Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • 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.

  • I Know This Phase Of The Work Isn”t That Interesting

    I KNOW THIS PHASE OF THE WORK ISN”T THAT INTERESTING (From Curt Doolittle: via VK.com) I know that working on “Grammars of Commensurability and therefore Decidability- both Inflationary, and Deflationary” is not terribly interesting to most followers. Any more so than the period I was working on Testimonial Truth was. Unfortunately, the edifice depends upon the logic and grammar of truthful speech. It’s this truthful speech, and the method of analysis that is required to produce it, that is the foundation of propertarianism. Testimonialism provides the grammar, property-in-toto provides the vocabulary, and acquisitionism provides the logic. So while I appreciate everyone’s interest when I’m talking about either psychology, sociology, western uniqueness, religion, market fascism, and revolution, the ability to understand these ideas, and to demand them in practice, is predicated upon the ability to put the arguments forward truthfully: meaning in deflationary, commensurable prose. But the rest of the work is not so technical, and should be more accessible – and more interesting. 😉 Hugs all.

  • I KNOW THIS PHASE OF THE WORK ISN”T THAT INTERESTING (From Curt Doolittle: via V

    I KNOW THIS PHASE OF THE WORK ISN”T THAT INTERESTING

    (From Curt Doolittle: via VK.com http://VK.com )

    I know that working on “Grammars of Commensurability and therefore Decidability- both Inflationary, and Deflationary” is not terribly interesting to most followers. Any more so than the period I was working on Testimonial Truth was. Unfortunately, the edifice depends upon the logic and grammar of truthful speech.

    It’s this truthful speech, and the method of analysis that is required to produce it, that is the foundation of propertarianism. Testimonialism provides the grammar, property-in-toto provides the vocabulary, and acquisitionism provides the logic.

    So while I appreciate everyone’s interest when I’m talking about either psychology, sociology, western uniqueness, religion, market fascism, and revolution, the ability to understand these ideas, and to demand them in practice, is predicated upon the ability to put the arguments forward truthfully: meaning in deflationary, commensurable prose.

    But the rest of the work is not so technical, and should be more accessible – and more interesting. 😉

    Hugs all.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-16 08:56:00 UTC

  • I Know This Phase Of The Work Isn”t That Interesting

    I KNOW THIS PHASE OF THE WORK ISN”T THAT INTERESTING (From Curt Doolittle: via VK.com) I know that working on “Grammars of Commensurability and therefore Decidability- both Inflationary, and Deflationary” is not terribly interesting to most followers. Any more so than the period I was working on Testimonial Truth was. Unfortunately, the edifice depends upon the logic and grammar of truthful speech. It’s this truthful speech, and the method of analysis that is required to produce it, that is the foundation of propertarianism. Testimonialism provides the grammar, property-in-toto provides the vocabulary, and acquisitionism provides the logic. So while I appreciate everyone’s interest when I’m talking about either psychology, sociology, western uniqueness, religion, market fascism, and revolution, the ability to understand these ideas, and to demand them in practice, is predicated upon the ability to put the arguments forward truthfully: meaning in deflationary, commensurable prose. But the rest of the work is not so technical, and should be more accessible – and more interesting. 😉 Hugs all.

  • FURTHER PROGRESS ON INFLATIONARY AND DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS – UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR O

    FURTHER PROGRESS ON INFLATIONARY AND DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS – UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR OF COMMENSURABILITY AND DECIDABILITY.
  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22498924_156083544988544_24132894245

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22498924_156083544988544_24132894245

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22498924_156083544988544_2413289424530274570_o_156083544988544.jpg FURTHER PROGRESS ON INFLATIONARY AND DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS – UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR OF COMMENSURABILITY AND DECIDABILITY.FURTHER PROGRESS ON INFLATIONARY AND DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS – UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR OF COMMENSURABILITY AND DECIDABILITY.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-15 13:48:00 UTC

  • FURTHER PROGRESS ON INFLATIONARY AND DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS – UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR O

    FURTHER PROGRESS ON INFLATIONARY AND DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS – UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR OF COMMENSURABILITY AND DECIDABILITY.

  • You, Inflationists And Conflationists, Fear Me. I Understand. And You Should.

    (I have *no technical critics* at all. And I suspect I never will.) Every deflationary grammar we have developed, from logic(reason) to mathematics (constant relations), to formal logics (of language) to formulae, to computer languages, to legal language and scientific language, consists of LIMITING Vocabulary, Grammar and Syntax such that we require well-formed and therefore grammatically testable statements. We can limit vocabulary and grammar and syntax in ordinary language to eliminate suggestion, loading, framing, fiction, fictionalism, from our speech. And we can do so (at cost) on any and every subject available to the mind of man. And we have been doing it in western civilization for no less than 3500 years. I have simply explained the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of that speech, and I have explained why we rely on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and (a) the competition between narratives, to identify (b) possible actions(means) (c) incentives (motives), and (d) opportunity. In other words, I have united the languages of philosophy, law, and science into a single grammar of testimony. This vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of testimony, provides us with a fully commensurable grammar of decidability at the limit of human’s ability to speak in deflationary language. The checklist I have provided for the test of reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against costs born by others by externality), and the checklist of tests of due diligence that include every possible dimension of deflationary speech (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, complete, and parsimonious) provides sufficient coverage to render false speech (including ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit) nearly impossible. Or at least, so difficult that we can forgive those who make truth claims, and those of the jury, for their frailty. I suspect what you object to, is that this set of due diligences is either beyond your ability, beyond your willingness to pay, or would falsify your deceits, most important of which is your self status. And if I prosecuted you before a jury more aggressively than I do now, I am quite certain that they would return a verdict of either malice, fraud, ignorance, or incompetence against your line of speech. And this is precisely what you fear. That the inferior peoples need lies to comfort themselves in the face of a reality that they are insufficiently equipped by natural circumstance to compete in. I HAVE NO CRITICS OF MERIT. NONE. I have never, ever, encounter a single technical criticism of my work. And when (shortly) I publish the set of videos and then the book, I will have no technical critics. I will have only those like you: whose self image or social status, is the product of deception of both the self and of others. You fear your day in court. As well you should.

