Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

[nothing]

Fine. Capture this motion in language.

My coffee machine broke today. Capture the motion of my decaffeinated mood-swings in logic.

It would require Euler's e^πi = -1

Let *A be Skepdick.
*A = s/1, 1/t
√*A = s/√1, √1/t
√*A = (s/+1, s/-1), (1/+1, 1/-1)
A = √(s/+1, s/-1), √(t/+1, t/-1)
A = √(s/+1, s/e^πi), √(t/+1, t/e^πi)
wherein:
e = value/gradient/area invariant growth constant
π = inversion/displacement factor
i = emergence(s) due to: (lack of) coffee

All motions are captured in.

The process of measuring any particular property about any particular object at any point in time is called sampling.

Objects have a minimum of two properties: velocity, and orientation. Such a two-dimensional piece of information would otherwise require two samples if not captured in a more efficient way.

Which is precisely why we model time-evolving systems using Linear logic.

Once we construct such a logical system within it we do in fact control time. It's what's called the "system clock" of your CPU.

Time is not linear, is the problem.

Sustained oxygenation can happen by way of an Artificial lung. So there is no need for A to be capable of breathing.

Hence: independent or supported. Supported oxygenation captures artificial.

You can't fix the limits of language with a new language.

It is possible: the limits of language are limited to the perception(s) of the modelers of that language. Thus limitation begins and ends at the inventor(s) of a language, and not "language" itself.

You need one axis for every pair of things you want to capture - for every feature you want to encode. How many axes do you need to capture everything there's to capture about the human body?

Two: one a real one r, one an imaginary one i. These two axis can rotate up-to 180-degrees each:
(-90 ← *A → 90) for both r-axis and i-axis, thus two 2-d axes,
{belief ↔ knowledge} = {i ↔ r} as both: universally and locally fixed
{all ↔ not) for both i and r universally fixed, but locally dynamic
{belief ↔ knowledge} = {i ↔ r} thus *A's constituency is both of i (belief-based ignorance) and r (real knowledge)

It's already corrected in non-classical (constructive) high-order logics. You are free to model A as you see fit for your particular use-case.

You can use object-oriented (imperative) programming, or functional (declarative) programming. It doesn't really matter - in the end they do the same thing.

Both is needed, as they are the same language: A needs to be modeled as having intrinsic imperatives that form the ground RoM (so-to-speak) relating to their own declarative capacity to 'know' what those specific imperatives are, despite them being intrinsic to A from-the-start. The confusion to avoid here is done by way of acknowledging that A may be suffering a 'belief-rooted' ignorance(s) preventing them from 'knowing' how to use the declarative such to concern be properly concerned with the imperative, as one can be used to try/test/falsify the other, and vice versa. What imperative is to query (ie. the imperative to formulate an inquiry/hypothesis, even if null, such to know anything at all) declarative is to answer: to state the finding, then try/test/falsify it for it's imperative (or not) viz. alpha (and omega) is already rooted there.

Then use linear logic instead. It doesn't prescribe the number of time-dimensions. You can have N of them. One way or another you will soon bump into concurrency issues....

I can't use linear logic, neither space nor time are linear, they are both 3d.

However, because they are multiplicative reciprocals of one another, I can use 2d logic, which is all that is needed, as s^2/t^2 is the conduit between 3d space/1d time and 1d space/3d time, therefor linear is only half: I need the circle as well.

You have no idea what a "bad result" is. Formally speaking. You can't formalize "badness".

A result is a result.

This is an assumption: a "bad result" is anything/everything leading to an "unchanged" and/or "worse" state of suffering/death. If even adopting the monotheistic worldview, one can not discount that suffering/death exists due to the ignorance of the principle admonishment in/of the book of Genesis, spec. 2:17 regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All "results" can be measured to the property of this tree: causes suffering/death, thus all suffering/death can be associated thereto in order to be in accordance with any possible "Abrahamic" monotheistic god. The interesting part is... the finding concurs with the admonishment: suffering/death is due to this tree alone.

That's a separate concern entirely. If you subscribe to Mathematical (denotational) semantics A -> B is not meaningless. All the symbols have some meaning.

If you subscribe to some other semantic (operational semantics) A -> B merely represents some structure of sorts. It means whatever you modeled it to mean.

A causes B.
A becomes B.
A sees B
A tells B
A likes B

Is just an arrow.

