14 views

Skip to first unread message

Jul 16, 2020, 12:40:15 PM7/16/20

to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, cyb...@googlegroups.com, peir...@list.iupui.edu, structura...@googlegroups.com, syss...@googlegroups.com

Cf: Differential Logic, Dynamic Systems, Tangent Functors • 1

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2018/09/05/differential-logic-dynamic-systems-tangent-functors-%e2%80%a2-1/

All,

Seeing as how quasi-neural models and the recurring issues of

logical-symbolic vs. quantitative-connectionist paradigms have

come round again, as they do every dozen or twenty years or so,

I thought I might refer again to this work I started initially

in that context, seeking logical-qualitative-symbolic analogues

of systems proposed by McClelland, Rumelhart, and the PDP Group,

and especially Stephen Grossberg's cooperative-competitive models.

Note. I posted on this topic back in the Fall of 2018 but

the lion's share of links got broken when the InterSciWiki

went off the live web. I am fixing those as I go along.

***

People interested in category theory as applied to systems

may wish to check out the following article, reporting work

I carried out while engaged in a systems engineering program

at Oakland University.

The problem addressed is a longstanding one, that of building bridges

to negotiate the gap between qualitative and quantitative descriptions

of complex phenomena, like those we meet in analyzing and engineering

systems, especially intelligent systems endowed with a capacity for

processing information and acquiring knowledge of objective reality.

One of the ways this problem arises has to do with describing change

in logical, qualitative, or symbolic terms, long before we grasp the

reality beneath the appearances firmly enough to cast it in measured,

quantitative, real number form.

Development on the quantitative shore got no further than a Sisyphean

beachhead until the discovery/invention of differential calculus by

Leibniz and Newton, after which things advanced by leaps and bounds.

And there's our clue what we need to do on the qualitative shore, namely,

to discover/invent the missing logical analogue of differential calculus.

With that preamble ...

Differential Logic and Dynamic Systems

======================================

This article develops a differential extension of propositional calculus

and applies it to a context of problems arising in dynamic systems. The

work pursued here is coordinated with a parallel application that focuses

on neural network systems, but the dependencies are arranged to make the

present article the main and the more self-contained work, to serve as a

conceptual frame and a technical background for the network project.

Reading continues here:

Overview

https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Overview

Part 1

https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_1

Part 2

https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_2

Part 3

https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_3

Part 4

https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_4

Part 5

https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_5

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey

oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2018/09/05/differential-logic-dynamic-systems-tangent-functors-%e2%80%a2-1/

All,

Seeing as how quasi-neural models and the recurring issues of

logical-symbolic vs. quantitative-connectionist paradigms have

come round again, as they do every dozen or twenty years or so,

I thought I might refer again to this work I started initially

in that context, seeking logical-qualitative-symbolic analogues

of systems proposed by McClelland, Rumelhart, and the PDP Group,

and especially Stephen Grossberg's cooperative-competitive models.

Note. I posted on this topic back in the Fall of 2018 but

the lion's share of links got broken when the InterSciWiki

went off the live web. I am fixing those as I go along.

***

People interested in category theory as applied to systems

may wish to check out the following article, reporting work

I carried out while engaged in a systems engineering program

at Oakland University.

The problem addressed is a longstanding one, that of building bridges

to negotiate the gap between qualitative and quantitative descriptions

of complex phenomena, like those we meet in analyzing and engineering

systems, especially intelligent systems endowed with a capacity for

processing information and acquiring knowledge of objective reality.

One of the ways this problem arises has to do with describing change

in logical, qualitative, or symbolic terms, long before we grasp the

reality beneath the appearances firmly enough to cast it in measured,

quantitative, real number form.

Development on the quantitative shore got no further than a Sisyphean

beachhead until the discovery/invention of differential calculus by

Leibniz and Newton, after which things advanced by leaps and bounds.

And there's our clue what we need to do on the qualitative shore, namely,

to discover/invent the missing logical analogue of differential calculus.

With that preamble ...

Differential Logic and Dynamic Systems

======================================

This article develops a differential extension of propositional calculus

and applies it to a context of problems arising in dynamic systems. The

work pursued here is coordinated with a parallel application that focuses

on neural network systems, but the dependencies are arranged to make the

present article the main and the more self-contained work, to serve as a

conceptual frame and a technical background for the network project.

Reading continues here:

Overview

https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Overview

Part 1

https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_1

Part 2

https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_2

Part 3

https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_3

Part 4

https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_4

Part 5

https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_5

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey

oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

Jul 19, 2020, 3:16:06 PM7/19/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Peirce List, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: Differential Logic, Dynamic Systems, Tangent Functors • Discussion 9

http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/07/19/differential-logic-dynamic-systems-tangent-functors-%e2%80%a2-discussion-9/

All,

I have a post with a lot of math formatting, but

unicode hasn't always been getting through lately,

so I'll just post the blog link for now plus some

test characters, and I'll post a transcript later

if everything seems to working okay at the moment.

α β γ δ ε

Later,

Jon

http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/07/19/differential-logic-dynamic-systems-tangent-functors-%e2%80%a2-discussion-9/

All,

I have a post with a lot of math formatting, but

unicode hasn't always been getting through lately,

so I'll just post the blog link for now plus some

test characters, and I'll post a transcript later

if everything seems to working okay at the moment.

