ou want to go from untyped to typed without arbitrary designations? You need a function that creates a boundary.

You want to go from untyped to typed without arbitrary designations? You need a function that creates a boundary.

I think you’d need:
SCOPE (how far can this go)
then you can establish
BOUNDARY.
 
Then, give it an individual name.
 
Then a replication mechanism. Create another.
 
Then assign a name for both as a “kind”, although you can have a set of 1, but what’s the point of that if you’re looking to create a type?  
======
 Oh Law of Form! — I had to look it up. I was caught up in that once — was downloading things to work with it… now I have to see if I had a conclusion?
=====
 Found my notes:‘3/25/2017
‘Any given “thing” is identical with what it is not. ‘
-Kaufmann”Laws of Form-An Exploration in Mathematics and Foundations”F=~FUgh here we go again. It always ends up here along with a few references to Buddhist logic, which I agree with and have as long as I can recall, and I know the solution to the paradox and it’s not that hard once you “see it” but yeah, always ends up back here.”
=====
 Oh, it’s not a paradox to me. Treat true and false as choices. That’s how untyped lambda calculus does it. That’s why it’s ultimately arbitrary.
======
 We are right now. I can write: TRUE=FALSE and my computer isn’t spitting out an error.
=====
 Church number encoding is what opened it all up for me.
======
 Absolutely. Think of multiplication as duplication steps.Start with ‘thing’.
‘thing’ makes ‘thing’, unfolding from within itself.
But ‘thing’a and ‘thing’b can’t occupy the same spacetime.So: now you have first run of the “duplicate thing” loop, creating a “2”.
=====
 Multiplication is a duplication loop, operating across time with Pauli Exclusion principle.
======
  I’m imagining squares creating squares in my mind.
——
 Oh, you want cellular automata
—–
======
https://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/ has long been a favorite of mine. i go back to it now and again.
====
 Zipper forms are useful and unexpected whenever it shows up. This is a CMOS Zipper proposal from 1986.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6311821
=====
 ugh now i have a headache :P This stuff is -just- over my head (always) but I can’t help but go back to itBut now I’m ready to look at that paper you showed. I had to refresh my memory on zipper graphs

=====
 Oh I loved that paper Stephen Paul KIng. So much easier to read than the tree representations of zippers.

I thought, “HEY, this looks like improved knot logic” – and there was his translator later on.

Good stuff. I like the visuals of it. Very Feynman in “ease of comprehension”.

======

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


three × 5 =

Leave a Reply