The problem is the variables themselves are not describing anything real - thus you can not even plug anything 'real' into them.

I have no idea what it means to approach c (the speed of light) from "over". Nothing travels faster than light.

Faster-than-light is possible, but not in the form of "travel" as once at c light becomes still: space "travels" from the perspective of a still c which is the 3d nature of time: the "space" part is invariant, all that matter(s) is the orientation(s) and velocity(s), the "space" part is just illusory and ever-changing.

Gibberish.

This would be modeled a +A belief-based ignorance owing to a deep √+A root which locally imposes/induces limit(s) such to respond with all-rhetoric and not-substance.

[nothing]

Fine. Capture this motion in language.

My coffee machine broke today. Capture the motion of my decaffeinated mood-swings in logic.

It would require Euler's e^πi = -1

Let *A be Skepdick.
*A = s/1, 1/t
√*A = s/√1, √1/t
√*A = (s/+1, s/-1), (1/+1, 1/-1)
A = √(s/+1, s/-1), √(t/+1, t/-1)
A = √(s/+1, s/e^πi), √(t/+1, t/e^πi)
wherein:
e = value/gradient/area invariant growth constant
π = inversion/displacement factor
i = emergence(s) due to: (lack of) coffee

All motions are captured in.

The process of measuring any particular property about any particular object at any point in time is called sampling.

Objects have a minimum of two properties: velocity, and orientation. Such a two-dimensional piece of information would otherwise require two samples if not captured in a more efficient way.

Which is precisely why we model time-evolving systems using Linear logic.

Once we construct such a logical system within it we do in fact control time. It's what's called the "system clock" of your CPU.

Time is not linear, is the problem.

Sustained oxygenation can happen by way of an Artificial lung. So there is no need for A to be capable of breathing.

Hence: independent or supported. Supported oxygenation captures artificial.

You can't fix the limits of language with a new language.

It is possible: the limits of language are limited to the perception(s) of the modelers of that language. Thus limitation begins and ends at the inventor(s) of a language, and not "language" itself.

You need one axis for every pair of things you want to capture - for every feature you want to encode. How many axes do you need to capture everything there's to capture about the human body?

Two: one a real one r, one an imaginary one i. These two axis can rotate up-to 180-degrees each:
(+90 ← *A → -90) for both r-axis and i-axis, thus two 2-d axes,
{belief ↔ knowledge} = {i ↔ r} as both: universally and locally fixed
{all ↔ not) for both i and r universally fixed, but locally dynamic
thus *A's constituency is both of i (belief-based ignorance) and r (real knowledge)
A{i ↔ r} = A{belief ↔ knowledge}
satisfying a shared local and universal orientation towards either:
all-knowing and/or all-believing uo-to 180-degree inversion
(ie. to believe the opposite of what is true) as universal poles.

It's already corrected in non-classical (constructive) high-order logics. You are free to model A as you see fit for your particular use-case.

You can use object-oriented (imperative) programming, or functional (declarative) programming. It doesn't really matter - in the end they do the same thing.

Both is needed, as they are the same language: A needs to be modeled as having intrinsic imperatives that form the ground RoM (so-to-speak) relating to their own declarative capacity to 'know' what those specific imperatives are, despite them being intrinsic to A from-the-start. The confusion to avoid here is done by way of acknowledging that A may be suffering a 'belief-rooted' ignorance(s) preventing them from 'knowing' how to use the declarative such to be properly concerned with the imperative, as one can be used to try/test/falsify the other, and vice versa. What imperative is to query (ie. the imperative to formulate an inquiry/hypothesis, even if null, such to know anything at all) declarative is to answer: to state the finding, then try/test/falsify it for it's imperative (or not) viz. alpha (and omega) is already rooted there.

Then use linear logic instead. It doesn't prescribe the number of time-dimensions. You can have N of them. One way or another you will soon bump into concurrency issues....

Time and space can be reconciled on 2d grounds, however requires both linear (ie. location) and cyclic (ie. orientation). Because space has three dimensions in time, the reciprocal yields time having three dimensions for one spacial one. This means whatever "exists" in 3d time is only concerned about either the position of a body, or orientation of a body, and is concerned with both near c.

Because they are multiplicative reciprocals of one another, I can use 2d logic, which is all that is needed, as s^2/t^2 is the conduit between 3d space/1d time and 1d space/3d time, therefor linear is only half: I need the circle as well.