α β γ δ ε

Later,

Jon

Jul 20, 2020, 8:40:28 AM7/20/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Peirce List, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: Differential Logic, Dynamic Systems, Tangent Functors • Discussion 9

http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/07/19/differential-logic-dynamic-systems-tangent-functors-%e2%80%a2-discussion-9/

Re: FB | Systems Sciences

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2391509563/permalink/10158218873839564/

Re: Kenneth Lloyd

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2391509563/permalink/10158218873839564/?comment_id=10158219473119564

Dear Kenneth, All ...

Mulling over recent discussions put me in a pensive frame of mind

and my thoughts led me back to my first encounter with category theory.

I came across the term while reading and I didn't fully understand it.

But I distinctly remember a short time later catching up with my math TA —

it was on the path by the tennis courts behind Spartan Stadium — and asking

him about it.

The instruction I received that day was roughly along the following lines.

“Actually . . . we’re already doing a little category theory, without

quite calling it that. Think about the different types of spaces we’ve

been discussing in class, the real line R, the various dimensions of

real-value spaces, R^n, R^m, and so on, along with the various types

of mappings between those spaces. There are mappings from the real

line R into an n-dimensional space R^n — we think of those as curves,

paths, or trajectories. There are mappings from the plane R^2 to

values in R — we picture those as potential surfaces over the plane.

More generally, there are mappings from an n-dimensional space R^n to

values in R — we think of those as scalar fields over R^n — say, the

temperature at each point of an n-dimensional volume. There are

mappings from R^n to R^n and mappings from R^n to R^m where n and m

are different, all of which we call transformations or vector fields,

depending on the use we have in mind.”

All that was pretty familiar to me, though I had to admire the panoramic

sweep of his survey, so my mind’s eye naturally supplied all the arrows

for the maps he rolled out. A curve γ through an n-dimensional space

would be typed as a function γ : R → R^n, where the functional domain R

would ordinarily be regarded as a time dimension. A mapping α from the

plane to a real value would be typed as a function α : R^2 → R, where

we might be thinking of α(x, y) as the altitude of a topographic map

above each point (x, y) of the plane. A scalar field β defined on an

n-dimensional space would be typed as a function β : R^n → R, where

β(x_1, …, x_n) is something like the pressure, the temperature, or the

value of some other dependent variable at each point (x_1, …, x_n) of the

n-dimensional volume. And rounding out the story, if only the basement

and ground floor of a towering abstraction still under construction, we

come to the general case of a mapping f from an n-dimensional space to

an m-dimensional space, typed as a function f : R^n → R^m.

To be continued …

Regards,

Jon

http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/07/19/differential-logic-dynamic-systems-tangent-functors-%e2%80%a2-discussion-9/

Re: FB | Systems Sciences

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2391509563/permalink/10158218873839564/

Re: Kenneth Lloyd

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2391509563/permalink/10158218873839564/?comment_id=10158219473119564

Dear Kenneth, All ...

Mulling over recent discussions put me in a pensive frame of mind

and my thoughts led me back to my first encounter with category theory.

I came across the term while reading and I didn't fully understand it.

But I distinctly remember a short time later catching up with my math TA —

it was on the path by the tennis courts behind Spartan Stadium — and asking

him about it.

The instruction I received that day was roughly along the following lines.

“Actually . . . we’re already doing a little category theory, without

quite calling it that. Think about the different types of spaces we’ve

been discussing in class, the real line R, the various dimensions of

real-value spaces, R^n, R^m, and so on, along with the various types

of mappings between those spaces. There are mappings from the real

line R into an n-dimensional space R^n — we think of those as curves,

paths, or trajectories. There are mappings from the plane R^2 to

values in R — we picture those as potential surfaces over the plane.

More generally, there are mappings from an n-dimensional space R^n to

values in R — we think of those as scalar fields over R^n — say, the

temperature at each point of an n-dimensional volume. There are

mappings from R^n to R^n and mappings from R^n to R^m where n and m

are different, all of which we call transformations or vector fields,

depending on the use we have in mind.”

All that was pretty familiar to me, though I had to admire the panoramic

sweep of his survey, so my mind’s eye naturally supplied all the arrows

for the maps he rolled out. A curve γ through an n-dimensional space

would be typed as a function γ : R → R^n, where the functional domain R

would ordinarily be regarded as a time dimension. A mapping α from the

plane to a real value would be typed as a function α : R^2 → R, where

we might be thinking of α(x, y) as the altitude of a topographic map

above each point (x, y) of the plane. A scalar field β defined on an

n-dimensional space would be typed as a function β : R^n → R, where

β(x_1, …, x_n) is something like the pressure, the temperature, or the

value of some other dependent variable at each point (x_1, …, x_n) of the

n-dimensional volume. And rounding out the story, if only the basement

and ground floor of a towering abstraction still under construction, we

come to the general case of a mapping f from an n-dimensional space to

an m-dimensional space, typed as a function f : R^n → R^m.

To be continued …

Regards,

Jon

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu