Re: [Fis] there is no need to number every word

2018-02-12 Thread mihir chakraborty
Dear Friends,

i did not enter the site --- but was not such numbering already done
by great Goedel ? The so called Goedel numbering ?

mihir

On 2/11/18, Krassimir Markov  wrote:
> Dear Karl and FIS colleagues,
> Yes, the Number Theory is very important basis!
> But, I think, there is no need to number every word.
> Because ... All words are already numbered
> We have published large monograph named
> “Natural Language Addressing”
> where we outlined this idea and presented the mathematical model and
> computer implementation for very large volumes of data (BigData).
> One can read it at http://foibg.com/ibs_isc/ibs-33/ibs-33.htm.
> The idea is very simple – every letter has its own code and in the computer
> we enter not letters but their codes.
> This way every word is a number in any positional numbering system.
> It really works!!!
> Friendly greetings
> Krassimir
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Karl Javorszky
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 8:36 PM
> To: Stanley N Salthe
> Cc: fis
> Subject: Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on
> the cateogry theory
>
> Using the logical language to understand Nature
>
>
>
> The discussion in this group refocuses on the meaning of the terms “symbol”,
> “signal”, “marker” and so forth. This is a very welcome development, because
> understanding the tools one uses is usually helpful when creating great
> works.
>
> There is sufficient professional literature on epistemology, logical
> languages and the development of philosophy into specific sub-philosophies.
> The following is just an unofficial opinion, maybe it helps.
>
>
>
> Wittgenstein has created a separate branch within philosophy by
> investigating the structure and the realm of true sentences. For this, he
> has been mocked and ridiculed by his colleagues. Adorno, e.g. said that
> Wittgenstein had misunderstood the job of a philosopher: to chisel away on
> the border that separates that what can be explained and that what is
> opaque; not to elaborate about how one can express truths that are anyway
> self-evident and cannot be otherwise.
>
> The Wittgenstein set of logical sentences are the rational explanation of
> the world. That, which we can communicate about, we only can communicate
> about, because both the words and what they mean are self-referencing. It is
> true that nothing ever new, hair-raising or surprising can come out of a
> logical discussion modi Wittgenstein, because every participant can only
> point out truths that are factually true, and these have always been true.
> There is no opportunity for discovery in rational thinking, only for an
> unveiling of that what could have been previously known: like an
> archaeologist can not be surprised about a finding, he can only be surprised
> about himself, how he had been able to ignore the possibility of the finding
> so long.
>
> As the Wittgenstein collection uses only such concepts that are
> well-defined, these concepts can be easily enumerated. In effect, his
> results show, that if one uses well-formulated, clearly defined logical
> words, the collection of all explanations is the solution of a combinatorial
> problem. This is also the reason why he says that his philosophy is just a
> tool of sharpening the brain, and contains nothing whatsoever noteworthy in
> a semantic fashion.
>
> One may summarise that the pariah state among philosophers that Wittgenstein
> suffered on this his insight, is owed to the conclusion that real philosophy
> has either nothing to do with the grammar of true logical sentences or
> otherwise it is degenerating into a technique outside philosophy, namely
> number theory. If every concept can be represented by a number, and valid
> sentence are those for which the rules that govern numbers are satisfied,
> then one can work with the numbers as such and figure out later for what
> they stand.
>
> This is the situation as per today. There is no change whatsoever. The only
> noteworthy development is, that one can indeed teach new tricks to that old
> dog, number theory. The sand that has to be swiped away is the covering
> layer of attitudes that are too clever by half. By keeping the nose not too
> high, one may look before one’s feet and reconsider simple operations that
> one executes by routine.
>
> We know how to sort and how to order, and we are intelligent and flexible
> enough to change priorities if circumstances dictate such. We know how to
> order and how to reorder. If we only had a brain like a computer, we could
> memorise all the patterns that appear as we transform from priority
> readiness One into priority readiness Two.
>
> There are many opportunities for number theory to jump into action in the
> field of organising and reorganising. As one intensifies one’s hobby of
> reordering the contents of one’s office, one will now have arrived at the
> concept of sequenced groups of elements that change place together during a
> reorder. Cycles that 

Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on thecateogry theory

2018-02-12 Thread Mark Johnson
Dear Karl,

You've communicated *your* kaleidoscope rather wonderfully. Thank you!