You have no idea what a "bad result" is. Formally speaking. You can't formalize "badness".

A result is a result.

This is an assumption: a "bad result" is anything/everything leading to an "unchanged" and/or "worse" state of suffering/death, if taking the latter as a measurement. If even adopting the monotheistic worldview, one can not discount that suffering/death exists due to the ignorance of the principle admonishment in/of the book of Genesis, spec. 2:17 regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All "results" can be measured to the property of this tree: causes suffering/death, thus all suffering/death can be associated thereto in order to be in accordance with any possible "Abrahamic" monotheistic god. The interesting part is... the finding concurs with the admonishment: suffering/death is due to this tree alone.

That's a separate concern entirely. If you subscribe to Mathematical (denotational) semantics A -> B is not meaningless. All the symbols have some meaning.

If you subscribe to some other semantic (operational semantics) A -> B merely represents some structure of sorts. It means whatever you modeled it to mean.

A causes B.
A becomes B.
A sees B
A tells B
A likes B

Is just an arrow.

The problem is the variables themselves are not describing anything real - thus you can not even plug anything 'real' into them.

I have no idea what it means to approach c (the speed of light) from "over". Nothing travels faster than light.

Faster-than-light is possible, but not in the form of "travel" as once at c light becomes still: space "travels" from the perspective of a still c which is the 3d nature of time: the "space" part is invariant, all that matter(s) is the orientation(s) and velocity(s), the "space" part is just illusory and ever-changing.

Gibberish.

This would be modeled a +A belief-based ignorance owing to a deep √+A root which locally imposes/induces limit(s) such to respond with all-rhetoric and not-substance.

[Atla]

Let √1 be the root of any breathing body
whose breathing in/out (+/-) is captured *variably by √1:

√1 = +1, -1
√A = +A, -A

+A (in)
-A (out)

Ah yes, taking the root of a breathing body. And assigning numbers to breathing in and out.

I think in such cases it would be better if people would just start with posting their mental health diagnosis, that way we could establish quicker what is causing them to think the way they think. Because why waste time?

[nothing]

Let √1 be the root of any breathing body
whose breathing in/out (+/-) is captured *variably by √1:

√1 = +1, -1
√A = +A, -A

+A (in)
-A (out)

Ah yes, taking the root of a breathing body. And assigning numbers to breathing in and out.

I think in such cases it would be better if people would just start with posting their mental health diagnosis, that way we could establish quicker what is causing them to think the way they think. Because why waste time?

The root of human life is breathing in-and-out... it is a valid root. If you need proof, stop breathing.

Also notice: no numbers are being assigned to *A, only the capacity to reciprocate between in/out (+/-). Showing that 1 has two valid roots was to emphasize the validity in any case A is being quantified (ie. counted/discounted). This natural in/out modality satisfies the two basic and primary modalities of all of creation: centripetal (in) and centrifugal (out) motion(s) thus allowing for scalar "expansion" (ie. universe expanding) and scalar "contraction" (ie. gravity of mass). The graduation of A to *A thus satisfies two conditions: local variability, and universal variability, such to make *A a real, universal identity.

If Aristotle were to have visited a mental health diagnostician - I too wonder how he could have managed to justify a dead A whose identity lacks intrinsic ability to move (!).

[Atla]

The root of human life is breathing in-and-out... it is a valid root. If you need proof, stop breathing.
...

(skipped the rest)
Ookay let's see. Without breathing we die, and you think that this makes breathing the "root" of human life. That's nonsense #1.
And then you use this root as a mathematical root, that's nonsense #2.

I mean in another context you could kinda get away with the first one, but the second one is just hilariously dumb.

[Atla]

There is this joke about mathematically proving that women are evil.

And then eventually someone comes along who takes such 'calculations' dead seriously.

[nothing]

The root of human life is breathing in-and-out... it is a valid root. If you need proof, stop breathing.
...

(skipped the rest)
Ookay let's see. Without breathing we die, and you think that this makes breathing the "root" of human life. That's nonsense #1.
And then you use this root as a mathematical root, that's nonsense #2.

I mean in another context you could kinda get away with the first one, but the second one is just hilariously dumb.

No breath = no life, is nonsense? Believing otherwise would be nonsense.
The mathematical root is valid, thus neither is it nonsense.

