Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • The Route to Operational Grammar

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)

  • The Route to Operational Grammar

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)

  • I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verb

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided.

    SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law)

    Zoroaster -> Abraham ->

    …|-> Rabbinicals->

    … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium)

    … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund.

    IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law)

    Plato -> Kant ->

    … … … … |->Marx(Soc.)

    … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe

    … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon)

    … … … … |->Frege->Kripke

    … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes

    REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law)

    Aristotle->Bacon/Newton …

    |->Locke/Smith/Hume

    … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek

    |->Poincare ->Hilbert

    |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing

    … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky

    |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick ->

    |->Maxwell -> (Many)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-01 13:20:00 UTC

  • I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verb

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)

  • I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verb

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)

  • If you think I’ve made a fuss about idealism in mathematics, wait to you see wha

    If you think I’ve made a fuss about idealism in mathematics, wait to you see what I do to english grammar….. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-26 19:49:00 UTC

  • If you think I’ve made a fuss about idealism in mathematics, wait to you see wha

    If you think I’ve made a fuss about idealism in mathematics, wait to you see what I do to english grammar….. lol

  • If you think I’ve made a fuss about idealism in mathematics, wait to you see wha

    If you think I’ve made a fuss about idealism in mathematics, wait to you see what I do to english grammar….. lol

  • Where Does The Idea Of Infinity Come From?

    Kane, Mathematics consists in a deflationary vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, with some conflationary vocabulary for the purposes of verbal convenience. The content of that vocabulary consists of names of positions (Nouns), and Operations (verbs). The grammar provides a very limited means of organizing those nouns and verbs. The syntax provides hints for organizing operations and vocabulary within the grammar. We use glyphs to represent a positional names. We use decimal systems (or other bases) to generate positional names. All numbers(positional names) consist entirely of names of positions with constant relations. Using names for positions to pair off any item of any category, creates categorical independence. Using names for positions forces constant relations, and scale independence,. Using positional name then yields correspondence under categorical independence, and scale independence while preserving constant relations. Positional names provide perfect commensurability. All operations on numbers (positional names) are reducible to addition or subtraction of positions. All positional names other than the natural numbers (base positional names) must be produced through functions. We use inflationary grammar (conflation) to label reducible and non-reducible functions to numbers – a verbal convenience. We use the deflationary grammar of mathematics to remove scale dependence – thereby creating the requirement for limits. We use the deflationary grammar of mathematics removes time-to-perform any operation (Function) – thereby creating the requirement for infinity. We restore scale dependence and eliminate infinity in any and every application of mathematics. By restoring pairing off (context) we eliminate both limits (minimums) and infinity (maximums) In other words, as Babbage demonstrated, all computation can be produced through gears. If you were to use gears to discuss infinity, you would find that different gear ratios produce new positional names at different rates. All mathematical platonism is false (magic). If mathematics were taught operationally, and as a sequence of technical problems of measurement that we needed to solve as we increased the scales of our perception and action, we would not lose so many people who become confused at the apparent ‘magic’ of the discipline. This is the curse of mathematics profession. It is still operating with ‘magical’ or ‘priestly’ language. When its a terribly simple discipline. The art of composing sentences (expressions) that describe phenomenon in the language of constant relations (mathematics), should be no more difficult than learning any other language. Most of it is learning nuance. Just as learning all other languages requires a bit of nuance.

  • WHERE DOES THE IDEA OF INFINITY COME FROM? Kane, Mathematics consists in a defla

    WHERE DOES THE IDEA OF INFINITY COME FROM?

    Kane,

    Mathematics consists in a deflationary vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, with some conflationary vocabulary for the purposes of verbal convenience.

    The content of that vocabulary consists of names of positions (Nouns), and Operations (verbs). The grammar provides a very limited means of organizing those nouns and verbs. The syntax provides hints for organizing operations and vocabulary within the grammar.

    We use glyphs to represent a positional names.

    We use decimal systems (or other bases) to generate positional names.

    All numbers(positional names) consist entirely of names of positions with constant relations.

    Using names for positions to pair off any item of any category, creates categorical independence.

    Using names for positions forces constant relations, and scale independence,.

    Using positional name then yields correspondence under categorical independence, and scale independence while preserving constant relations.

    Positional names provide perfect commensurability.

    All operations on numbers (positional names) are reducible to addition or subtraction of positions.

    All positional names other than the natural numbers (base positional names) must be produced through functions.

    We use inflationary grammar (conflation) to label reducible and non-reducible functions to numbers – a verbal convenience.

    We use the deflationary grammar of mathematics to remove scale dependence – thereby creating the requirement for limits.

    We use the deflationary grammar of mathematics removes time-to-perform any operation (Function) – thereby creating the requirement for infinity.

    We restore scale dependence and eliminate infinity in any and every application of mathematics. By restoring pairing off (context) we eliminate both limits (minimums) and infinity (maximums)

    In other words, as Babbage demonstrated, all computation can be produced through gears.

    If you were to use gears to discuss infinity, you would find that different gear ratios produce new positional names at different rates.

    All mathematical platonism is false (magic).

    If mathematics were taught operationally, and as a sequence of technical problems of measurement that we needed to solve as we increased the scales of our perception and action, we would not lose so many people who become confused at the apparent ‘magic’ of the discipline.

    This is the curse of mathematics profession. It is still operating with ‘magical’ or ‘priestly’ language.

    When its a terribly simple discipline. The art of composing sentences (expressions) that describe phenomenon in the language of constant relations (mathematics), should be no more difficult than learning any other language. Most of it is learning nuance. Just as learning all other languages requires a bit of nuance.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-16 15:47:00 UTC