I shall look into it...

Best wishes,

Mark

-Original Message-
From: "Karl Javorszky" 
Sent: ‎12/‎02/‎2018 14:36
To: "Mark Johnson" 
Cc: "fis" 
Subject: Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on 
thecateogry theory

Kaleidoscope, Wittgenstein
 
Dear Mark,
 
thank you for your two questions. 
1)  Kaleidoscope
The term “kaleidoscope” is used to signify a complex thing that gives different 
pictures. The toy appears to produce an unlimited number of different pictures 
to the casual user. In fact, there is a maximal number of different pictures 
that can be produced, although this may not be immediately evident to every 
child.
The term kaleidoscope was used to draw your attention to the manifold pictures 
that natural numbers generate when – as a collection – reordered. The diversity 
of pictures is indeed truly impressive. One may naively assume that there is an 
endless number of variations that can appear. This is but a subjective 
impression. In fact, if we deal with a limited number of distinguishable 
objects – which we, for convenience’s sake, enumerate -, there can appear only 
a limited number of different arrangements among these. 
How to generate cycles of expressions of (a,b) is as follows:
a)   Maximal numbers of elements in the kaleidoscope
We know that the optimal size – for information transmission purposes – for a 
collection is 136 elements, of which around 66 carry significant symbols. 
Therefore, we know also that no more than about 15 describing dimensions can be 
utilised to exhaustively describe a collection of that many elements. 
(Collections with more than 140 elements cannot be described consistently at 
all.)  Please see: www.oeis.org/A242615.   
 
b)  Generating the sorted collection of arguments (a,b)
We generate (a,b) by setting up two loops: 
begin outer loop
 a:1,16;  /* why 16: see above */
write value a;
begin inner loop; 
b: a,16 ;
write value b;
end inner loop; 
end outer loop. /* This gives us a table with 136 rows and 2 columns */
Then we sort the collection two times, once on (a,b), once on (b,a). We note 
the sequential number of each of the elements in both of the sorting orders. 
These we use to generate the cycles we are interested in (which we later 
compare to other cycles, from other reorders, as we build a more advanced 
version of the kaleidoscope). We see in this example cycles that appear during 
reorders from  into . This classical introductory example and deictic 
definition is published in www.oeis.org/A235647. 
Please use this basic version of the kaleidoscope. One can add columns.
2)  Wittgenstein
Sitting in a snowy place and the Winter Olympics taking place right now, let me 
offer you my view of what Wittgenstein did in a parable about ski racing.
Philosophers are skiing athletes. Wittgenstein is a mediocre skier but a gifted 
mechanic. He introduces the concept of ski lifts to the sporting society. The 
ski lifts are a great invention and further the practice of skiing immensely. 
His co-athletes tell him, full of rightful indignation, that inventing, 
describing and operating a ski lift is not a sporting achievement, and falls 
definitely not under the term “skiing”. His results as an athlete are Zero.  He 
should be ashamed to try to tout a ski lift as a result of skiing. 
Wittgenstein, full of remorse, recants, agrees that ski lifts have nothing to 
do with the sport of skiing, and later in his life makes some irrelevant 
efforts of excellence in the sport sensu stricto.
 
Offering this audience of FIS participants:
a) a kaleidoscope which is exactly defined and delivers breath-taking pictures, 
b) an epistemological tool which generates undisputable facts about how  are interdependent; these facts are of a numeric 
nature and root in a kind of arithmetic, so much simple, that there is a button 
on the screen of Excel for average users, enabling them to execute the 
procedure;
this suggestion is outside of the subjects the scientists in FIS are 
researching, like using a ski lift is outside of sport. 
Accounting is not science. Forensic accounting makes life easier if one likes 
precision and exactitude. If one is interested in how place, number, amount 
translate into each other, here is a tool to study the question. There is an 
accounting link connecting the concepts mentioned above. It is multi-faceted 
and needs familiarisation – just like a kaleidoscope. This kaleidoscope is made 
of numbers. Please risk the effort and take a look at it. If your accountant 
says: this is worth looking into, it is usually reasonable to actually dedicate 
some thought to the approach. 
 
