hmm newly reading about AdS and retracted my comment to the lack of abstraction type wrong inference I had thought of initially. hmm specifically after reading about Einstein's Lorentzian space time definitions. yep there is there the abstraction I find quite good level unlike the 101 wise introduction to holographic principle which lacked a lot definitive details of AdS either. 

so my comment is becoming idiotic in this recent knowledge I saw. so retracting not enough abstraction comment. 

I mean this lorentzian specialization in Einstein space time def I see is not there in the holographic principle's 101 introduction which made me wrongly conclude as if there is not enough applied abstract  mathematics there. hmm but still i think it makes sense to think still there is not enough abstraction in holographic principle (although not knowing it in detail just heard 101 idea of, so I might be erring. but still I mean the lack of chance to generalize the theorem easily shows there is not enough abstraction and the abstraction there i see applied is unnecessarily rigid imho conceptualizations not necessarily to be defined like that is my idea initially but i might be erring since I had not even learnt holographic principle yet just only listened basic idea of.  So please consider my criticism with skeptism. since I am not expert to criticize since I had not learnt the holographic theory yet. what is first of all AdS or why AdS there and what is the dual side there etc etc. but i just did not liked the abstraction constructs there I saw in initial 101 idea definition there.  

so I retract my critism until I be sure if there is lack of abstraction in holographic principle theory. 

since i am not knowledgeable in this field to comment yet. 

so lets retract back my critique.