  • YOU, INFLATIONISTS AND CONFLATIONISTS, FEAR ME. I UNDERSTAND. AND YOU SHOULD. (I

    YOU, INFLATIONISTS AND CONFLATIONISTS, FEAR ME. I UNDERSTAND. AND YOU SHOULD.

    (I have *no technical critics* at all. And I suspect I never will.)

    Every deflationary grammar we have developed, from logic(reason) to mathematics (constant relations), to formal logics (of language) to formulae, to computer languages, to legal language and scientific language, consists of LIMITING Vocabulary, Grammar and Syntax such that we require well-formed and therefore grammatically testable statements.

    We can limit vocabulary and grammar and syntax in ordinary language to eliminate suggestion, loading, framing, fiction, fictionalism, from our speech. And we can do so (at cost) on any and every subject available to the mind of man.

    And we have been doing it in western civilization for no less than 3500 years. I have simply explained the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of that speech, and I have explained why we rely on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and (a) the competition between narratives, to identify (b) possible actions(means) (c) incentives (motives), and (d) opportunity.

    In other words, I have united the languages of philosophy, law, and science into a single grammar of testimony.

    This vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of testimony, provides us with a fully commensurable grammar of decidability at the limit of human’s ability to speak in deflationary language.

    The checklist I have provided for the test of reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against costs born by others by externality), and the checklist of tests of due diligence that include every possible dimension of deflationary speech (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, complete, and parsimonious) provides sufficient coverage to render false speech (including ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit) nearly impossible. Or at least, so difficult that we can forgive those who make truth claims, and those of the jury, for their frailty.

    I suspect what you object to, is that this set of due diligences is either beyond your ability, beyond your willingness to pay, or would falsify your deceits, most important of which is your self status.

    And if I prosecuted you before a jury more aggressively than I do now, I am quite certain that they would return a verdict of either malice, fraud, ignorance, or incompetence against your line of speech.

    And this is precisely what you fear.

    That the inferior peoples need lies to comfort themselves in the face of a reality that they are insufficiently equipped by natural circumstance to compete in.

    I HAVE NO CRITICS OF MERIT. NONE.

    I have never, ever, encounter a single technical criticism of my work. And when (shortly) I publish the set of videos and then the book, I will have no technical critics. I will have only those like you: whose self image or social status, is the product of deception of both the self and of others.

    You fear your day in court.

    As well you should.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-13 22:23:00 UTC

  • You, Inflationists And Conflationists, Fear Me. I Understand. And You Should.

    (I have *no technical critics* at all. And I suspect I never will.) Every deflationary grammar we have developed, from logic(reason) to mathematics (constant relations), to formal logics (of language) to formulae, to computer languages, to legal language and scientific language, consists of LIMITING Vocabulary, Grammar and Syntax such that we require well-formed and therefore grammatically testable statements. We can limit vocabulary and grammar and syntax in ordinary language to eliminate suggestion, loading, framing, fiction, fictionalism, from our speech. And we can do so (at cost) on any and every subject available to the mind of man. And we have been doing it in western civilization for no less than 3500 years. I have simply explained the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of that speech, and I have explained why we rely on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and (a) the competition between narratives, to identify (b) possible actions(means) (c) incentives (motives), and (d) opportunity. In other words, I have united the languages of philosophy, law, and science into a single grammar of testimony. This vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of testimony, provides us with a fully commensurable grammar of decidability at the limit of human’s ability to speak in deflationary language. The checklist I have provided for the test of reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against costs born by others by externality), and the checklist of tests of due diligence that include every possible dimension of deflationary speech (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, complete, and parsimonious) provides sufficient coverage to render false speech (including ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit) nearly impossible. Or at least, so difficult that we can forgive those who make truth claims, and those of the jury, for their frailty. I suspect what you object to, is that this set of due diligences is either beyond your ability, beyond your willingness to pay, or would falsify your deceits, most important of which is your self status. And if I prosecuted you before a jury more aggressively than I do now, I am quite certain that they would return a verdict of either malice, fraud, ignorance, or incompetence against your line of speech. And this is precisely what you fear. That the inferior peoples need lies to comfort themselves in the face of a reality that they are insufficiently equipped by natural circumstance to compete in. I HAVE NO CRITICS OF MERIT. NONE. I have never, ever, encounter a single technical criticism of my work. And when (shortly) I publish the set of videos and then the book, I will have no technical critics. I will have only those like you: whose self image or social status, is the product of deception of both the self and of others. You fear your day in court. As well you should.