Correct. Numerals glyphs that correspond to positional names. Numbers are functions consisting of combinations of numerals in positional names, produced by the process of positional naming.
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-01 02:01:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697429321067962569
Reply addressees: @Ket_Math_Dad @EricMorganCoach @Viorp2 @WerrellBradley @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697428324631695728
@WerrellBradley
(I told you I didn’t think he was a nitwit, but that I’d just have to run a test. It’s just very hard to find common means of communication without convincing the other party you’re not an idiot either. Social media is full of idiots. And yes, I know you all tease me for this, but like I said, I learn from these experiments, so as long as I see a glimmer of hope I’m willing to give it a try.
I remember this wonderful movie back in the 70s (it was delayed a few years but should have come out earlier) called Collossus the Forbin project, where two supercomputers, US and Soviet have to construct a language so that they can communicate. They learn, and we learn, that communication requires trust in order to sufficiently invest in understanding the other party.
Most of the time, reasonably intelligent and intellectually honest people simply lack cross-domain knowledge necessary to generalize concepts from their chosen domain of expertise across domains – which is, as you know one of our complaints about the present academy’s siloing.
There are very few people that are competent in as many fields as I am, and our team is very good at universal commensurability, but its still hard to communicate with people who don’t have the background in these matters – and there are too few who do. -Cheers. )
Reply addressees: @Ket_Math_Dad @EricMorganCoach @Viorp2 @WerrellBradley @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-01 01:59:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697428852937482240
Named Sequence (sequence space)
Positional Name Scale: {0, 1, 2, 3….}
Cooperative Name scale: { Evil, Immoral, Unethical, Amoral, Ethical, Moral, Virtuous }
Temporal Name scale: {Past, Recently, Present, Soon, Future}
etc.
What is the difference in disambiguation produced by different dimensions of different systems of names? Nothing.
All language consists of continuous recursive disambiguation of incomprehensibility into parsimonious consistency and correspondence, by adversarial competition between dimensions for (falsification) of alternative episodes (results).
ie: all logic is falsificationary.
The hierarchy of certainty is incomprehensible > uncertainty > undecidability > possibly true> false.
Language consists of three sets of names: nouns(references), verbs(operations), and agreements.
Nouns and verbs tend to average seven or so dimensions. Agreements/Non tend to have three dimensions yes/no/uncertain.
Math is just another language of increasing dimensions.
counting > arithmetic > algebra > geometry > calculus > statistics > discrete mathematics > combinatorics etc.
Episodic memories produced of language are natural while mathematical constructions must be trained into memory such that they form episodic memories.
All memories consist of fragments organized into episodes, which form the indexes of association from which we construct memories, reconstruct them, and form auto association between them.
The question is only what can be described with the language we use?
Reply addressees: @Ket_Math_Dad @EricMorganCoach @Viorp2 @WerrellBradley @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-01 01:50:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697426758956392448
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697420007293272389
Mathematics is a discipline, usually defined as the science of and resulting paradigm, vocabulary, logic, syntax, and grammar (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) of numbers(positional names), quantities, and space.
Mathematical statements are usually defined as a declarative (descriptive) sentence composed with that vocabulary, logic, syntax, and grammar, that the author asserts to be true (internally consistent) or false (not internally consistent), but not both.
Mathematics is to mathematical statements as literature is to sentences.
Reply addressees: @Ket_Math_Dad @EricMorganCoach @Viorp2 @WerrellBradley @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-01 01:35:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697422941372272641
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697420156669186469
That statement belies a very odd misunderstanding of the abstractions you’re discussing. Any abstraction of quantifiability is still a ratio of a relation.
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-01 00:59:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697413771281502224
Reply addressees: @Ket_Math_Dad @EricMorganCoach @Viorp2 @WerrellBradley @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697411879398998388
It’s just that you’re not a polymath so you are stuck in on frame of reference, and I am a polymath so all methodologies are just variations on operational language. Even that concept, I assume, is quite a bit beyond you because it’s beyond almost everyone.
If you can learn the hierarchy mathematical models and techniques such that you grasp it’s nothing but the science of creating projections that function as a set of constructible baselines for producing commensurability regardless of the number of dimensions, then you should be able to grasp what we’re talking about. But you may lack the domain knowledge to grasp that we’ve unified the sciences in to universally commensurable value-neutral paradigm vocabulary and logic. Most people in our domain requires about 140IQ and at least two domains of knowledge. Usually, one of them is economics because with economics and computation vs physics and mathematics, we see the methodological difference between the physical and behavioral sciences.
Reply addressees: @Ket_Math_Dad @EricMorganCoach @Viorp2 @WerrellBradley @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-01 00:16:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697403084153016320
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697400317674139744
I see, so now we understand why you didn’t grasp that ‘all mathematics is statistical(continuous) and all computation is operational (discrete)’.
So you’re thinking in nouns not verbs.
Interesting.
So now I see why eric is having a problem finding a protocol for speaking to you.
I assume you haven’t studied economics, computation, and the limits of mathematical reducibility in both language, operations, economics, and physics. It’s because you’re talking about the behavior of mathematics, not the behavior of what we call reality (matter in motion), and so you’re operating from analogy and ideals rather than direct references. Bottom up vs top down.
Ok. Getting closer now.
Reply addressees: @Ket_Math_Dad @EricMorganCoach @Viorp2 @WerrellBradley @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-01 00:10:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697401596966039553
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697399833181708429
It’s hardly likely that Eric errs. It’s more likely that Eric isn’t able to figure out a frame that both of you can understand (a protocol) such that he can help you grasp what he’s saying. It might be because we are discussing dimensional limits in supply and demand from… https://t.co/oE0BFEdCeO
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-31 23:57:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697398330421084533
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697392283786805412
The work we do at the Natural Law Institute is very complex, tedious, and difficult. And while our prose may seem a bit stilted and formal, that’s because it’s far closer to mathematics than to ordinary language. And that prose obscures the complexity of the work behind what we say. Because BEFORE we put all the effort into making our work accessible, it was obviously complex, tedious, difficult, and almost incomprehensible. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-30 17:40:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696940861517352961
I use Computational Linquistics in the broadest form as:
1. The study of how to make computers understand speech (correlative)
2. More abstractly, the use of human speech by computers to disambiguate the meaning of speech into a universally commensurable system of measurement. (A system of measurement)
3. So that computers can understand the semantic content of speech by construction from first principles. ( A logic )
4. Lastly, to allow us to reverse engineer the incentives and biases of speakers from those first principles. (A science).
As you’re aware, we collect vast amounts of data to discover first principles of human error, bias, and deception, just as we have used vast amounts of data to discover personality differences, and just as we have to discover intelligence differences.
The primary innovation in my work is the unification of the sciences into a universally commensurable value-neutral language. But some of the most important insights of my work have come from the analysis of sex, class, and cultural differences in lying, and how these differences in lying are embedded in group evolutionary strategies.
The Abrahamists to the Ashkenazim were as innovative in lying as the Greeks to the English were in truth. And these competing systems of innovation of masculine truth to demand responsibility, and feminine lying to evade responsibility continue to this day.
Reply addressees: @WerrellBradley @junkodama10 @harari_yuval
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-27 19:17:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1695878137014353920
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1695869175846314371