Close, but It’s Not Math, but Algorithmic

CLOSE, BUT IT”S NOT JUST MATH, BUT ALGORITHMIC (OPERATIONAL).

—“My sense is that Curt is more mathematically and scientifically oriented than he is literarily oriented. His syntax is almost algebraic at times.”— Joel Harvey

That’s correct. I actually write in programmatic statements just like we write software. So

|PARADIGMS(GRAMMARS)| Fictional (inflationary) > Literary(Meaningful) > testimonial(descriptive) > Algorithmic (programmatic, operations) > Scientific (correlative, statistical) > Logical (sets) > Mathematical (units).

In fact, my writing looks almost identical to my pseudocode.

I was taught in the era where we wrote pseudocode (outline in english) first to think through the logic, and in doing so write documentation, then to write the code itself (transactions).

So yes, that is why you see what you see.

And it is why I understood the possibility of algorithmic language of law….

So there you go. Like I said. The reason I was able to complete Hayek’s program i is because I was born AFTER Turing and hayek was born BEFORE Turing.

Now if I could just explain to all Austrians that austrian econ is the LAW of Economics rather than economics proper, they would understand both their discipline and what I have done with it.