Survey of Animated Logical Graphs

[Jon Awbrey]

Survey of Animated Logical Graphs
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/05/22/survey-of-animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-2/

The blog post linked above updates my Survey of Resources having to do with
Animated Logical Graphs. There you will find links to basic expositions and
extended discussions of the graphs themselves, deriving from the Alpha Graphs
C.S. Peirce used for propositional logic, more recently revived and augmented
by G. Spencer Brown in his Laws of Form. What I added was the extension from
tree-like forms to what graph theorists know as cacti, and thereby hangs many
a tale yet to be told. I hope to add more proof animations as time goes on.

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

Thanks for posting this material, it makes some aspects of Theme One program more clear.

Take care and have fun,

Joe

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/. 

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/a65cec5e-4707-4e31-de08-1a6988b4cacb%40att.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

Git Hub link:

https://github.com/jjs0sbw

Research Gate link:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3

YouTube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw

Web Site:

https://systemsconcept.org/

[Jon Awbrey]

Re: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs ??? 2
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/05/22/survey-of-animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-2/

Joe, All ???

One of the things I added to the Survey this time around was an
earlier piece of work titled ???Futures Of Logical Graphs??? (FOLG),
which takes up a number of difficult issues in more detail than
I've found the ability or audacity to do since. In particular,
it gives an indication of the steps I took from trees to cacti
in the graph-theoretic representation of logical propositions
and boolean functions, along with the factors that forced me
to make that transition.

??? https://oeis.org/wiki/Futures_Of_Logical_Graphs

A lot of the text goes back to the dusty Ascii days of the old discussion lists
where I last shared it, so I'll be working on converting the figures and tables
and trying to make the presentation more understandable.

Regards,

Jon

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

Very interesting work.

Many of the patterns are now becoming more clear... just need more time to study

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/. 

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/1a39bd6a-73a5-0db4-bbff-ad5b0f369d90%40att.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs : 15
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/06/30/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-15/

In George Spencer Brown's "Laws of Form" the relation between the primary arithmetic
and the primary algebra is founded on the idea that a variable name appearing as an
operand in an algebraic expression indicates the contemplated absence or presence of
any expression in the arithmetic, with the understanding that each appearance of the
same variable name indicates the same state of contemplation with respect to the same
expression of the arithmetic.

For example, consider the following expression:

Figure 1. Cactus Graph (a(a))
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/box-aa.jpg

We may regard this algebraic expression as a general expression
for an infinite set of arithmetic expressions, starting like so:

Figure 2. Cactus Graph Series (a(a))
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/box-aa-series.jpg

Now consider what this says about the following algebraic law:

Figure 3. Cactus Graph Equation (a(a)) = <blank>
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/box-aa-.jpg

It permits us to understand the algebraic law as saying, in effect, that every one
of the arithmetic expressions of the contemplated pattern evaluates to the very same
canonical expression as the upshot of that evaluation. This is, as far as I know,
just about as close as we can come to a conceptually and ontologically minimal way
of understanding the relation between an algebra and its corresponding arithmetic.

To be continued ...

Regards,

Jon

On 5/30/2019 9:16 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> Re: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs : 2
> At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/05/22/survey-of-animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-2/

>
> One of the things I added to the Survey this time around was an

> earlier piece of work titled "Futures Of Logical Graphs" (FOLG),

> which takes up a number of difficult issues in more detail than

> I've found the ability or audacity to do since.?? In particular,

> it gives an indication of the steps I took from trees to cacti
> in the graph-theoretic representation of logical propositions
> and boolean functions, along with the factors that forced me
> to make that transition.
>

> See: https://oeis.org/wiki/Futures_Of_Logical_Graphs

>
> A lot of the text goes back to the dusty Ascii days of the

> old discussion lists where I last shared it, so I will be

> working on converting the figures and tables and trying
> to make the presentation more understandable.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon

--

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs ??? 16
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/07/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-16/

In lieu of a field study requirement for my bachelor's degree I spent
a couple years in a host of state and university libraries reading
everything I could find by and about Peirce, poring most memorably
through the reels of microfilmed Peirce manuscripts Michigan State
had at the time, all in trying to track down some hint of a clue to
a puzzling passage in Peirce's "Simplest Mathematics", most acutely
coming to a head with that bizarre line of type at CP 4.306, which
the editors of the ''Collected Papers'', no doubt compromised by the
typographer's resistance to cutting new symbols, transmogrified into
a script more cryptic than even the manuscript???s original hieroglyphic.

I found one key to the mystery in Peirce's use of "operator variables",
which he and his students Christine Ladd-Franklin and O.H. Mitchell
explored in depth. I will shortly discuss this theme as it affects
logical graphs but it may be useful to give a shorter and sweeter
explanation of how the basic idea typically arises in common
logical practice.

Think of De Morgan???s rules:

: ??(A ??? B) = ??A ??? ??B

: ??(A ??? B) = ??A ??? ??B

We could capture the common form of these two rules in a single formula
by taking "o1" and "o2" as variable names ranging over a set of logical
operators, and then by asking what substitutions for o1 and o2 would
satisfy the following equation:

: ??(A o1 B) = ??A o2 ??B

We already know two solutions to this "operator equation", namely,
(o1, o2) = (???, ???) and (o1, o2) = (???, ???). Wouldn't it be just like
Peirce to ask if there are others?