Hilariously dumb would be the condition 'the accuser is the accused' in which case the substance of the accusation is owing to the accuser, rather than the accused. In such a condition, the accused finds the accuser "hilariously dumb" for not conceding that breathing is essential to human life, thus an immediate root.

There is this joke about mathematically proving that women are evil.

And then eventually someone comes along who takes such 'calculations' dead seriously.

It is no less nonsense than somehow rationalizing breathing is not the root of life - same nonsensical category.

[Skepdick]

It would require Euler's e^πi = -1

Let *A be Skepdick.
*A = s/1, 1/t
√*A = s/√1, √1/t
√*A = (s/+1, s/-1), (1/+1, 1/-1)
A = √(s/+1, s/-1), √(t/+1, t/-1)
A = √(s/+1, s/e^πi), √(t/+1, t/e^πi)
wherein:
e = value/gradient/area invariant growth constant
π = inversion/displacement factor
i = emergence(s) due to: (lack of) coffee

All motions are captured in.

Lol-what?

Lets overlook the mathematical bullshit and get right down to the meat.

All you've said is that my mood-swings are represented by √-1

What does that mean?

Objects have a minimum of two properties: velocity, and orientation. Such a two-dimensional piece of information would otherwise require two samples if not captured in a more efficient way.

Suppose you have have two objects which have the same velocity and the same orientation. How would you tell if they are two representations of the same object, or one representation of two different objects?

Object A (Airplane) traveling from London to New York at velocity 500mph.
Object B (Airplane) traveling from London to New York at velocity 500mph.

Are A and B the same airplane, or different airplanes?

Sameness and difference are the cornerstones of (re)cognition and the point-of-departure for language.

All that Aristotle was saying that "A" and "B" are not the same airplane. A = A. A != B.

Time is not linear, is the problem.

Which definition of "linear" are you using"? Time is monotonically increasing. Time changes at 1 second per second for any given observer.
Either way - it's ordered. The concept of causality depends on the assumption that effects ALWAYS happen after causes.

t0 < t1 < t2 < .... < tN < tN+1

Obviously, the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment casts doubt upon our conception of causality and the orderedness of time as a whole.

Hence: independent or supported. Supported oxygenation captures artificial.

Ok, but supported oxygenation is not a capability of A. It's an augmentation of A. One could rely on both systems at the same time which effectively renders your definition of "breathing" equivocal with "oxygenation".

So where as you could simply say: breathing = alive, not-breathing = dead.
I could say oxygenation = alive, no-oxygenation = dead.

Of course, even that conception of "being alive" is wrong, because there are organisms which don't even require oxygen: https://phys.org/news/2010-04-scientist ... xygen.html

The whole idea of universals is ... bullshit?

It is possible: the limits of language are limited to the perception(s) of the modelers of that language.

No. The limits of language are the absolute limits of your perception.

Thus limitation begins and ends at the inventor(s) of a language, and not "language" itself.

Very well. What kind of language can you invent for us that can overcome the perceptual limit of the Halting problem?

The problem is the variables themselves are not describing anything real - thus you can not even plug anything 'real' into them.

Variables don't describe anything - they represent things (that's why it's called a model). And the arrow represents relationships/interactions between things.
If you accept "thingness" as being real then plugging anything "real" requires but a modicum of imagination.


And I am getting bored now, so I am just going to ignore the rest of your post.

[nothing]

All you've said is that my mood-swings are represented by √-1
What does that mean?

It means all motions associated with your not drinking coffee are captured in e^πi(s/t) being a conjugate of normal coffeeful s/t.

Suppose you have have two objects which have the same velocity and the same orientation. How would you tell if they are two representations of the same object, or one representation of two different objects?


Object A (Airplane) traveling from London to New York at velocity 500mph.
Object B (Airplane) traveling from London to New York at velocity 500mph.

Are A and B the same airplane, or different airplanes?

Sameness and difference are the cornerstones of (re)cognition and the point-of-departure for language.

You would tell by knowing their start position and/or arrival time. To highlight:

3D Space / 1D time <-3/1
2D space / 2D time <-2/2
1D space / 3D time <-1/3

Time and space are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion:
if A and B arrive at the same "time" while having started from the same position,
they are the same, thus A = B is redundant. If different, A ≠ B.

