Form: Short Note

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22137231_152793318650900_45869775178

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22137231_152793318650900_45869775178

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22137231_152793318650900_45869775178070773_o_152793318650900.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22179663_152793335317565_3789053920826021641_o_152793335317565.jpg


    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-02 18:28:00 UTC

  • Losing Empires

    ST LOUIS. The people who lost their empire next most quickly, were the people least willing to kill to maintain it (british). The people who lost them next most quickly were those who tried to maintain them cheaply(french).

    The people who lost them next most quickly were those who ran them poorly (russians, mongols). The people who lost their next most quickly, were those who over extended them (roman). The people who held their empires, were those that didn’t overextend them, didn’t run them poorly, didn’t run them cheaply, and who were willing to kill to maintain them (China, Egypt). “Kill them until they stop coming. Then kill all those who you can find. Then kill all their relatives you can find. Then take their best things and burn the rest to the ground – erasing all trace of their existence.”
  • Losing Empires

    ST LOUIS. The people who lost their empire next most quickly, were the people least willing to kill to maintain it (british). The people who lost them next most quickly were those who tried to maintain them cheaply(french).

    The people who lost them next most quickly were those who ran them poorly (russians, mongols). The people who lost their next most quickly, were those who over extended them (roman). The people who held their empires, were those that didn’t overextend them, didn’t run them poorly, didn’t run them cheaply, and who were willing to kill to maintain them (China, Egypt). “Kill them until they stop coming. Then kill all those who you can find. Then kill all their relatives you can find. Then take their best things and burn the rest to the ground – erasing all trace of their existence.”
  • Grammars

    So it’s correct to call apriorism an ideal grammar, but not a formal grammar. Thankfully I finally know how to talk about the grammars of each incremental dimension… sigh.

    • Mathematical grammars are not contingent because of constant relations. That’s their beauty. The problem is they’re non causal.
    • Linguistic (Philosophical) grammars are contingent. That’s their weakness.
    • Operational grammars are not contingent. And they’re causal. That’s their beauty.

    Grammar A grammar defining formal language L is a quadruple (N,T,R,S), where N is a finite set of nonterminals, T is a finite set of terminal symbols, R is a finite set of productions, and S is an element of N. The set T of terminal symbols is L’s alphabet. Nonterminals are symbols representing language constructs. The sets N and T should not intersect. S is called the start symbol. Productions are rules of the form: alpha->beta, where both alpha and beta are strings of terminals and nonterminals, alpha contains at least one nonterminal. Sentential forms for grammar G=(N,T,R,S) are defined by the following rules: S is a sentential form and if alphabetagamma is a sentential form and production beta->delta belongs to R, then alphadeltagamma is a sentential form as well. L is the set of all strings which are sentential forms consisting entirely of terminal symbols. For a language defined by a grammar, recognition whether a given string (expression) belongs to that language is, in general, a non-trivial task. All languages defined by grammars are recursively enumerable sets. 1. A grammar G is called right linear if all its productions have the form A->alphaB or A->alpha, where A,B in N and alpha is a string of terminal symbols. 2. A grammar G is called context-free if all its productions have the form A->alpha, where A in N and alpha is a string of terminal and nonterminal symbols. 3. A grammar G is called context-sensitive if all its productions have the form alpha->beta, where both alpha and beta are strings of terminal and nonterminal symbols and the length of alpha is not more than the length of beta. 4. A grammar G is called unrestricted if it does not belong to categories 1 through 3. This hierarchy of grammars was introduced by N. Chomsky. The set of languages defined by grammars of every category is a proper superset of that for the previous category. The languages defined by grammars of categories 1 through 3 are recursive sets. A language can be defined by a grammar of category 1 iff it is defined by a regular expression.

  • Grammars

    So it’s correct to call apriorism an ideal grammar, but not a formal grammar. Thankfully I finally know how to talk about the grammars of each incremental dimension… sigh.

    • Mathematical grammars are not contingent because of constant relations. That’s their beauty. The problem is they’re non causal.
    • Linguistic (Philosophical) grammars are contingent. That’s their weakness.
    • Operational grammars are not contingent. And they’re causal. That’s their beauty.

