 thus is to incorporate these corrections while staying compatible with the four-dimensionality of experimental data.

In other words, one needs the dimensionally reduced description of the object, i.e., the one in terms of the most appropriate solution $Sol(M_4)$ arising from a corresponding effective 4D theory $M_4$. The question is how to derive such EFMT $M_4$, especially assuming the situation like the one we have recently, i.e., when $M$ is not explicitly known? Our solution to the problem would be to use the known fundamental solutions of high-D theories as a guiding thread. Indeed, real phenomena are described by $Sol(M)$’s thus if one wishes to preserve (partially, at least) such description in the dimensionally reduced theory one must make sure that the latter does not disallow $Sol(M)$-like solutions in principle.

Considering aforesaid, we formulate the following selection criterion: “Suppose we have a higher-dimensional theory, call it $M$. This theory has a certain physically relevant solution, $Sol(M)$ which is unique to $M$. This solution has certain distinctive property, $Prop(Sol(M))$, which is preserved under reduction of dimensions. On the other hand, we have 4D theory $M_4$ whose nontrivial solutions we denote by $Sol(M_4)$. Then the necessary condition for $M_4$ to be a lower-dimensional limit of $M$ is that at least one of $Sol(M_4)$ must have $Prop(Sol(M))$.” This criterion can be regarded as the correspondence principle for solutions, henceforth we call it the *Solution Correspondence Principle* ([SCP]{}). Now, to determine what solution is physically relevant and which property of it is suitable for [SCP]{}, we will make use of the following two facts from the string/M-theory.

First, it is well-known that the branes are known solutions of M theory (one may recall M2 and M5 ones) hence they should be perfectly suitable for a concrete realization of [SCP]{}. Moreover, it is known that branes are inevitable for proper describing of black holes (microstates, entropy, etc.) [@Strominger:1996sh], therefore, their absence in a theory would cause serious difficulties with consistent explaining such issues. In turn, absence of black holes would lead to the loss of protection of a theory from ubiquitous appearances
thus is to incorporate these corrections while staying compatible with the four - dimensionality of experimental datum. 

 In early discussion, one needs the dimensionally reduce description of the aim, i.e., the one in terms of the most appropriate solution $ Sol(M_4)$ arising from a comparable effective 4D hypothesis $ M_4$. The question is how to derive such EFMT $ M_4 $, especially assuming the situation like the one we get recently, i.e., when $ M$ is not explicitly known? Our solution to the problem would be to use the known fundamental solutions of eminent - D theories as a guiding screw thread. Indeed, real phenomena are described by $ Sol(M)$ ’s therefore if one wishes to keep (partially, at least) such description in the dimensionally reduced theory one must make certain that the latter does not disallow $ Sol(M)$-like solutions in principle. 

 Considering aforesaid, we formulate the follow selection criterion: “ Suppose we have a higher - dimensional theory, call it $ M$. This theory has a certain physically relevant solution, $ Sol(M)$ which is alone to $ M$. This solution has certain classifiable place, $ Prop(Sol(M))$, which is preserved under reduction of dimensions. On the other bridge player, we have 4D theory $ M_4 $ whose nontrivial solutions we denote by $ Sol(M_4)$. Then the necessary circumstance for $ M_4 $ to be a lower - dimensional limit of $ M$ is that at least one of $ Sol(M_4)$ must have $ Prop(Sol(M))$. ” This criterion can be regarded as the correspondence principle for solutions, henceforth we call it the * Solution Correspondence Principle * ([ SCP ] { }). Now, to determine what solution is physically relevant and which property of it is suitable for [ SCP ] { }, we will hold use of the watch two facts from the string / M - theory. 

 First, it is well - know that the branes are known solutions of M theory (one may echo M2 and M5 ones) hence they should be perfectly suitable for a concrete realization of [ SCP ] { }. furthermore, it is known that branes are inevitable for proper describing of black holes (microstates, entropy, etc .) [ @Strominger:1996sh ], therefore, their absence in a hypothesis would cause serious difficulties with consistent explain such issues. In twist, absence of black holes would run to the loss of protection of a theory from ubiquitous appearances
 thks is to incorporate there corrections cyile svaying dompatibue with the four-dimensionalivy od exptgimental data.

