Computational Euclidean Geometry

[Phil8659]

This is an intro to my current project, which should contain simple methods of parsing. When I get done drawing all the plates, I will see what needs further work.

Computational Euclidean Geometry
Computational Euclidean Geometry is based on linguistic, grammatical, and physical fact; all information is binary because everything is defined as a binary construct, which Plato called Dialectical, grammar in accordance with the two elements of a thing. Today we become familiar with the tremendous power of binary recursion by the computer. We have two parts of speech. Of those two parts one of them is a given, while the other is applied. Grammar systems are methods of applying the limits, boundaries to material differences for our advantage. In short, we are, by biological design, shapers of our own destiny.
A thing is defined as some relative difference, aka verb, material difference, behavior, etc., within correlatives, or again parsed. Material differences are a given, grammar systems are based on parsing those material differences in order to make specific things which we use for various purposes.
Binary recursion gives us exactly four primitive methods of parsing information which have historically established names; Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. Of those four, the cornerstone of our Grammar matrix is Geometry, traditionally called Euclidean Geometry because mankind is still in the dark ages of illiteracy, imagining that grammar is fluid and not a construct derived from simple binary recursion. In short, when it comes to a standard in a grammar called Geometry, there is only one which we can simply call Geometry, or historically call it Euclidean Geometry.
This work is dedicated to the most powerful grammar system at our disposal because Geometry pairs in a one-to-one correspondence the two elements of grammar with the two elements of a thing to produce visual paradigms for all grammatical products. Thus, it can be used to proof every member of our Grammar Matrix. Geometry is thus wholly metaphorical. In other words, we learn to translate the perceptible into the wholly intelligible. Geometry will show you the results of mathematical operations by using a simple virtual difference, but it cannot give us, any information on how to parse physical phenomena, we have to use the geometry to learn those things. As a grammar, it is a method of managing what is given.
This fact is what one has to keep in mind. Relative differences are a given, while the assertion of shape, form, limits, boundaries, etc., are what we learn to do in the grammar. We simply make things out of what we are given.
I am not concerned with mythology, or custom. I am concerned with doing my own work. As every system of grammar are methods of assertion of the limit, the boundary, the shape upon material difference, it is very ludicrous to claim that a geometer may assert only what is determined by two tools used in a certain manner, or custom determined by those who were and are provably illiterate. In today’s application of geometry, everything is virtualized within a computer. This virtualization of geometry has become known as Interactive Geometry. The advantage is that recursion is more easily achieved, and called loci or locus, i.e., the retention and use of memory. These loci are the products of straightedge and compass. Factually, even the circle is a locus produced by a straight line. Our job is to learn to benefit from binary recursion, i.e., how to assert limits to materials for our benefit and that is what every system of grammar is purposed for, using the best memory retention at our disposal. It is perfectly illegitimate to claim that the only permissible loci in geometry is one that has a certain form. Such a claim is the refusal to admit the results of binary recursion forming a self-referential contradiction at the base of a grammar system. My response to that is “Not on my watch.”
As Plato noted, given any two things we are born with the ability to compare them for equality or inequality. Some simpletons, however, claim that given one thing we are actually given two, and thus must state that a thing is not different from itself which leads to other simpletons claiming that it is. So, let us simply state, given any two things we can compare them for equality or inequality. If they are not equal, then one is less than the other, while the other is greater than the former. These facts lead to constructing mathematical terms acquired through this step-by-step binary process to operations called addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, square, root, and exponential manipulation. These become standardized as the foundation of operations in a grammar. Therefore, no grammar is axiomatic, every grammar is conventional once one comprehends that the elements of the grammar system itself, determines everything in the grammar, or again, binary recursion produces a binary result.
By definition, axiomatics are a mythology. We simply learn to take advantage of our given behavior by applying our intelligible behavior in parsing it. No computer has ever had a neurotic breakdown because it went looking for an axiom in order to parse electricity. There is nothing axiomatic about being given a piece of wood, you can, by some application, reshape it without mumbling a magical incantation. Grammar is simply the standardization of applying our behavior towards the behaviors of the environment.

[Age]

This is an intro to my current project, which should contain simple methods of parsing. When I get done drawing all the plates, I will see what needs further work.

Once again, it does not matter one iota how far you go into 'your project', or how many 'intros' you present, for your 'current project', if you never ever obtain 'the ability' to just inform 'others' of what 'your project' is even 'for' or is even 'in relation to', exactly.

The rest of what you say and write, here, is completely moot if no one else knows what 'it' is for, exactly.

Do you ever wonder why you do not comprehend and understand the most basic of things, in Life?