    Grammar A grammar defining formal language L is a quadruple (N,T,R,S), where N is a finite set of nonterminals, T is a finite set of terminal symbols, R is a finite set of productions, and S is an element of N. The set T of terminal symbols is L’s alphabet. Nonterminals are symbols representing language constructs. The sets N and T should not intersect. S is called the start symbol. Productions are rules of the form: alpha->beta, where both alpha and beta are strings of terminals and nonterminals, alpha contains at least one nonterminal. Sentential forms for grammar G=(N,T,R,S) are defined by the following rules: S is a sentential form and if alphabetagamma is a sentential form and production beta->delta belongs to R, then alphadeltagamma is a sentential form as well. L is the set of all strings which are sentential forms consisting entirely of terminal symbols. For a language defined by a grammar, recognition whether a given string (expression) belongs to that language is, in general, a non-trivial task. All languages defined by grammars are recursively enumerable sets. 1. A grammar G is called right linear if all its productions have the form A->alphaB or A->alpha, where A,B in N and alpha is a string of terminal symbols. 2. A grammar G is called context-free if all its productions have the form A->alpha, where A in N and alpha is a string of terminal and nonterminal symbols. 3. A grammar G is called context-sensitive if all its productions have the form alpha->beta, where both alpha and beta are strings of terminal and nonterminal symbols and the length of alpha is not more than the length of beta. 4. A grammar G is called unrestricted if it does not belong to categories 1 through 3. This hierarchy of grammars was introduced by N. Chomsky. The set of languages defined by grammars of every category is a proper superset of that for the previous category. The languages defined by grammars of categories 1 through 3 are recursive sets. A language can be defined by a grammar of category 1 iff it is defined by a regular expression.

  • Limits

    • Eventually we ran out of local flora and fauna.
    • Eventually we ran out of new regions of flora and fauna.
    • Eventually we ran out of arable land.
    • Eventually (soon) we will run out of resources.
    • Eventually (later) we will run out of a capacity to transform energy.
    • We are never free of the universe’s limits. We are never free of the limits of energy transformation in this universe.
    • We have only one medium term problem in mankind. The malthusian population of the underclass.
    • We have only one medium-long term in mankind: The malthusian population of the middle and upper classes.
    • We have only one long term problem in mankind: eventually we will hit the malthusian limit of energy transformation.
  • Limits

    • Eventually we ran out of local flora and fauna.
    • Eventually we ran out of new regions of flora and fauna.
    • Eventually we ran out of arable land.
    • Eventually (soon) we will run out of resources.
    • Eventually (later) we will run out of a capacity to transform energy.
    • We are never free of the universe’s limits. We are never free of the limits of energy transformation in this universe.
    • We have only one medium term problem in mankind. The malthusian population of the underclass.
    • We have only one medium-long term in mankind: The malthusian population of the middle and upper classes.
    • We have only one long term problem in mankind: eventually we will hit the malthusian limit of energy transformation.
  • Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline

    Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-29 15:37:00 UTC

  • (Keep my own advice: women play men’s games to assert dominance or peerage but w

    (Keep my own advice: women play men’s games to assert dominance or peerage but when you respond with man game they do not like it or understand it. Always find it interesting. Women are amazing workhorses but they are psychologically fragile things. Men are not such amazing workhorses. We are sprinters so to speak. But psychologically we are nowhere near as fragile. Hence why you see crazy women and antisocial men. Me. I get in trouble because I take teasing too far. Why? Lack of sufficient empathy, and love of competition.)
  • (Keep my own advice: women play men’s games to assert dominance or peerage but w

    (Keep my own advice: women play men’s games to assert dominance or peerage but when you respond with man game they do not like it or understand it. Always find it interesting. Women are amazing workhorses but they are psychologically fragile things. Men are not such amazing workhorses. We are sprinters so to speak. But psychologically we are nowhere near as fragile. Hence why you see crazy women and antisocial men. Me. I get in trouble because I take teasing too far. Why? Lack of sufficient empathy, and love of competition.)