's Sayiphamal Dulat, she's
a visiting professor here.
She visits from Xinjiang
and then Tie-Jiun Hou
was the new faculty there
who was also our former
visiting post doc here. And
they came here to learn from
Jon Pumplin and Dan Stump how
to do this global analysis.
So they were here for
four months and just to
study how to start
participating in this research
since 2012. Five years ago.
And Shanghai Jiaotong University China,
Jun Gao and then also this
Kennesaw State University Guzzi.
So these are the current
members of our CTEQ-TEA
collaboration. And this is
a collaboration providing
this one of the three
most commonly used PDF
in the high energy physics
community, part of your LHC.
Okay. So then since 2009 then
what I began interacting with
the almost our colleague
here like Chip was saying
so with Reinhard that our
experimentist colleague here
and we are working on
the top quark physics and
Reinhard of course now he's
the leader of the top quark
of physics program at the
Atlas collaboration. And Joey
Huston and Wade Fischer and
Joey of course, he's the key
member of the CTEQ PDF and
Joey's participation in the
PDF analysis is much earlier
than I. He has been working
with Wu-Ki from day one on this
parton distribution function
and remember I was asked to join
(laughing)
in 2007. Although that I was
a member of the CTEQ since
1992 and at that time
I was really only one
theorists who knows more
about electroweak physics
in that collaboration. So I
was always making the noise
about electroweak physics
since we are talking about
something that most of them
did not know much about.
(laughing)
But then since then, since
1992 now we have the CTEQ
collaboration has expanded.
We are also include the
experts, many experts on
electroweak physics and also
the nuclear physics community.
These very good people
showing this CTEQ collaboration and then
our plan is to extend that
CTEQ even bigger to cover
some aspect that is between
the particle physics
and nuclear physics. That is
the latest I will talk about
that in a minute. So, the
Higgs physics like I have
been talking to Wade to ask
any detail about the Higgs
physics and that experimentally.
And to get advice there.
And the theory side we have,
the PDF analysis that Jon
Pumplin, Dan Stump and Carl
Schmidt. And Carl is a very
important member. In fact
in the CCTEQ collaboration
although he's not a formal
member of CTEQ but he
really participated early on
the CTEQ related work here
at MSU. He worked with Wu-Ki
much earlier than I did
and that's in the 90's he
already worked with Wu-Ki
on the PDF analysis. And
then the second list then
we were also put paper
together on the physics and
beyond the standard model
although up til now that
all the datas agree with
standard model of particle
physics but for the
serious theorists like me
we believe that there's something
beyond the standard model.
So that's the new physics that
we always interested in that
so we are also working on
that aspect and with Chip
that even now that we continue
our collaboration and how
to improve our parton
distribution function mainly to
reduce this uncertainty in
order to probe new physics
or to test the standard model
electroweak physics, that
we see in boson physics. So
of course that also involves
lot of the post doc students
in the past to make that
happen so that I was able
to work with all these fine
people here at MSU. So what
are we doing? So now here
comes that question John.
(laughing)
So what we are doing is these
not greater than one. We
want to make these approach to zero.
(laughing)
So what these delta E now,
course this had somewhat
different meaning of it.
This is really what Wu-Ki's
pursue. Wu-Ki pursued
high standard as Chip was
indicating the really
high standard. That's what
Wu-Ki is about. Wu-Ki's
research is always about
high standard. So what we
want is we want to have the
precision of the experimental
measurement that's E.
Delta E. The experimental
measurement. Precision.
Go down to zero. We want the
accuracy of theory predictions
they made that error in the
theory to go down to zero.
It's not accuracy to go
down to zero it's the error
go down to zero. So that's
what we want. We want to have
the theory part is
improved as much as we can.
The experimental side again
the experimenters have to
work harder and to think of
new ways to do the more precise
measurements and the theorists
have to find new type of
technique to get a better
prediction. So, we work with
theorists around the world
and then we also work with
the experimentalists
everywhere. Tevatron, HERA, LHC.
And our group here is the
ATLAS, a collaboration here.
