Multiple Form Logic
19May06
A is an entire expression, "X#1,Y".
See Stathis 2003 – Multiplicity in Multiple Form Logic :
The Axioms of Multiple Form Logic:
(A1) 1 , X = 1
("All is One, and All contains any distinction")(A2) A # X # X = A
("A distinction distinguishing itself, is no distinction")(A3) A , X # (A , B) = A , X # A
("What is real we may imagine, but need not imagine what is real")
With Stathis we can reduce the Pile_Object A to the logical expression "X#1,Y".
X,Y <=> Ui = Cp0 ' Cp1
A# <=> Cp2
The combinative pointers Cp0 and Cp1 are located side by side. The Cp2 "is" the "one-inside-another"-relation.
Filed under: LoF, Logic, Pile | 6 Comments
The RSS feed of this blog- An Other Space
- Jessicatz Fairymeadow’s Pile Implementation
- An open public letter to the “Pile Systems” team (Revisited)
- TVs, Tops, and the primary (primordial) self-reference
- Junctions, Perl 6, Haskell, …
- The Prolog Theorem Prover “mflogic.exe”
- Entailments_Context.mov @ 00:03:30
- Pask’s Entailment Meshes
- Multiple Form Logic revisited (after one year)
- Ralf Westphal’s “Intuitive Data Model”
-
Recent Comments
Hi Ralf,
I spend several hours reading material about “Pile” and many of your own postings and articles…
My feeling is intense fascination. There is also one rather obvious thing, you may have also realized, long ago, about the connections between Multiple Forms and Pile: The fact that both systems deal with relations (or distinctions) which are (1) Multiple, and (2) based on undefined _distinct_ irreducible external entities, which are never assumed to be the same. In these systems, in both these systems, the logic of True and False can only be a construction, rather than something already given.
It’s the human mind, which -by making… piles of associations- (hehe, pun intended) was able to generate the illusion of an Absolutely True and an Absolutely False logic state. My axiom 1 shows this…
I’m still at the beginning, but your Pile system has made my mind work in new directions that can only be positive.
More later
George
Intriguing material, but I realized there may be a small mistake in the way you understood my original MF expression, when you wrote:
Well, no, no, no… I wasn’t at all referrring to A, when I wrote this in the MFL site.
In that web-page I stated
(and the picture you gave followed).
So I was not referring to A, but to the BOUNDARY XORed with A, when I wrote that it (the boundary) is an entire expression. The BOUNDARY itself can be an expression, of equal citizenship to any other expression. The expression “X#1,Y” is _not_ A, but the boundary (with which A is xored).
It probably isn’t important, as regards the rest. However, if you think about it closely, it’s extremely similar to the “flat” nature of Pile relations; the idea being that any boundary can consist of an entire bundle of boundaries (internally)…
Hi Ralf, I got involved in TOO many things, TOO many activities, and have also lost my account in yahoo because of some hacking invasion into it, etc.
The reason I write this here, instead of a private e-mail, is to disclose for others too, who might be interested in these topics, my new e-mail
omadeon AT hotmail.com
Recently I also did a lot of… music, here in Greece, e.g. “mikis-trance,” the new trance club we’re starting with friends and other DJ’s in central Athens, etc.
(and also indulged in the… Greek blogging disease; simply TOO much -hehe).
I wish you all the best
George