All that Aristotle was saying that "A" and "B" are not the same airplane. A = A. A != B.

What if B is mistaken as different from A because it appears backwards/upside-down to the observer, who is merely themselves upside-down?

Which definition of "linear" are you using"? Time is monotonically increasing. Time changes at 1 second per second for any given observer.
Either way - it's ordered. The concept of causality depends on the assumption that effects ALWAYS happen after causes.

Time is not / does not "monotonically increase". If you mean to say time is a scalar quantity: it moves at the same steady rate, then this is true. The concept of causality depends on the assumption that effects are somehow not causes. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It is not an either/or question: chicken and egg are one unit, not two.

t0 < t1 < t2 < .... < tN < tN+1

Obviously, the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment casts doubt upon our conception of causality and the orderedness of time as a whole.

Seeing solar flares appearing to move backwards in time did the same for me - there is nothing to suggest that time is not both valid and running in both directions: if even a scalar quantity, two bodies A and B could be traveling the same yearly circle in opposite directions and still meet at the same "place" each year.

Ok, but supported oxygenation is not a capability of A. It's an augmentation of A. One could rely on both systems at the same time which effectively renders your definition of "breathing" equivocal with "oxygenation"...

A is no longer A if artificially augmented - the condition 'is able to self-sustain reciprocated breathing process' is mandated for A to be *A. Else, might as well be A+(support).

The whole idea of universals is ... bullshit?

I don't believe the constituency of the universe is bullshit. It is motion, however there is no universal language in existence which recognizes this, as even a human being needs roots and operators:

No. The limits of language are the absolute limits of your perception.

Flip around language and perception.

Very well. What kind of language can you invent for us that can overcome the perceptual limit of the Halting problem?

There is nothing to overcome - the problem is intrinsic to the Turing machine, and not any language. The halting problem is very silly: "undecidable" is a valid state - how a computer lacking sentience "handles" that, is relatively uninteresting. All enduring attempts to reconcile will simply consume the resources of the machine ad infinitum. What you will likely get is a collapsed repeating 'state' to which all resources are bound.

Variables don't describe anything - they represent things (that's why it's called a model). And the arrow represents relationships/interactions between things.
If you accept "thingness" as being real then plugging anything "real" requires but a modicum of imagination.


And I am getting bored now, so I am just going to ignore the rest of your post.

Variables need not represent "things" at all: they can certainly describe conditions that apply to any/all "things" and/or not.

condition A = 'to ceaselessly believe a proposition that is certainly not true, in an ongoing state...'
A = true/false

it doesn't matter what the belief is - it's clearly not a thing, but responsible for a lot of "things" happening, like suffering/death in an ongoing state.

[Eodnhoj7]

A = A (?)

Take breathing.
Is breathing essential to life? +Yes/-no.
How can A take the identity of any breathing body?
It must be implicitly granted
the intrinsic capacity to breathe (!):

"...the root of any breathing body is in the capacity (or not)
of the same to breathe: thus, the sustained reciprocation
of the breathing motion(s):
to breath in, to breath out,
is intrinsic to the nature of the body..."

Let √1 be the root of any breathing body
whose breathing in/out (+/-) is captured *variably by √1:

√1 = +1, -1
√A = +A, -A

+A (in)
-A (out)

Let A be any breathing body
whose vital √root is
the capacity to breathe:

√A = +A, -A
A = +A, -A
∴ A ≠ A (!)*catastrophic

In what universe, less a motionless one,
could Aristotle's A = A possibly be describing, less A = A
be describing his own presently motionlessness (ie. 'dead') state?
The logic of Aristotle, along with his own person, are equally dead.

Let v be any motioning body.
Let s be space.
Let t be time.

v = s/t

Let *A be any universal breathing body.

*A = s/t

Let 1/1 be unity over itself (light, less boundary) as c.

*A = s/t
*A → c = s/+1, +1/t
*A → -c = s/-1, -1/t

Let s/+1 be (+) particular (dis)placement(s) under unity concerning unity c as 'all'.
Let s/-1 be (-) particular placement(s) over unity concerning c as 'not'.
Let +1/t be (+) particular (dis)placement(s) over unity concerning c as 'to cause'.
Let -1/t be (-) particular placement(s) under unity concerning unity c as 'to cease'.