So that's what we are
pursuing. That's what we want.
So then how do we do that?
Before I get to that,
let me tell you a few stories
that happened in the past
in reality. They really
happen. 1996. So 1996,
this was the experiment at
that time. In front of that
what this plot is showing,
doesn't matter let me just
explain it to you. This is
one here. One meaning it's the
data divided by theory. If
it's one, there's perfect
agreement because the data
divided by the theory prediction
at that time. So if this
were one then there would be
perfect agreement. But then
what you see here is this
data. The data certainly
is not one in these regions
the data deviated from one.
And this different curve
are the different theory
predictions by using different
PDF at that time.
Different as I say, you need
PDF to do prediction but
different group give you
different PDF. Then you can
make prediction. Then
there you go. Those occur.
However you see none of
these describe this data.
So, certainly that in the
theory community everybody
got excited. Because this is
great. We found new physics.
That's the very serious
theorists like me always want to
see new physics. We believe
that standard model is not
a final story. There must
be something beyond that. So
then many theoretic papers
were written to interpret
this new physics effect. So
lots of new ideas and saying
that yes this data comes from
my new idea, new physics idea.
But then in fact it's
the same year, 1996 that
I forgot to put that on
reference here. I will put that
down there later on. It
was a paper that given by
Wu-Ki, Joey, and Dave and
other twelve colleagues.
Well the paper to explain that
you don't need new physics.
All you need is the PDF.
All you need is to improve
these so called gluon. Gluon
is one of those partons I
told you about to improve
the gluon PDF. Namely that at
that time that's a PDF they
are not accurate enough.
It's just a PDF is wrong.
It's not the standard model
is wrong. It's just that
when you compare the data
to the theory to extract out
the PDF, back in that time
that was just not correct.
So what they wrote paper that
showed that all you need to
do is just to have a better
gluon PDF then you can
explain data. There's no need
for new physics. You see,
that's the kind of importance
of this work.
If there were no such work,
what had been done then the
people would then say yes
I have new physics already
and then maybe a different
theorist would argue for
different kind of new physics.
But it's precise as this
kind of work that laid the
very important foundation of
the theory and also shows
that Wu-Ki's high standard
to really get the bottom of the truth.
So, as I told you that was
a time people make these
and then say ah, yes. I
have these predictions don't
agree with data but then
that made them to think
how do I quantify that
uncertainty? Let me say
what's the uncertainty of this
parton distribution function?
And in fact these are the two
papers were written by the
two. Again that's Wu-Ki working
with Dan Stump, Jon Pumplin
and Chip Brock and Joey Huston
and then the Wu-Ki's four
more PhD students from here
at the MSU and later became
a faculty in Taiwan. That's
a Ho Lan Lai. So they wrote
these two very important
papers to show the community
how to quantify the uncertainty
of the parton distribution
function. And that was
revolutional. Because prior to that
people did not know about
the uncertainty. People only
find out what's the best fit
of the PDF. But as you can see
there that's very dangerous
as this example here. If they
had that uncertainty information
then that could provide
additional judgment for them
then to say that if there
is new physics or not. Yes.
So that's what's important
of having this uncertainty
and those two papers lay
up to these detailed method
of how to do it and in fact
now all the PDF group,
nemesis group using these same
method to describe the
uncertainties. So again that's
important work by Wu-Ki and
then together with Dan and Jon
and Chip and Joey at MSU.
Another example now today
at the LHC, there's a CMS
experiment at the LHC. So
as you can see this is some
sort of the measurement.
It's called debut charge
asymmetry measurement.
Doesn't matter what that is.
Let me just show you about
this data. That's black dot of
datas and those bands are
the uncertainty estimate.
Since then, since 2002 the
Wu-Ki together with Chip and
Joey already told us how
to make that uncertainty.
So now we know what's the
uncertainty. So you do the
uncertainty then you see
that these are prediction.
The yellow one is the CT-10,
the CTEQ-TEA group. That
agree with the data quite
well but however if you look
another set of PDF like this
set. This is another set
called MSTW2008, you see that
this certain did not describe
the data. So again what
this is telling you is that
we need to have a better
theory. We also need to have
better data to test the data
with the theory and to learn
more about the theory parameter.
