P =/= P

[nothing]

If one is to say "P is itself a variable"
it is according to its own definition (?).

The root of any whole subject P^1/2
contains two valid solutions: -P or +P.
Thus,

P =/= P
P^1/2 = (-P) and/or (+P)
P = *P

which denies:

P = P

as/for containing an a priori assumption
of invariability:
P is invariably P
which may not necessarily be true.

P = P is (im)potentially static/inactive/dead
P = *P is potentially dynamic/active/alive

P =/= P
-P = (-P x +P) and/or (+P x -P)
P = *P
______
*variable: (+) or (-) allows for (e)*motion(s)
for any/all matters involving
any/all relative motion(s)
viz. polarization(s).

Application:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(+)P any/all possible belief(-based ignorance) due to any/all (lack of) knowledge-negating-belief <-*tends towards suffering/death
(-)P any/all possible knowledge-negating-belief(based ignorance) causing suffering/death <-*tends towards inverse of ^^^

[Eodnhoj7]

If one is to say "P is itself a variable"
it is according to its own definition (?).

The root of any whole subject P^1/2
contains two valid solutions: -P or +P.
Thus,

P =/= P
P^1/2 = (-P) and/or (+P)
P = *P

which denies:

P = P

as/for containing an a priori assumption
of invariability:
P is invariably P
which may not necessarily be true.

P = P is (im)potentially static/inactive/dead
P = *P is potentially dynamic/active/alive

P =/= P
-P = (-P x +P) and/or (+P x -P)
P = *P
______
*variable: (+) or (-) allows for (e)*motion(s)
for any/all matters involving
any/all relative motion(s)
viz. polarization(s).

Application:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(+)P any/all possible belief(-based ignorance) due to any/all (lack of) knowledge-negating-belief <-*tends towards suffering/death
(-)P any/all possible knowledge-negating-belief(based ignorance) causing suffering/death <-*tends towards inverse of ^^^

If P is it's own variable, then it is it's own set considering a variable represents a set of options (1,2,cow, green,whatever).

Each option is a variable as well as a variation of the original variable as "1","2","cow" and "green" represent a variety of other variables.

Thus the variable contains itself through a tautology:

(A)-->(B=(A-->A))-->(C=(A-->A-->A))-->....--> ((((A)A)A)A)....

The variable is thus an intrinsically empty context, that loops through it self under recurssion, to form an image with the image merely being form. All is context as form and this is absolute.

So P as a Variable:

P=V

((P)P)
(((P)P)P)

Variables contain themselves and are both generals and particulars.

[Arising_uk]

Wow!
Which one is the sock-puppet or are we just incredibly unlucky on this forum?

[nothing]

If P is it's own variable, then it is it's own set considering a variable represents a set of options (1,2,cow, green,whatever).

Each option is a variable as well as a variation of the original variable as "1","2","cow" and "green" represent a variety of other variables.

Thus the variable contains itself through a tautology:

(A)-->(B=(A-->A))-->(C=(A-->A-->A))-->....--> ((((A)A)A)A)....

Invariably P,
*variable polarization/orientation:
(+), (-) or unknown as *P, thus
*variability is invariably (a property of) *P.

It allows conjugation of +P and -P
(not unlike numerical roots)
that is not captured by P = P
because P = P is static/dead,

The variable is thus an intrinsically empty context, that loops through it self under recurssion, to form an image with the image merely being form. All is context as form and this is absolute.

Why keep bringing thus up as if it is a problem?
It needs to be an empty context:
It allows full discretion trial/testing of
(any/all) to / *not to*
(be assumed by/as) *P
according to context as needed.

So P as a Variable:

P=V

((P)P)
(((P)P)P)

Variables contain themselves and are both generals and particulars.

If *P is taken as an unknown, its own local collapse
if/when subject to CKIIT
allows it to defines it(self)
due to the otherwise "empty context".

Example:
*P -> +P (local collapse) due to ignorance.
Allows prediction(s): +P is defined by
boundary condition(s) emerging out of an
otherwise "empty context".

Wow!
Which one is the sock-puppet or are we just incredibly unlucky on this forum?

What is wrong with sock puppets?

It is all the same: to entertain.

[Eodnhoj7]

If P is it's own variable, then it is it's own set considering a variable represents a set of options (1,2,cow, green,whatever).

Each option is a variable as well as a variation of the original variable as "1","2","cow" and "green" represent a variety of other variables.

Thus the variable contains itself through a tautology:

(A)-->(B=(A-->A))-->(C=(A-->A-->A))-->....--> ((((A)A)A)A)....

Invariably P,
*variable polarization/orientation:
(+), (-) or unknown as *P, thus
*variability is invariably (a property of) *P.

It allows conjugation of +P and -P
(not unlike numerical roots)
that is not captured by P = P
because P = P is static/dead,

The variable is thus an intrinsically empty context, that loops through it self under recurssion, to form an image with the image merely being form. All is context as form and this is absolute.