 
 




2018-02-12 10:46 GMT+01:00 Mark Johnson :

Dear Karl,


Do you really mean this?:
"As we look into a 

Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

2018-02-12 Thread Xueshan Yan
Dear Javier and Dear Stan,

 

Javier:

1. I very much agree with you as follows:

“I think that only signals can be transmitted, not information. Information can 
only be gained by an observer (a self-referential system) that draws a 
distinction.”

A Chinese scholar Dongsheng Miao’s argument is: There is no information can 
exists without carrier, i.e. No naked can exists.

I think both of you two are expressing a principle of information science.

 

2. According to Linguistics, the relationship between language and 
communication is:

Language is a tool of communication about information.

Of course, this is only limited to the human atmosphere. So I think that all 
(Human) Semiotics ((Human) Linguistics), (Human) Communication Study should be 
the subdisciplines of Human Informatics.

 

==

Dear Xueshan,

Thanks for sharing your interesting remarks and references. I think no one 
really wants to deny the crucial role the language metaphor has played in the 
thinking of communication and information models. But I believe the crucial 
point is to distinguish between language and communication. Language is for us 
humans the main communication medium, though not the only one. We tend to 
describe other communication media in society and nature by mapping the 
language-like characteristics they have. This has been useful and sucessful so 
far. But pushing the language metaphor too far is showing its analytical 
limits. I think we need to think of a transdisciplinary theory of communication 
media. On the other hand, I agree with you that we need to check the uses of 
the concepts of signal and information. I think that only signals can be 
transmitted, not information. Information can only be gained by an observer (a 
self-referential system) that draws a distinction.  

Best,

Javier

==

Stan:

According to Peirce, language is only one of the systematic signs. Here we 
consider sign, signal, symbol as the same thing. So, more precisely in my 
opinion:

{signal {information}},   or   {substrate {signal {information}}}

But not

{language {signal {information}}}

If you remember, in our previous discussions, I much appreciate the 

The hierarchy idea is very important to our study which is initially introduced 
by Pedro, Nikhil and you.

===

Xueshan -- I think one can condense some of your insights hierarchically, as:

In a system having language, information seemingly may be obtained in other 
ways as well. It would be a conceptually broader category. Thus (using the 
compositional hierarchy):

[information [language [signal]]]

Meaning that, when a system has language, all information will be understood or 
construed by way of linguistic constructs. 

(Here I am using ‘signal’ as being more specific than Peirce’s ‘sign’, where:

[sign [information [...]]] ) 

Then, more dynamically (using the subsumptive hierarchy):

{language {signal {information}}}

Information in a languaged system is derived by way linguistic formations, so 
that, even though it is an extremely broad category, information (informing) 
only emerges by way of linguistically informed transformations.

STAN

 

Best wishes to all,

Xueshan

===

El feb 10, 2018 5:23 AM, "Xueshan Yan"  > escribió:

Dear Colleagues,

I have read the article "The languages of bacteria" which Gordana recommended, 
and has gained a lot of inspiration from it. In combination with Sung's 
comparative linguistics exploration on cell language and human language, I have 
the following learning feelings to share with everyone:

In this article, the author recognized that bacteria have evolved multiple 
languages for communicating within and between species. Intra- and interspecies 
cell-cell communication allows bacteria to coordinate various biological 
activities in order to behave like multicellular organisms. Such as AI-2, it is 
a general language that bacteria use for intergenera signaling.

I found an interesting phenomenon in this paper: the author use the concept 
information 3 times but the concept signal (signal or signaling) 55 times, so 
we have to review the history and application of “information” and “signal” in 
biology and biochemistry, it is helpful for us to understand the relationship 
between language, signal, and information.

The origin of the concept of signal (main the signal transduction) can be 
traced back to the end of the 1970s. But until 1980, biochemist and 
endocrinologist Martin Rodbell published an article titled: “The Role of 
Hormone Receptors and GTP-Regulatory Proteins in Membrane Transduction" in 
Nature, in this paper he used the "signal transduction" first time. Since then, 
the research on signal transduction is popular in biology and