Another thing I did was to look at what was called the Sakata model. Although Dick Feynman and I developed it actually independently, we didn't publish it but we… we thought of it independently and worked with it a good deal. That was the supposition that somehow neutron, proton and lambda were fundamental, and the other particles were made out of them. Well that is an SU(3) scheme, but I didn't think of it in terms of SU(3); I thought of it in terms of S3, permutations among three things. Now, actually, mathematicians have shown that the representations of the permutation group and the representations of the unitary group are very closely related, so that I was able to construct the irreducible representations of SU(3) without knowing that I was working with SU(3) just by using permutations. And I actually did it. So I found the fifteen dimensional representation, for example, and the six dimensional representation and so on. And I thought that maybe that's where psi belonged, that we had n, p, and lambda and then sigma and psi belonged to a fifteen along with a lot of other particles that hadn't been seen yet, and so forth. I worked all that out mathematically, but it looked very ugly, so I didn't really sign on to it. But what I was doing was the Sakata model although of course I didn't assign that name to it since we had thought of it ourselves, and I had worked out these multiplets by myself. I didn't like it very much, but anyway I played with it. Likewise I played with a field theory model for the purpose of abstracting results in which I had three fundamental objects, like neutron, proton and lambda, and a single vector boson, giving a force among them. I knew this wasn't the right theory but I thought that some properties of the true theory could be abstracted from it. Later on, after the proposal of quarks, I used a three quark field theory with a single vector boson–no, a single neutral vector boson, knowing it was wrong but hoping that some correct results could be abstracted from it.