Why keep bringing thus up as if it is a problem?
It needs to be an empty context:
It allows full discretion trial/testing of
(any/all) to / *not to*
(be assumed by/as) *P
according to context as needed.

So P as a Variable:

P=V

((P)P)
(((P)P)P)

Variables contain themselves and are both generals and particulars.

If *P is taken as an unknown, its own local collapse
if/when subject to CKIIT
allows it to defines it(self)
due to the otherwise "empty context".

Example:
*P -> +P (local collapse) due to ignorance.
Allows prediction(s): +P is defined by
boundary condition(s) emerging out of an
otherwise "empty context".

Wow!
Which one is the sock-puppet or are we just incredibly unlucky on this forum?

What is wrong with sock puppets?

It is all the same: to entertain.

No. P is a pole and as a Pole it is inherently empty. P is a loop, nothing more or less as any progression of P is P self referencing in different variations.

[nothing]

No. P is a pole and as a Pole it is inherently empty. P is a loop, nothing more or less as any progression of P is P self referencing in different variations.

P is not a pole, empty or a loop: *P is any potentially disoriented (un)conscious being.

[Eodnhoj7]

No. P is a pole and as a Pole it is inherently empty. P is a loop, nothing more or less as any progression of P is P self referencing in different variations.

P is not a pole, empty or a loop: *P is any potentially disoriented (un)conscious being.

And there are various grades of that assumption and you create a new tautology.

[nothing]

And there are various grades of that assumption and you create a new tautology.

Degrees, and there are 360 of them.

Tautologies can be created and destroyed at will.

The good thing about *P is it can assume any existing one and find its "genesis".

[Eodnhoj7]

And there are various grades of that assumption and you create a new tautology.

Degrees, and there are 360 of them.

Tautologies can be created and destroyed at will.

The good thing about *P is it can assume any existing one and find its "genesis".

Actually there are more than 360 degrees, as a degree is just a grade of something. A fractal/fraction degree is still a degree as well as degrees of color, temperature, etc.

[nothing]

Actually there are more than 360 degrees, as a degree is just a grade of something. A fractal/fraction degree is still a degree as well as degrees of color, temperature, etc.

There are not more than 360 degrees in a circle.
The "point" is any "point" can be approached
by way of any such degree if not impeded.

Degradation can be calculated using such degrees (ie. time).

If *P is conscious, *P can know of any/all cardinal/fixed/mutable qualities/characteristics of the circle (if any),
then "ground" to that circle to "know" any/all in relation to esp. if the subject has a "belief".

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually there are more than 360 degrees, as a degree is just a grade of something. A fractal/fraction degree is still a degree as well as degrees of color, temperature, etc.

There are not more than 360 degrees in a circle.
Actially you can have 720, 1080, etc.


The "point" is any "point" can be approached
by way of any such degree if not impeded.

False, all points have a straight line between them minimum.



Degradation can be calculated using such degrees (ie. time).

If *P is conscious, *P can know of any/all cardinal/fixed/mutable qualities/characteristics of the circle (if any),
then "ground" to that circle to "know" any/all in relation to esp. if the subject has a "belief".

No, consciousness is undefined.

[nothing]

Actially you can have 720, 1080, etc.

Degree 361 is equivalent to 001.

You can have "720" degrees if allowing bi-directional +/- motion.

False, all points have a straight line between them minimum.

There is not more than one point: a circle surrounds a point, thus the point can be approached from 360 degrees.

No, consciousness is undefined.

Local boundary condition.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actially you can have 720, 1080, etc.

Degree 361 is equivalent to 001.

You can have "720" degrees if allowing bi-directional +/- motion.

False, all points have a straight line between them minimum.

There is not more than one point: a circle surrounds a point, thus the point can be approached from 360 degrees.

the circumference is infinite points. The circle is both 1 point and 1 set of self referencing points. It is one and many.

No, consciousness is undefined.

Local boundary condition.

See above.

[nothing]

the circumference is infinite points. The circle is both 1 point and 1 set of self referencing points. It is one and many.

Points are not real. They are a mathematical artifact limited to the construct of 'mathematics' as a model of the universe.

If one says "point" one might as well say "circumference" just as our planet circles the sun. The "circle" is one-and-the-same which is a good thing: if/when one knows of its properties, it can be used to "ground" to.

[Eodnhoj7]

the circumference is infinite points. The circle is both 1 point and 1 set of self referencing points. It is one and many.

Points are not real. They are a mathematical artifact limited to the construct of 'mathematics' as a model of the universe.

Actually if they are real. A point at a distance may in fact be car upon closer inspection or some obtuse assumption we take for granted.

They are unfolding space, fundamentally.

If one says "point" one might as well say "circumference" just as our planet circles the sun. The "circle" is one-and-the-same which is a good thing: if/when one knows of its properties, it can be used to "ground" to.

The point, line and circle are one.