Actually Erez’s alternative business model, the “common company” is very interesting and much more practical than it initially seemed, when I first looked into Erez’s ideas a VERY long time ago.
So I hope that… later on today or tomorrow, I will find the time to write an extensive review and presentation of Erez’s alternative business model, which (as I understand it) tries to safeguard profit-sharing and a fairer distribution of revenue, as well as the rights and incentives of investors. And… in view of the big changes expected to come soon due to PeakOil, Erez’s ideas may become suddenly widely applicable in society.

However, all this has little to do with Multiple Form Logic. More posts on Multiple Form Logic will appear in my blogs, particularly the dedicated technical blog
http://prologsource.wordpress.com
(where a brief description of “Dream Prover” is given, a nice theorem prover with a graphic editor and a Logic slide-show utility). Nobody supports this work financially, so I have to work during my free time, earning a living through part-time work in the Semantic Web, in a company who need fast Assembly-language-based Natural Language Analysis and Data-mining code.

Truly fascinating. Seems like self-referent “wormholes” are everywhere in Physics. Pity I am not a physicist. Just wrote very quickly a Greek summary of the Boundary Institute’s ideas on causality (basically, they are… against it! -hehe).

Also recent results (theorem proved by Art Collings) in the LoF List, indicate we’re on the correct path, generally; Still haven’t done any work on linking Pile with M.F. Logic, however (tangled in programming Knots in CLP – constraints programming) and (at the moment) trying to set up a SWI-Prolog CLP application on a server (of a friend’s company).

You are the featured blog these days in WordPress, for the tag “Lof”.

Best of luck,
George

Hi George,

Thanks for your continuous input! I completely agree to your judgment of the old Pile literature’s comprehensibility. However, to my mind, Polina’s paper is still the best of the pre ralfw papers.

BTW Aforementioned “axiomatic” or “essential” formulation of Pile (the three equations) could be interpreted as constraints on movement.

Regarding Multiple Form Logic, I’m eager to learn more about that “certain small difficulties” which you’d like to overcome by using Pile.

Best
Ralf B.

thanks for spending your time on this stuff.

I am writing in the midst of heavy CLP/CHR coding (Constraints) and also about to switch over to music activities, for a few days.

However, Pile is constantly at the back of my mind.

I saw the “axiomatic” or “essential” formulation of Pile, a few days ago, but it still seems formally obscure. It probably can’t be understood as it stands by mathematicians, either!

Also read another paper by a Bulgarian lady mathematician (member of the pile team and Pile Inc), about pile. I am not sure if the definitions there are complete, but they certainly seem insufficient.

Best Regards, and soon more about Pile

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