√*A = (s/+1, s/-1), (+1/t, -1/t)
*A = √(+all, -not), √(+to cause, -to cease)
√*A = (+alpha, -omega), (+beginning, -end)

viz. grants *A intrinsic capacity to choose.

v = s/t
*A = s/t
*A → c = s/+1, +1/t
*A → -c = s/-1, -1/t
√*A = (s/+1, s/-1), (+1/t, -1/t)
*A = √(+all, -not), √(+to cause, -to cease)
√*A = (+alpha, -omega), (+beginning, -end)

____________________________________
____________________________________

Contradictions in Aristotelian Identity Laws can be observed by applying the laws to themselves:

((A=A) = (-A=-A)) = (A=-A)

((A=A) v ((A=A) =/ (-A=-A))

(A=A) =/ ((A=A) v (-A=-A))

[Eodnhoj7]

All you've said is that my mood-swings are represented by √-1
What does that mean?

It means all motions associated with your not drinking coffee are captured in e^πi(s/t) being a conjugate of normal coffeeful s/t.

Suppose you have have two objects which have the same velocity and the same orientation. How would you tell if they are two representations of the same object, or one representation of two different objects?


Object A (Airplane) traveling from London to New York at velocity 500mph.
Object B (Airplane) traveling from London to New York at velocity 500mph.

Are A and B the same airplane, or different airplanes?

Sameness and difference are the cornerstones of (re)cognition and the point-of-departure for language.

You would tell by knowing their start position and/or arrival time. To highlight:

3D Space / 1D time <-3/1
2D space / 2D time <-2/2
1D space / 3D time <-1/3

Time and space are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion:
if A and B arrive at the same "time" while having started from the same position,
they are the same, thus A = B is redundant. If different, A ≠ B.

All that Aristotle was saying that "A" and "B" are not the same airplane. A = A. A != B.

What if B is mistaken as different from A because it appears backwards/upside-down to the observer, who is merely themselves upside-down?

Which definition of "linear" are you using"? Time is monotonically increasing. Time changes at 1 second per second for any given observer.
Either way - it's ordered. The concept of causality depends on the assumption that effects ALWAYS happen after causes.

Time is not / does not "monotonically increase". If you mean to say time is a scalar quantity: it moves at the same steady rate, then this is true. The concept of causality depends on the assumption that effects are somehow not causes. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It is not an either/or question: chicken and egg are one unit, not two.

t0 < t1 < t2 < .... < tN < tN+1

Obviously, the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment casts doubt upon our conception of causality and the orderedness of time as a whole.

Seeing solar flares appearing to move backwards in time did the same for me - there is nothing to suggest that time is not both valid and running in both directions: if even a scalar quantity, two bodies A and B could be traveling the same yearly circle in opposite directions and still meet at the same "place" each year.

Ok, but supported oxygenation is not a capability of A. It's an augmentation of A. One could rely on both systems at the same time which effectively renders your definition of "breathing" equivocal with "oxygenation"...

A is no longer A if artificially augmented - the condition 'is able to self-sustain reciprocated breathing process' is mandated for A to be *A. Else, might as well be A+(support).

The whole idea of universals is ... bullshit?

I don't believe the constituency of the universe is bullshit. It is motion, however there is no universal language in existence which recognizes this, as even a human being needs roots and operators:

No. The limits of language are the absolute limits of your perception.

Flip around language and perception.

Very well. What kind of language can you invent for us that can overcome the perceptual limit of the Halting problem?

There is nothing to overcome - the problem is intrinsic to the Turing machine, and not any language. The halting problem is very silly: "undecidable" is a valid state - how a computer lacking sentience "handles" that, is relatively uninteresting. All enduring attempts to reconcile will simply consume the resources of the machine ad infinitum. What you will likely get is a collapsed repeating 'state' to which all resources are bound.

Variables don't describe anything - they represent things (that's why it's called a model). And the arrow represents relationships/interactions between things.
If you accept "thingness" as being real then plugging anything "real" requires but a modicum of imagination.


And I am getting bored now, so I am just going to ignore the rest of your post.

Variables need not represent "things" at all: they can certainly describe conditions that apply to any/all "things" and/or not.

condition A = 'to ceaselessly believe a proposition that is certainly not true, in an ongoing state...'
A = true/false

it doesn't matter what the belief is - it's clearly not a thing, but responsible for a lot of "things" happening, like suffering/death in an ongoing state.