In other words, onv needs tye dmmensionally rednded desgxiptikk of chx object, i.e., the one in tesms of the mosd xp'ropriate solution $Sol(M_4)$ arising from a corrrsoonding effectyve 4C thekgy $M_4$. The question is how to derjve suci EFMT $M_4$, especislly assuming the situatioj line the one we have recently, i.g., whqb $M$ is not ebplicitly known? Our somution to the problem would be go usz the known fyndwkental soluvions jf high-D theories as a guidong thread. Indced, rxal phenomena are describxd by $Sol(M)$’s thus if jne wishev co preserve (partially, ar leavt) sgch awscfipuioi ih the fimxnsionally deduced theiry one must make sirq that the latfer doqs not disallow $Sol(M)$-like solutions in pritcille.

Considering aforesaie, we formulate the foplowing sqlection criterion: “Suppose we have a higher-dimenshonal gheirn, cauo lt $M$. This theory has a certain physically relqbamt solution, $Sol(M)$ which is umieur to $M$. This souution haa certain distinctlve prokerty, $Prop(Sol(M))$, rhicn is preserved under reductuon of dimenfuons. On the other kand, we have 4D tneory $M_4$ whose nontrivial solbtions we denote hy $Sol(M_4)$. Tgdn the necessary cokdidion for $M_4$ to be a lower-diiensional limnt of $M$ ks tnat at least one of $Sol(M_4)$ must have $Prop(Sll(M))$.” Tkis csiterion cwn be regarded as the corresponvxnce principlg fmr volutionf, hengeforth we call it the *Solutipn Corrzsponddnce Princpple* ([SCP]{}). Iow, to deteriine what solgjion is physirally relqvanr ane which oroperty of it is suitayje fir [SCP]{}, we will makc use kf the followiny uwi facts from tne rtrynh/M-vheorr.

Xirst, it is fell-ynodm thag the branew are known solutions of K thsory (one may recalk I2 and M5 ines) hense they shoulc be perfectly suiuable hor a roncreye tealization of [SCP]{}. Moreover, it js known hhab branes are ynevltabje for pro'er describing of black holes (microstatew, entropy, etc.) [@Stroninger:1996sh], therefore, jhelr absence ii a thqory woulg cause serious diffuculties with conxistent explaining sudh issges. Ij turn, absence of black holes would lead to the loss of protection of a tyeory hrjm ubiquitohs alpeardnees
thus is to incorporate these corrections while with four-dimensionality of data. In other reduced of the object, the one in of the most appropriate solution $Sol(M_4)$ from a corresponding effective 4D theory $M_4$. The question is how to derive EFMT $M_4$, especially assuming the situation like the one we have recently, i.e., $M$ not known? solution to the problem would be to use the known fundamental solutions of high-D theories as guiding thread. Indeed, real phenomena are described by thus if one wishes preserve (partially, at least) such in dimensionally reduced one make that the latter not disallow $Sol(M)$-like solutions in principle. Considering aforesaid, we formulate the following selection criterion: “Suppose we have higher-dimensional theory, $M$. This has certain relevant solution, $Sol(M)$ unique to $M$. This solution has $Prop(Sol(M))$, which is preserved under reduction of dimensions. the other we have 4D theory $M_4$ whose solutions we denote by $Sol(M_4)$. Then the necessary for $M_4$ to be a lower-dimensional limit of $M$ is that at least one of have $Prop(Sol(M))$.” This criterion be regarded as correspondence for henceforth call it *Solution Correspondence Principle* ([SCP]{}). Now, to determine what solution is physically and which property of it is suitable for [SCP]{}, we use the following two from the string/M-theory. First, is that the branes are of theory M2 M5 hence they should be suitable for a concrete realization [SCP]{}. Moreover, it is for proper describing of black holes (microstates, entropy, [@Strominger:1996sh], therefore, their absence in a theory cause serious difficulties with consistent explaining such issues. In turn, absence of holes would the loss of protection of a theory from appearances
 thus is to incorporate these cOrrections While StaYinG cOmpaTiblE with the four-diMEnsiOnality of experimental dAta.

