HAPPY 90TH BIRTHDAY, GEORGE SPENCER BROWN

[mimus]

In 1969, George Spencer Brown (abbreviated among the cognoscenti as
“GSB”) published _ Laws of Form _ (abbreviated among the cognoscenti
as “LoF”), the classic and exhaustive study of the simplest possible
analysis, involving two indexes or indices and transition between
those indices, providing an elegant and powerful calculus for such
analysis; extending it to the corresponding binary arithmetic and
algebra; treating questions both fundamental and advanced about such
analysis, calculus, arithmetic and algebra; and applying that algebra
in Appendix 2 to the binary resolution or analysis of propositional
logical arguments and to set analysis.

The book has gone through several editions since, and deservedly so.

Today is GSB's 90th birthday.

Happy 90th Birthday, GSB!

http://www.omath.org.il/Unity-of-mathematics.html

--

Somebody had to do it.

< GSB's reason for writing LoF

[M Purcell]

Twice in one year?

> < GSB's reason for writing LoF

E-Prime looks interesting.

[mimus]

False alarm the first time, due to month/day confusion.

> > < GSB's reason for writing LoF
>
> E-Prime looks interesting.

?

I wonder if GSB got a Queen's Telegram?

--

Which sez something like
"Bugger off, you old git"
according to Kingsley Amis.

[M Purcell]

Apparently LoF was written in E-Prime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

"The E-Prime versions communicate the speaker's experience rather than
judgment, making it harder for the writer or reader to confuse opinion
with fact."

[mimus]

> > Which sez something like
> > "Bugger off, you old git"
> > according to Kingsley Amis.
>
> Apparently LoF was written in E-Prime
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
>
> "The E-Prime versions communicate the speaker's experience rather than
> judgment, making it harder for the writer or reader to confuse opinion
> with fact."

HmmMm. He does stress the injunctive faculty of language in scientific
including mathematical writing. And I note that the Wiki article on E-
Prime sez there's one exception in the book. But I'd never read about
E-Prime or its relevance to LoF before. And he doesn't himself mention
it there. Interesting.

I clicked on over from that Wiki article to the one on LoF itself and
am glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read

"The mathematics fills only about 55pp and is rather elementary."

Well, yes.

--

()()=()
(())=

Now you know it all.

[M Purcell]

Or "Happy Unbirthday".

> > Apparently LoF was written in E-Prime
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
>
> > "The E-Prime versions communicate the speaker's experience rather than
> > judgment, making it harder for the writer or reader to confuse opinion
> > with fact."
>
> HmmMm. He does stress the injunctive faculty of language in scientific
> including mathematical writing. And I note that the Wiki article on E-
> Prime sez there's one exception in the book.

"the only sentence that makes a statement that something is, is the
statement, which says no such statements are used in this book"

> But I'd never read about
> E-Prime or its relevance to LoF before. And he doesn't himself mention
> it there. Interesting.

He seems to have like paradoxes.

> I clicked on over from that Wiki article to the one on LoF itself and
> am glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read
>
> "The mathematics fills only about 55pp and is rather elementary."
>
> Well, yes.

That doesn't sound fun.

> ()()=()
> (())=
>
> Now you know it all.

I do?

[mimus]

He first got on the trail when dealing in engineering (switching
circuits) with what turned out to be--and I can barely bring myself to
type about this--logical imaginaries, the propositional-logical
equivalents of using the number i in arithmetic.

> > I clicked on over from that Wiki article to the one on LoF itself and
> > am glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read
>
> > "The mathematics fills only about 55pp and is rather elementary."
>
> > Well, yes.
>
> That doesn't sound fun.

It's so simple it's hard--people keep trying to read stuff into it
that isn't there, or there yet:

"Whereas we may know how to undertake a search for something we can
not see, the subtlety of the technique of trying to 'find' something
which we already can see may more easily escape our efforts." (LoF)

> > ()()=()
> > (())=
>
> > Now you know it all.
>
> I do?

You knew it even before that.

--

Like playing hopscotch with two squares.

[M Purcell]

It's just a phase.

> > > I clicked on over from that Wiki article to the one on LoF itself and
> > > am glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read
>
> > > "The mathematics fills only about 55pp and is rather elementary."
>
> > > Well, yes.
>
> > That doesn't sound fun.
>
> It's so simple it's hard--people keep trying to read stuff into it
> that isn't there, or there yet:

They update each edition?

> "Whereas we may know how to undertake a search for something we can
> not see, the subtlety of the technique of trying to 'find' something
> which we already can see may more easily escape our efforts." (LoF)

Gotta know what to look for.

> > > ()()=()
> > > (())=
>
> > > Now you know it all.
>
> > I do?
>
> You knew it even before that.

I think I would have known if I knew.

> --
>
> Like playing hopscotch with two squares.

Stop tickling.

[M Purcell]

Sorry,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor

The use of a complex representation simplifies the mathematical
treatment of waves and binary logic seems simplistic.

