OOps#2: I would have to be a super-Gauss to explain the 12/17ary system. The last time I really *studied* math-rules was in 1948, preparing for my Ph.D. exam, - since then I only forget.
12/17 is surely a value, hopefully applicable in erecting a math-system, like with "2" the binary, or with "10" the decimal. The rest is application (ha ha). Ask the super-duper universal computer of yours. Sorry for erring into such un-serious and un-scientific corners. Have a good Christmas time John -------------------------- On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Hi John, > > > On 08 Dec 2012, at 21:32, John Mikes wrote: > > Bruno: > > how about expanding our closed (mathematical) minds into not only decimal, > binary, etc., but also a (hold on fast!) 12/17ary number systems? > in that case 17 would be non-primary, divisible by 2,3,4,6 besides the 1. > > > I am not sure I understand what a 12/17 ary system. Thanks for using the > base 10 for 12 and 17, at least. > > Just playing my mind on math. (You may have an even wider mind). > > > Not sure. > > > Also zero can be "thought of" in non-human logic as participant in > calculations. > > > The chinese makes them so, and basically all numbers, except 3, 4, 5, 6, > .... were first seen as useful participants until we develop the axiomatic > method where we can work on any system on numbers as long as we find some > axioms making it possible to share the discoveries with others. > > > > John M > PS: no response required indeed. My agnosticism at work. > > > Oops! Too late :) > > Best, > > Bruno > > > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> >>> Obviously, I meant the natural integers, not the natural numbers, >>> whatever they be. >>> >> >> Natural numbers = the non negatiove integers: 0, 1, 2, 3, .... >> or 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >>> >>> ----- Have received the following content ----- >>> Sender: Roger Clough >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-12-07, 08:18:36 >>> Subject: Whoopie ! The natural numbers are indeed monads >>> >>> >>> Hi Bruno Marchal >>> >>> >>> 1) We in fact agree about what 1p is, except IMHO it is the >>> Supreme Monad viewing the world THROUGH an individual's >>> 1p that I would call the inner God. Or any God. >>> >>> 2) Previously I dismissed numbers as being monads because I >>> thought that all monads had to refer to physical substances. >>> >>> But natural numbers are different because >>> even though they are only mental substances, they're still >>> substances, by virtue of the fact that they can't be subdivided. >>> So they are of one part each. >>> >>> Thus the natural numbers are monads, even though they have no >>> physical correlates. Sorry I've be so slow to see that. >>> >>> That reallyiopens doors Then numbers can see each other with 1p. >>> >>> WHOOPEE ! >>> >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>> 12/7/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >>> From: Bruno Marchal >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-12-06, 12:44:46 >>> Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the >>> mind >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 05 Dec 2012, at 11:05, Roger Clough wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Bruno Marchal >>> >>> Indeed, we can not code for [1p]. But we need not abandon >>> itr entirely, as you seem to have done, and as cognitive >>> theory has done. >>> >>> >>> On the contrary, I define it is a simple way (the owner of the diary) >>> the the self-multiplication thought experiment (UDA). It is enough to >>> understand that physics emerge from the way the "numbers see themselves". >>> >>> >>> But in the math part, I define it by using the fact that the >>> incompleteness phenomenon redeemed the Theatetus definition. The Bp & p >>> definition. It is a bit technical. >>> >>> >>> Don't worry. The 1p is the inner god, the first person, the knower, and >>> it plays the key role for consciousness and matter. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> We can replace [1p] by its actions - >>> those of perception, in which terms are relational (subject: object). >>> You seem to deal with everything from the 3p perspective. >>> >>> >>> That's science. But don't confuse the level. My object of study is the >>> 1p, that we can attribute to machine, or person emulated by machines. I >>> describe the 3p and the 1ps (singular and plural), and indeed their >>> necessary statistical relation at some level. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> That is my argument for using semiotics, which includes 1p (or >>> interprant) as a necessary and natural part of its triad of relations. >>> Your responses seem to leave out such relations. I cannot find >>> again the quote I should have bookmarked, but in an argument >>> for using semiotics on the web, it was said that modern cognitive >>> theory has abandoned the self in an effort to depersonalize >>> cognition. While this is a valid scientific reason, it doesn't work >>> when living breathing humans are concerned. >>> >>> >>> I use computer and mathematical logic semantic. That's the advantage of >>> comp. You have computer science. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IMHO leaving out [1p ] in such a way will forever prevent >>> computer calculations from emulating the mind. >>> >>> >>> The 1p is not left out. Eventually comp singles out eight person points >>> of view. If you think comp left out the person, you miss the meaning of the >>> comp hope, or the comp fear. >>> >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>> 12/5/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >>> From: Bruno Marchal >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-12-03, 13:03:12 >>> Subject: Re: Semantic vs logical truth >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 03 Dec 2012, at 00:04, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/2/2012 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> The 1p truth of the machine is not coded in the machine. Some actual >>> machines knows already that, and can justified that If there are machine >>> (and from outside we can know this to correct) then the 1p-truth is not >>> codable. The 1p truth are more related to the relation between belief and >>> reality (not necessarily physical reality, except for observation and >>> sensation). >>> >>> >>> Even the simple, and apparently formal Bp & p is NOT codable. >>> Most truth about machine, including some that they can know, are not >>> codable. >>> Many things true about us is not codable either. >>> >>> Let me see if I understand that. I think you are saying that p, i.e. >>> that "p" describes a fact about the world, a meta-level above the coding of >>> a machine. >>> >>> >>> No, p is for some statement at the base level, like 1+1 = 2. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> That the Mars Rover believes it is south of it's landing point is >>> implicit in its state and might be inferred from its behavior, but there is >>> no part of the state corresponding to "I *believe* I am south of my landing >>> point." >>> >>> >>> Then Mars Rover is not L?ian. But I am not even sure that Mars Rover is >>> Turing universal, or that it exploits its Turing universality. >>> >>> >>> But PA and ZF can represent "I believe". So we can study the logic of a >>> new 'knowledge" operator defined (at the meta level, for each arithmetical >>> proposition) by Bp & p. For example if p is "1+1=2", it is >>> >>> >>> Believe"("1+1=2") & 1+1 = 2. >>> >>> >>> We cannot define such operator in arithmetic. We would need something >>> like Believe"("1+1=2") & True("1+1 = 2"), but True, in general cannot >>> defined in arithmetic. Yet, we can metadefine it and study its logic, which >>> obeys a soprt of temporal intuionistic logic (interpreting the S4Grz logic >>> obtained). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> One could include such second-level states (which one might want to >>> communicate to Pasadena) but then that state would be just another >>> first-level state. Right? >>> >>> >>> >>> Not sure I see what you mean. The meta, available by the machine is in >>> the "I believe". It is the 3-I. The presentation of myself to myself. The >>> 1-I will be the non definable operator above. We connect the believer to >>> the truth. It is easy to do for the sound correct machine. >>> >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>> . >>> >>> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to >> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >> . >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.