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
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.
 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 *

2 × = sixteen

Leave a Reply