> > > > I clicked on over from that Wiki article to the one on LoF itself and
> > > > am glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read
>
> > > > "The mathematics fills only about 55pp and is rather elementary."
>
> > > > Well, yes.
>
> > > That doesn't sound fun.
>
> > It's so simple it's hard--people keep trying to read stuff into it
> > that isn't there, or there yet:
>
> They update each edition?

"Peirce's semiotics, about which LoF is silent, may yet shed light on
the philosophical aspects of LoF."

> > "Whereas we may know how to undertake a search for something we can
> > not see, the subtlety of the technique of trying to 'find' something
> > which we already can see may more easily escape our efforts." (LoF)
>
> Gotta know what to look for.

GSB seems to be refering to perception.

[mimus]

Of course modeling waves in terms of abstract waves is simplified.

Feh.

--

BTW, if you can model anything as a wave,
and any wave in terms of any other wave,
doesn't that mean you can model
anything in terms of anything else?

[M Purcell]

How is it simplified?

> --
>
> BTW, if you can model anything as a wave,
> and any wave in terms of any other wave,
> doesn't that mean you can model
> anything in terms of anything else?

You can't model everything as a wave however complex numbers are
useful in cyclic processes, such as in electrical circuits, and GSB
seems to relate them to logic.

[mimus]

On Apr 2, 7:49 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Apr 2, 3:34 pm, mimus <mimu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 2, 4:57 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 2, 12:24 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 2, 12:12 pm, mimus <mimu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > He first got on the trail when dealing in engineering (switching
> > > > > circuits) with what turned out to be--and I can barely bring myself to
> > > > > type about this--logical imaginaries, the propositional-logical
> > > > > equivalents of using the number i in arithmetic.
>
> > > > It's just a phase.
>
> > > Sorry,
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor
>
> > > The use of a complex representation simplifies the mathematical
> > > treatment of waves and binary logic seems simplistic.
>
> > Of course modeling waves in terms of abstract waves is simplified.
>
> > Feh.
>
> How is it simplified?

The ugly stuff common to all the waves is supplied for ya:

It's like using x/inetd to write a GUI program:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming/msg/c81c326584da0590

> > BTW, if you can model anything as a wave,
> > and any wave in terms of any other wave,
> > doesn't that mean you can model
> > anything in terms of anything else?
>
> You can't model everything as a wave

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk/browse_frm/thread/3f0c7b019a50163f

> however complex numbers are
> useful in cyclic processes, such as in electrical circuits, and GSB
> seems to relate them to logic.

But doesn't of course use numbers: numbers are much more complex
entities than the binary entities of LoF-- in Russell and Whitehead's
_ Principia Mathematica _, which attempts to make explicit the theory
implicit in ordinary arithmetic, it takes 362 pages of eye-wateringly-
dense notation to get to the point that one can add one plus one to
get two (LoF should be inserted in there as the first fifty pages or
so, although there are more problems with PM than its failure to touch
bottom and consider form per se).

--

I am confused, therefore I am.

[M Purcell]

On Apr 3, 5:44 am, mimus <mimu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 7:49 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 3:34 pm, mimus <mimu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 2, 4:57 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 2, 12:24 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 2, 12:12 pm, mimus <mimu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > He first got on the trail when dealing in engineering (switching
> > > > > > circuits) with what turned out to be--and I can barely bring myself to
> > > > > > type about this--logical imaginaries, the propositional-logical
> > > > > > equivalents of using the number i in arithmetic.
>
> > > > > It's just a phase.
>
> > > > Sorry,
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor
>
> > > > The use of a complex representation simplifies the mathematical
> > > > treatment of waves and binary logic seems simplistic.
>
> > > Of course modeling waves in terms of abstract waves is simplified.
>
> > > Feh.
>
> > How is it simplified?
>
> The ugly stuff common to all the waves is supplied for ya:
>
> It's like using x/inetd to write a GUI program:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming/msg/c81c326584da0590

Computers only do what they are programmed to do but equivocating a
computer with the human mind seems fairly common.

> > > BTW, if you can model anything as a wave,
> > > and any wave in terms of any other wave,
> > > doesn't that mean you can model
> > > anything in terms of anything else?
>
> > You can't model everything as a wave
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk/br...

A GUT would unify QM with everything else, which is to say everything
is not QM.

> > however complex numbers are
> > useful in cyclic processes, such as in electrical circuits, and GSB
> > seems to relate them to logic.
>
> But doesn't of course use numbers: numbers are much more complex
> entities than the binary entities of LoF-- in Russell and Whitehead's
> _ Principia Mathematica _, which attempts to make explicit the theory
> implicit in ordinary arithmetic, it takes 362 pages of eye-wateringly-
> dense notation to get to the point that one can add one plus one to
> get two (LoF should be inserted in there as the first fifty pages or
> so, although there are more problems with PM than its failure to touch
> bottom and consider form per se).

The square root of negative one is a number.

> --
>
> I am confused, therefore I am.

It doesn't sound like you are sure of that.