So we need the more
calculation, in this case is
Resbos calculation that's
also something I developed
here at the MSU. And with
the better PDF that's found
off CTEQ PDF that
describes this data well.
Now into the LHC era there's
something very important about
LHC. It's that this data
now is getting more precise
now it's less than one percent
level. You see back in the
earlier days if the data had
some like 30%, you say that's
very good data. 10% you
say very, very good.
But not today. One percent.
In fact many data has a
precision less than percent
level. It's sub percent level.
So the data is so precise.
The experimenters they are
really great and they're
smart people. They really
improved their detector and
designed the experiments such
that they can do measurement
down to the sub percent level.
Now it's from the theorists
side it required much accurate
calculation with higher
order perturbative QCD and
electroweak calculation and
also better understand of
non-perturbative QCD. So
what that means is that
perturbative means the
part that we know how to do
calculation today. You've
seen our theory. Now put it
in meaning that today we have
other tools may be able to
do it eventually. We don't
know when yet but today
we still using these global
analysis to find out the PDF
we sample. That's non-perturbative
expected. So we want
to have better understanding
with that. So give you one
example, it doesn't matter what
kind of measurement this is
but I just want to put out
these. You see with these
shaded line here, this gray
line that means the theory
uncertainty. There's a
different kind of measurement.
A different role means
different kind of measurement.
Different kind of data. All
the colored ones are the datas.
So you see sometimes you
see the theory uncertainties
much larger than experimental
uncertainty and sometimes
you see that the experimental
uncertainty is smaller
than the theory uncertainty. Yes?
So remember I told you
about this delta E, delta T
approach to zero? It's
happening. It's, the data is
approaching to error
to approaching to zero.
The theory want to approaching
to zero. But it's not that
all the measurement that
we know how to do it yet.
But indeed there's some
experiment that you can see has
data errors larger than theory
errors. Some is the smaller.
But the goal is to make that
approach zero. And that's a
place that the PDF analysis
become even more important.
Compared to the earlier days.
Different PDF group analysis.
They also give you different
kind of predictions. So all
these different locations
and different vertical axis
tells you that they have a
somewhat different predictions.
So again, that shows that
we needed to have more than
one global analysis group
to make a comparison because
different group they have
different strategy, they
have a different way of doing
the calculation or picking up
the data set so therefore they
have different kind of
systematical consideration.
So we need to have this
different kind of comparison
and indeed currently as I
said there are three most
commonly used PDF global
analysis, MSU here is the only
one in the United States.
Another one is in England
and another group is in Italy.
So those are the three group
most been commonly used. So
those are the MMHT and the PDF
and our own CTEQ CT. CTEQ-TEA
prediction. All right.
So just give you some favor
about the difference so you
see that this 2010 compared
to 2012 what this probably is
showing that different PDF
in this group do they agree
or not. Back in 2010 they
are very different. Different
color means different group
give you a different prediction.
2012 they are much closer. All
the saying are getting much
closer. Now if you go to the
right now 2015 you see they're
pretty much all the same.
So again this showed us that
the progress being made when
the data becomes more precise
and the theory has been
pursued to a yet more accurate
calculation then we there
find all this different
group they all reach the same
conclusion. Meaning that the
standard model of particle
physics indeed can describe all
the current data. So they are
all consistent. So that's very
important to have that kind
of the suring conclusion.
So now let me move to this,
I told you about we need more
better calculation perturbatively
so therefore that our
new faculty Andreas was
hired to provide this more
accurate pQCD calculation.
We also need the more
understand of the
non-perturbative part. That's the
lattice QCD so our university
hired a group of the
lattice QCD, three of
them and the way it went
I see they have the
appointment to our PA, our
physics department and has
the larger fraction in our
group so this is to do
with the lattice QCD.
So all these are important to
the CTEQ-TEA global analysis.
