On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:29:21 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 2/1/2013 8:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:12:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >> On 1/31/2013 6:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:38:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: >>> >>> On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> What's an entity? >>> >>> >>> Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some >>> kind of fixed point theorem. >>> >> >> Nice. Interestingly this just came up on another list five minutes ago. >> Some interesting etymology too: >> >> entity (n.) >> 1590s, from Late Latin entitatem (nom. entitas), from ens (genitive >> entis) "a thing," proposed by Caesar as prp. of esse "be" (see is), to >> render Greek philosophical term to on "that which is" (from neuter of prp. >> of einai "to be;" see essence). Originally abstract; concrete sense in >> English is from 1620s. >> >> entire (adj.) >> late 14c., from Old French entier "whole, unbroken, intact, >> complete," from Latin integrum (nom. integer; see integer). >> >> A slightly different meaning when we formalize it... a literal entity >> has a thingness definable by position. A more figurative or casual >> reference could mean like a 'the aspect of a presence or representation >> which emphasizes its closure'. >> >> Craig >> >> Hi Craig, >> >> Position is one kind of dimension that is identifiable via a fixed >> point, for example: Craig is at such and such an address. >> > > Hi Stephen, > > I would tend to consider address just another kind of position though. Is > there an example of something which fixed point theorem addresses which is > not a dimension which can be defined by position? Isn't the act of fixing a > point the same as formalizing a position? > > Craig > > Hi Craig, > > No, its about the relation between object and context in a dynamic > sense. Look at the variability in fixed points here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem > > Look at what all have in common: Some transformation on a collection, some > closure of that which is transformed and some invariant - the fixed point. >
Oh, sorry I didn't realize that was a specifically defined term. F-p theorem seems too narrow to me to contain the casual use of 'entity', as x or f(x) is already an entity regardless of any operations of coordination of values. A ghost in a dream can be an entity, or a legal entity can be purely conceptual. Unless you are looking at 'entity' as a mathematical description only. Craig > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