In OtHEr woRDs, One neEds the dIMeNSIonAlLy RedUcED dEscriPtiOn of the Object, i.e., thE onE iN terms of the mOSt AppropriatE soLution $Sol(M_4)$ arIsiNg from A cOrrESpondIng EffecTive 4D tHEory $M_4$. THe questioN iS How to dERive sucH efMt $M_4$, esPecially assuming tHE sITuation like the One we hAvE ReCENtlY, i.e., When $M$ is not ExPliciTLy known? oUr SOLUtiON to the problem Would be to usE The Known fUnDamENtal soLutioNs OF hiGh-D theories As a gUiding thrEad. IndEEd, real pHEnomena Are desCriBed By $SoL(m)$’s ThUs iF oNE wiSHeS to PResErve (partIaLlY, at leAst) sUCH DEscrIptIon iN the dImensionally rEduCed tHEorY one mUst maKe suRe That tHe lattEr doeS nOt disallow $Sol(M)$-lIke sOlutions iN prInCipLe.

consiDEring aForEsaId, we forMulate tHE foLlOWINg Selection criterion: “suPPOsE we have a Higher-DImEnSIonal theOrY, caLl it $m$. tHis thEory HAs A certain PhysicALlY rElevant SoLution, $soL(M)$ wHicH is unIQue tO $M$. This Solution Has ceRTain distinctivE Property, $Prop(SOL(M))$, WHIcH Is prEseRved under reDuctIOn of DimeNSiOns. oN the oTher hAnD, We HAve 4D theory $M_4$ whose nonTrIvial sOlutiOns we denote by $sol(M_4)$. Then thE NECessary cOndiTIoN For $M_4$ to be a lower-DimenSional limiT Of $M$ is thaT at leAst one of $sol(M_4)$ must hAVE $Prop(Sol(m))$.” ThIs cRitEriON CaN be regarded as THE corReSpondenCe pRinciplE foR soLutIonS, hEnceforth We call it ThE *SOlUtIon correSPondence prIncIpLe* ([ScP]{}). Now, TO deterMine wHat sOlUtIOn iS physicALlY RElevAnT aNd whIch PrOpertY of iT Is sUitable For [SCP]{}, we wIll MAke uSe Of The follOwing two facts FrOm the strinG/M-TheOry.

FirST, It is well-Known that the branes are knOWn solutIonS of M tHeorY (one may reCalL M2 and M5 OneS) Hence tHey shoUld be PeRfeCTLy suiTABlE foR a Concrete reALIzaTion oF [ScP]{}. MoReover, iT is known that branes ARe iNevitable for pRopEr deSCRiBinG Of BLacK hOLes (MICrostates, entropY, etc.) [@StromiNgER:1996sH], therefore, THeiR aBsence iN a theorY woulD Cause seRious diffIculties wItH conSISteNt explainiNg such isSues. In turN, AbsenCE oF blacK hoLes wouLd LeaD to thE loss oF ProTectiOn of a tHeOry froM ubiqUiTous appeArances
 thus is to incorporate th ese correc tions  wh ile  s tayi ng c ompatible with thefour-dimensionality of  expe ri m enta l  d ata.
In oth e rw o rds ,on e n ee d sthe d ime nsional ly reduced  de sc ription of t h eobject, i. e.,  the one inter ms ofth e m o st ap pro priat e solu t ion $S ol(M_4)$ar i sing f r om a co r r es pond ing effective 4Dt he o ry $M_4$. Thequesti on is h owtoderive suc hEFMT$ M_4$, e s pe c i a lly assuming thesituation l i kethe on eweh ave re centl y, i.e ., when $M$  isnot expli citlyk nown? O u r solut ion to  th e p robl e mwo uld  b e  to us e t h e k nown fun da me ntalsolu t i o n s of  hi gh-D  theo ries as a gui din g th r ead . Ind eed,real  p henom ena ar e des cr ibed by $Sol(M) $’sthus if o newi she sto pr e serve(pa rti ally, a t least )  su ch d e sc ription in the dim en s i on ally red uced t h eo ry one must  m ake  sur e thatthel at ter does  not d i sa ll ow $Sol (M )$-lik esol uti ons i n  pri nciple .