In fact earlier I told you
that CTEQ collaboration
now consists of particle
physics and nuclear physics
but there's in between
there's bridged them together
and that's what Huey-Wen's
work. So in fact tomorrow
we're going to bring Huey-Wen
to the CTEQ collaboration
and then we want to convince
the CTEQ collaboration that
she should be included as a new
member of CTEQ collaboration
in order to complete the
physics spectrum of the PDF
analysis. So at this moment
we have theory, HEP theory
and the experiment. So
our experiment has the LHC
physics with Chip, Joey,
and Reinhard and Wade
and the astroparticle physics
aspect there's IceCube,
started in Neutrino and
dark matter. That's by Tyce
and DUNE that's a Neutrino
program Kendall and Carl and
HAWC the cosmic ray program
by Jim and Kirsten. So
as you can see that our
group, the physics group
also expand not only to
in the collide of physics
but also in to the neutrino
physics and the dark matter
physics and cosmic ray.
So given this endowment
professor and I also need to tell
you what I'm going to do.
(laughing)
In my near future and this
is really gone out already
with the lattice QCD group
and I told you about our
three new colleagues and
Carl Schmidt that we already
set up a time we will get
together to talk about what's
the new type of analysis to
do these PDF and then this
IceCube that's led by Tyce.
Then we talk about that
we could not get together to
talk about what's the impact
of the PDF at this high energy
and small X. Again, let me
X is what I told you
earlier about the fractional
momentum of the parton carrying. Small X.
With the lattice QCD and the
DUNE we can look at the impact
of PDF at low energy and large
X because that's the region
that neutrino, this DUNE
program is most sensitive to
is in that region. And then
with LHC there's precision
electroweak and new physics
search and that's all
the kind of things that I
will be getting involved with
our group here. But of
course we can use the help of
new HEP theory hire us a
particle physics. I think that's
something that's very useful.
(laughing)
So now there is a typical
title page and the first two
pages of my recent talks.
First this is a talk I give at
Italy, the Venice. I talk
about updates of CTEQ-TEA
parton distribution function so then I say
CTEQ-TEA, Tung et al in
memory of professor Wu-Ki Tung
established the CTEQ
collaboration early 90's
and this is the one million
dollar I have to show that
to show money so then they are convinced
(laughing)
And this I like to quote
Chip said this and this gift
is exactly the right way to
honor him. He would love his
legacy will inspire future
faculty the kind of science
that he loved most
learning about the nature
collaboratively. Now, I
know I used lots of time
but that's okay.
(laughing)
I want to show you this
because I spent lots of time
just thinking about this slide.
So Lei you have to share
this with your mom.
(laughing)
So Wu-Ki. This is a Chinese name.
Yeah. The last name and
that's the first name.
Wu-Ki. Chinese pronunciation called Wu-Ki.
His passion for physics
research and extracting high
standard and for scientific
collaboration and collegiality
is truly one of the kind.
He also like Jin Yong's
Kung Fu fiction novels.
(laughing)
I mean they are Chinese
students here. How many have you
seen the Jin Yong's novel?
But yes, probably everybody.
That's right. These are
Chinese Kung Fu fiction novels
that Wu-Ki liked. He
read every one of them.
(laughing)
There's a series and he read every one.
And he could talk to you
about details that novel
(laughing)
and I couldn't even other some
I could but not all of them
but he could
(laughing)
and in Jin Yong's language,
Wu-Ki's Kung Fu on
physics research would be
as great as nothing beyond.
As thorough as nothing
between. I cooked that up.
I think I'm very proud of
myself get that right. Okay.
This is Jin Yong's
language anyway I think.
All right. So this in Chinese,
For those who are Chinese
you will appreciate this.
(foreign)
That's Wu-Ki's name.
(laughing)
This is really the meaning
of this. This meaning is this
English. As great as
nothing beyond (foreign)
as thorough as nothing between (foreign)
So that's how he did his
research. His attitude toward
research. High standard. So
with that I say thank to Tung's
family for the generous
gift. We will all try hard
to live up to Wu-Ki's
expectation to the high standard.
Thank you very much.
(clapping)