Your chart is grounded between the inverse symmetry between variables where belief appears as unnecessary by observing the inverse state of any stance.

[nothing]

Your chart is grounded between the inverse symmetry between variables where belief appears as unnecessary by observing the inverse state of any stance.

It is grounded in something deeper than this, though this is a natural emergent.

One natural unit,
of the universal natural reference system,
is one unit of space per one unit of time,
s/t=1/1=c, the speed of light
whence all is displaced.

Inverse symmetry of variables is rooted in the inverse scalar motion(s) of the universe:
the cosmic expansion of the universe, and gravitation, hence the need for alpha and omega
as universal operators.

Because all physical phenomena are subject to/of these inverse modalities,
the same applies to expanding knowledge and contracting belief(-based ignorance)
thus each and every proposition has its own inverse, each of which are polarized
to/from the same. Hence: the vesica piscis contains all and not.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your chart is grounded between the inverse symmetry between variables where belief appears as unnecessary by observing the inverse state of any stance.

It is grounded in something deeper than this, though this is a natural emergent.

One natural unit,
of the universal natural reference system,
is one unit of space per one unit of time,
s/t=1/1=c, the speed of light
whence all is displaced.

Inverse symmetry of variables is rooted in the inverse scalar motion(s) of the universe:
the cosmic expansion of the universe, and gravitation, hence the need for alpha and omega
as universal operators.

Because all physical phenomena are subject to/of these inverse modalities,
the same applies to expanding knowledge and contracting belief(-based ignorance)
thus each and every proposition has its own inverse, each of which are polarized
to/from the same. Hence: the vesica piscis contains all and not.

Any time you are using inversive symmetry you are pointing to the similarities between extremes as stemming from a center point with this center point as the knowledge between such degrees of ignorance (as all extremes are ignorant by their very nature as they imply a seperation from the dual pole.).


The problem is that belief and unbelief are both inversive opposites and any center point from which knowledge is derived requires both.

[Eodnhoj7]

Let √1 be the root of any breathing body
whose breathing in/out (+/-) is captured *variably by √1:


+A (in)
-A (out)

Ah yes, taking the root of a breathing body. And assigning numbers to breathing in and out.

I think in such cases it would be better if people would just start with posting their mental health diagnosis, that way we could establish quicker what is causing them to think the way they think. Because why waste time?

The root of human life is breathing in-and-out... it is a valid root. If you need proof, stop breathing.

Also notice: no numbers are being assigned to *A, only the capacity to reciprocate between in/out (+/-). Showing that 1 has two valid roots was to emphasize the validity in any case A is being quantified (ie. counted/discounted). This natural in/out modality satisfies the two basic and primary modalities of all of creation: centripetal (in) and centrifugal (out) motion(s) thus allowing for scalar "expansion" (ie. universe expanding) and scalar "contraction" (ie. gravity of mass). The graduation of A to *A thus satisfies two conditions: local variability, and universal variability, such to make *A a real, universal identity.

If Aristotle were to have visited a mental health diagnostician - I too wonder how he could have managed to justify a dead A whose identity lacks intrinsic ability to move (!).

Yeah after the time spent reading your work you are basically mathematizing taoism/buddhism. Even your emphasis on unbelief and emphasis on knowledge reflect buddhist/taoist thought further.

[nothing]

Any time you are using inversive symmetry you are pointing to the similarities between extremes as stemming from a center point with this center point as the knowledge between such degrees of ignorance (as all extremes are ignorant by their very nature as they imply a seperation from the dual pole.).

The problem is that belief and unbelief are both inversive opposites and any center point from which knowledge is derived requires both.

Both: similarities and differences, as possibly stemming from a common root, or not.

Belief and unbelief are not inversive opposites: unbelief is not knowledge, neither not not knowledge,
however consciously knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if not to believe
is more a matter of the conscience than it is with knowledge. Implicit is rather than knowledge being the be-all,
the importance of conscience supersedes, hence conscious knowledge of ignorance
derived by way of inference, performed by way of conjugating identities against themselves:

√A = +A, -A

(+)Proposition
(-)Propositional Inverse
_______________________
wherein (+) and (-) are contraposed at 180-degree angles.

{(√-A ← ....(A- ......← *A →...... +A) → √+A)}
{(conscious (knowledge of ignorance) inference)}