 I just saw, so as you think about it, just a question from from Guy, Booneen, on his talk this morning, I misinterpreted perhaps the structure of these core species interacting by themselves and then that kind of structure as indicating a modular structure, then I ask you about mutualistic networks and the structure of nestedness that is often pointed out in the network and maybe you can comment about this? Yes, so right, so usually nestedness as you're saying is something that's between two different groups, so you even, you know, could be resources in species or different species or species in, you know, on the bite pyre type graph like pollinators and flowers and so on, and but in terms of structure, if you put it in a matrix there's sort of an anti-diagonal or the I can even draw it somehow. Anyway, so there's sort of this triangular structure where you have most of the let's say large numbers in same interaction or whatever it is you're drawing, so that's nestedness, right, there's a, right, if you've seen these structures then there's this top diagonal thing, so we're seeing something similar that if you order the matrix by the what we call success which is the abundance relative to growing alone, then the stronger interactions are or the weakest interactions are at the low bottom, bottom right of the matrix, and there's a gradual change of the of the interaction strength, so there's a bias running throughout the system throughout the, throughout the matrix. In many cases nestedness is drawn for binary variables and so then there's a very clear thing, here it's more hiding under something that's very disordered, there's a lot of quote-unquote noise in this matrix, so it's hard to see, but the shift is there, okay, so it's a shift of decreasing competition along the towards the bottom left corner of this matrix, and modularity is usually as described or if you have block structure then it's, you know, these clear, clear blocks and we have none of that here, it really gradually changes across the system. Okay, thank you, thank you for the clarification. Do we have any comments or questions? I'm sorry if I missed this, but is there something we can say about in terms of initial conditions go, the range of distributions that have that core structure, I mean is there a range of distributions that will recreate the same equilibrium? Sorry, distributions of what? The initial interactions that you start with. Right. Is there something we can say about those in a more general fashion? Well for any, I think the idea is that the assembly is a filter, right, so for any initial inputs of distribution of interaction strings, you would sort of bias that distribution, and you bias it overall if you're just, if you just look at the distribution and you don't care about the structure within this matrix, you just, you know, just pull all the numbers from that matrix, you see that the distribution is shifted perhaps not surprisingly towards lower competition, okay, and I can even tell you exactly analytically how it's done, I mean what's the shift? The idea is that, you know, naturally things that receive less competition are more likely to survive and coexist and that's what you see enhanced in your matrix, lower competition values. Wait, so you're speaking of like the ones that's equilibrated, correct? I guess what I'm alluding to is more so what are the set of initial conditions that will allow us to reach the same equilibrium? So we're fixing the interactions now and we're looking at dynamics, is that what you're talking about, or are we, are you somehow looking at some ensemble of interactions? Some ensemble of interactions, so the dynamics are the same, but the question is within which range of this species space, space of abundances, can we initialize our system such that we arrive to the same equilibrium? So if you're talking about dynamics and whether you're reaching the same equilibrium, that depends on the properties of this matrix of interactions, right? Exactly. Right, so in that matrix of interactions, the important, there's a parameter which I call the variability, which is some rescaled combination of the variants divided by something that has to do with the mean. And once that variability crosses some critical threshold, then you start getting multiple alternative stable states in your dynamics and then you have historical contingency and so on. Thank you. Any other general comment or question? Okay, maybe if I don't see anybody otherwise just unmute yourself and protest then I'm going to, in the name of all co-organizers, thank you all for participating, sticking around, presenting some wonderful sets of talks and I would emphasize that most of our speakers are young, at least much younger than some organizers and that is really exciting. I think this is a very exciting area that is making tremendous theoretical and empirical progress and we saw some of that here. It also raises a lot of questions that we cannot pursue unfortunately on Zoom in the nice setting of the Adriatic at the ICTP and continue exploring perhaps how to formulate these questions but hopefully there can be a follow-up and I would say we heard about very interesting experiments, very interesting empirical analysis all the way from microbes to trees and very interesting theoretical approaches that involve limits and then sort of involve different representations, whether some with traits, some more generalized to avoid mechanisms and I think like the connection between those generalizations and those different results would be interesting. The question of of course specification and how we relate intra and inter, I was very fascinated by seeing some microbial systems in which the main interactions that matter seem to be at the strain level so perhaps that boundary on the species matters less. Again this brings us back to traits and then we had this wonderful discussion about the connection between the pool of species or pool of traits and a little bit of how do we connect eco-evolution to the question of the pool. I think ultimately that will be a very fruitful direction but then we heard about fascinating normals because in the end yes I mean this for example the random zoo gives us a much more interesting normal than where we were before so anyhow I learn a lot and I think there are a lot of connections between the talks that I hope some of you will take forward in the future. So thank you again Giacopo, Matteo and of course all the participants and also Silvia. Giacopo. Thank you. Thank you for saying this. Thanks a lot to everyone, to all the speakers and the participants I think was a great success and well I hope that the next one is going to be live and we're going to be able to enjoy Trieste and the physical presence of everyone. Okay thank you. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Presenting and participating and interacting so nicely. Thank you. Goodbye. Bye.