[Eodnhoj7]

This is an intro to my current project, which should contain simple methods of parsing. When I get done drawing all the plates, I will see what needs further work.

Computational Euclidean Geometry
Computational Euclidean Geometry is based on linguistic, grammatical, and physical fact; all information is binary because everything is defined as a binary construct, which Plato called Dialectical, grammar in accordance with the two elements of a thing. Today we become familiar with the tremendous power of binary recursion by the computer. We have two parts of speech. Of those two parts one of them is a given, while the other is applied. Grammar systems are methods of applying the limits, boundaries to material differences for our advantage. In short, we are, by biological design, shapers of our own destiny.
A thing is defined as some relative difference, aka verb, material difference, behavior, etc., within correlatives, or again parsed. Material differences are a given, grammar systems are based on parsing those material differences in order to make specific things which we use for various purposes.
Binary recursion gives us exactly four primitive methods of parsing information which have historically established names; Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. Of those four, the cornerstone of our Grammar matrix is Geometry, traditionally called Euclidean Geometry because mankind is still in the dark ages of illiteracy, imagining that grammar is fluid and not a construct derived from simple binary recursion. In short, when it comes to a standard in a grammar called Geometry, there is only one which we can simply call Geometry, or historically call it Euclidean Geometry.
This work is dedicated to the most powerful grammar system at our disposal because Geometry pairs in a one-to-one correspondence the two elements of grammar with the two elements of a thing to produce visual paradigms for all grammatical products. Thus, it can be used to proof every member of our Grammar Matrix. Geometry is thus wholly metaphorical. In other words, we learn to translate the perceptible into the wholly intelligible. Geometry will show you the results of mathematical operations by using a simple virtual difference, but it cannot give us, any information on how to parse physical phenomena, we have to use the geometry to learn those things. As a grammar, it is a method of managing what is given.
This fact is what one has to keep in mind. Relative differences are a given, while the assertion of shape, form, limits, boundaries, etc., are what we learn to do in the grammar. We simply make things out of what we are given.
I am not concerned with mythology, or custom. I am concerned with doing my own work. As every system of grammar are methods of assertion of the limit, the boundary, the shape upon material difference, it is very ludicrous to claim that a geometer may assert only what is determined by two tools used in a certain manner, or custom determined by those who were and are provably illiterate. In today’s application of geometry, everything is virtualized within a computer. This virtualization of geometry has become known as Interactive Geometry. The advantage is that recursion is more easily achieved, and called loci or locus, i.e., the retention and use of memory. These loci are the products of straightedge and compass. Factually, even the circle is a locus produced by a straight line. Our job is to learn to benefit from binary recursion, i.e., how to assert limits to materials for our benefit and that is what every system of grammar is purposed for, using the best memory retention at our disposal. It is perfectly illegitimate to claim that the only permissible loci in geometry is one that has a certain form. Such a claim is the refusal to admit the results of binary recursion forming a self-referential contradiction at the base of a grammar system. My response to that is “Not on my watch.”
As Plato noted, given any two things we are born with the ability to compare them for equality or inequality. Some simpletons, however, claim that given one thing we are actually given two, and thus must state that a thing is not different from itself which leads to other simpletons claiming that it is. So, let us simply state, given any two things we can compare them for equality or inequality. If they are not equal, then one is less than the other, while the other is greater than the former. These facts lead to constructing mathematical terms acquired through this step-by-step binary process to operations called addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, square, root, and exponential manipulation. These become standardized as the foundation of operations in a grammar. Therefore, no grammar is axiomatic, every grammar is conventional once one comprehends that the elements of the grammar system itself, determines everything in the grammar, or again, binary recursion produces a binary result.
By definition, axiomatics are a mythology. We simply learn to take advantage of our given behavior by applying our intelligible behavior in parsing it. No computer has ever had a neurotic breakdown because it went looking for an axiom in order to parse electricity. There is nothing axiomatic about being given a piece of wood, you can, by some application, reshape it without mumbling a magical incantation. Grammar is simply the standardization of applying our behavior towards the behaviors of the environment.

I agree with your perspective that geometry is a form of grammar as not only are symbols effectively spatial curvature, speaking the obvious, but geometry is how we give form to reality as a median for things as the formation of the material and the abstract are often means of communicating intent. The manipulation of form is the essential means of communication for people.

I disagree with the absence of axioms, given you require binary recursion as a foundation to computational language.
Dualism, an isomorphism of binary code, is an axiom. Dualism exists through myth, yes, but it is the distinction that effectively necessitates a form of transrationality, a transcendental meta-reasoning one could say.


Had the AI analyze it due to your writing style being foreign to me...but in essence great work.