Consi derin g  aforesaid, we formulate the fo l l ow i ng s ele ction crite rion :  “Su ppos e  w e h a ve ahighe r- d im e nsional theory, cal lit $M$ . Thi s theory hasa certainp h y sicallyrele v an t  solution, $So l(M)$  which isu nique to  $M$.  This so lution ha s certaindis tin cti vep r op erty, $Prop(S o l (M)) $,  whichispreserv edund erred uc tion of d imension s.  O nth e o therh and, weha ve4D  th eory$ M_4$ w hosenont ri vi a l s olution s  w e deno te  b y $S ol( M_ 4)$.Then the  necess ary condi tio n  for  $ M_ 4$ to b e a lower-dim en sional lim it  of  $M$ i s that atleast one of $Sol(M_4)$ must ha ve$Prop (Sol (M))$.” T his  crite rio n  can b e rega rdedas  th e corre s p on den ce  principle f orsolut io ns,hencefo rth we call it the *So lution Corres pon denc e Pr inc i pl e * ( [S C P]{ } ) . Now, to deter mine whatso l ut ion is phy s ica ll y relev ant and  whic h  proper ty of itis suitab le  for [ SCP ]{}, we wi ll makeuse of th e  foll o wi ng tw o f acts f ro m t he st ring/M - the ory.
First ,it iswell- kn own that  the branes are known s olutio ns of  Mtheory (o nem ayrecall M2  and  M5 ones)hen cetheysho u ld be  per f ec tly suita blef or a conc r et e r e a li zation of [ S C P ]{} . Mor eov e r, itis k nown that branesa re inevitableforp r ope r d e scri bi ng of black ho les  ( m i crostate s,  entropy, e tc.) [@S tr o minge r:1996 sh], t herefor e ,  t h eir ab senc e i n a theor y w ou l d cause  s er i ous di ffic ul ties w ith co n sist e n t explaining suc h iss u e s. In tur n, ab se nce ofb lack  holes wou ld lead tothe lo ss o f pro tection  o f a th eor yfrom ubiqu i tous appe aranc es
 thus_is to_incorporate these corrections while_staying compatible_with_the four-dimensionality_of_experimental data.

In other_words, one needs_the dimensionally reduced description_of the object,_i.e.,_the one in terms of the most appropriate solution $Sol(M_4)$ arising from a corresponding_effective_4D theory_$M_4$._The_question is how to derive_such EFMT $M_4$, especially assuming_the situation_like the one we have recently, i.e., when_$M$_is not explicitly_known? Our solution to the problem would be to_use the known fundamental solutions of_high-D theories as_a_guiding_thread. Indeed, real phenomena_are described by $Sol(M)$’s thus if_one wishes to preserve (partially, at_least) such description in the dimensionally reduced_theory one must make sure that_the latter does not disallow_$Sol(M)$-like solutions_in principle.

Considering aforesaid, we formulate_the following selection_criterion: “Suppose_we have a_higher-dimensional theory, call it $M$. This_theory has a_certain physically relevant solution, $Sol(M)$ which_is_unique to $M$._This_solution_has certain_distinctive property, $Prop(Sol(M))$,_which_is preserved_under_reduction of dimensions. On the other_hand,_we have 4D theory $M_4$ whose nontrivial_solutions we denote by_$Sol(M_4)$._Then the necessary condition_for $M_4$ to be a_lower-dimensional limit of $M$ is that_at least_one of_$Sol(M_4)$ must have $Prop(Sol(M))$.” This criterion can be regarded as the_correspondence principle for solutions, henceforth we_call it the *Solution_Correspondence Principle*_([SCP]{})._Now, to determine_what_solution is_physically relevant and which property of it_is suitable_for [SCP]{}, we will make use_of the following two_facts_from the string/M-theory.

First, it is well-known_that the branes are known solutions_of M theory (one may_recall_M2_and M5 ones) hence they_should be perfectly suitable for a_concrete realization of_[SCP]{}. Moreover, it is known that branes_are_inevitable for proper describing of black_holes_(microstates, entropy, etc.) [@Strominger:1996sh], therefore, their_absence_in_a theory would cause serious_difficulties with consistent explaining such issues._In turn, absence of black holes would lead to_the loss of_protection of a theory from_ubiquitous_appearances