I'm not sure what kind of notation you're looking for. But there are 2 ways to think about your factorization example. 1) 1+2 = 4-1 = ... can be expressed as sequenced push and pop (successor and predecessor) operators. 2) (1+2)*1 = 2*3-3 = ... can be expressed in terms of associative, transitive, and precedence rules.
(1) has an inside in the sense that you may have to pop a few things off the stack to get to the middle, like licking a lolipop. And (2) has insides of the parentheses and class membership. On December 9, 2021 4:03:00 PM PST, [email protected] wrote: >I am back worrying about this again. On the last go round Glen dope-slapped >me for straw-manning the idea of "inside" and offered me at least one more >way to interpret the idea than those I had thought of. I think his idea was >a thought could be inside another in the sense that one mathematical >expression can be inside another. This got me interested in trying to write >up a very simple example. So, is there any way of notating the fact that, >say, there are several different ways to arrange the factors in the >multiplication of 18 x 22 in order to do it quickly in your head? (My >favorite is 400-4). These are all inside in the sense that the result you >get places no constraints on which of the methods you used to get the >result. > > > >The other ways I can thing of that something can be inside (other than the >one I hate) is physiologically and grammatically. Are there others I am >not thinking of? > -- glen ⛧ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