Having broached the subject of logical operator variables,
I will leave it for now in the same way Peirce himself did:

<QUOTE>
I shall not further enlarge upon this matter at this point,
although the conception mentioned opens a wide field; because
it cannot be set in its proper light without overstepping the
limits of dichotomic mathematics. (Collected Papers, CP 4.306).
</QUOTE>

Further exploration of operator variables and operator invariants
treads on grounds traditionally known as "second intentional logic"
and "opens a wide field", as Peirce says. For now, however, I will
tend to that corner of the field where our garden variety logical
graphs grow, observing the ways operative variations and operative
themes naturally develop on those grounds.

[Jon Awbrey]

| I'm still waiting to hear from the T-bird Hive Mind why
| everything got so iffy with unicodes a couple months ago,
| and what to do about it. In the meantime here's plaintext
| version of that last post. As always, there's a better
| formatted version at the blog post linked below.

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs : 16

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/07/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-16/

In lieu of a field study requirement for my bachelor's degree I spent
a couple years in a host of state and university libraries reading
everything I could find by and about Peirce, poring most memorably
through the reels of microfilmed Peirce manuscripts Michigan State
had at the time, all in trying to track down some hint of a clue to
a puzzling passage in Peirce's "Simplest Mathematics", most acutely
coming to a head with that bizarre line of type at CP 4.306, which
the editors of the ''Collected Papers'', no doubt compromised by the
typographer's resistance to cutting new symbols, transmogrified into

a script more cryptic than even the manuscript's original hieroglyphic.

I found one key to the mystery in Peirce's use of "operator variables",
which he and his students Christine Ladd-Franklin and O.H. Mitchell
explored in depth. I will shortly discuss this theme as it affects
logical graphs but it may be useful to give a shorter and sweeter
explanation of how the basic idea typically arises in common
logical practice.

Think of De Morgan's rules:

: not (A and B) = (not A) or (not B)

: not (A or B) = (not A) and (not B)

We could capture the common form of these two rules in a single formula
by taking "o1" and "o2" as variable names ranging over a set of logical
operators, and then by asking what substitutions for o1 and o2 would
satisfy the following equation:

: not (A o1 B) = (not A) o2 (not B)

We already know two solutions to this "operator equation", namely,

(o1, o2) = (and, or) and (o1, o2) = (or, and). Wouldn't it be

just like Peirce to ask if there are others?

Having broached the subject of logical operator variables,
I will leave it for now in the same way Peirce himself did:

<QUOTE>
I shall not further enlarge upon this matter at this point,
although the conception mentioned opens a wide field; because
it cannot be set in its proper light without overstepping the
limits of dichotomic mathematics. (Collected Papers, CP 4.306).
</QUOTE>

Further exploration of operator variables and operator invariants
treads on grounds traditionally known as "second intentional logic"
and "opens a wide field", as Peirce says. For now, however, I will
tend to that corner of the field where our garden variety logical
graphs grow, observing the ways operative variations and operative
themes naturally develop on those grounds.

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

Excellent material..

I will add it to the list..

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/. 

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/1bdd41f2-1812-4723-873f-7976f4610524%40att.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jon Awbrey]

Thanks, Joe,

This material is coming from the section of my "Futures Of Logical Graphs" (FOLG)
titled "Themes and Variations" where I explain how I came down from logical trees
and learned to love logical cacti (ouch) --

https://oeis.org/wiki/Futures_Of_Logical_Graphs#Themes_and_variations

I spent the last month upgrading the ancient ascii graphics to jpegs and the text
will hopefully get less rambling and clearer as I serialize it to my inquiry blog.

Previous Installments:

Survey of Animated Logical Graphs
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/05/22/survey-of-animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-2/

Animated Logical Graphs
(13) https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/05/24/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-13/
(14) https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/05/28/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-14/
(15) https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/06/30/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-15/
(16) https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/07/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-16/

Regards,

Jon

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

Great, I will program some time to engage this material.

Take care and have fun,

Joe

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs : 17
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/09/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-17/

To get a clearer view of the relation between
primary arithmetic and primary algebra consider
the following extremely simple algebraic expression:

Figure 4. Cactus Graph (a)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/box-a.jpg

In this expression the variable name "a" appears as an "operand name".
In functional terms, "a" is called an "argument name", but it's best
to avoid the potentially confusing connotations of the word "argument"
here, since it also refers in logical discussions to a more or less
specific pattern of reasoning.

As we've discussed, the algebraic variable name indicates the
contemplated absence or presence of any arithmetic expression
taking its place in the surrounding template, which expression
is proxied well enough by its logical value, and of which values
we know but two. Thus, the given algebraic expression varies
between these two choices:

Figure 5. Cactus Graph Set (),(())
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/box-.jpg

The above selection of arithmetic expressions is what it means
to contemplate the absence or presence of the operand "a" in
the algebraic expression "(a)". But what would it mean to
contemplate the absence or presence of the operator "( )"
in the algebraic expression "(a)"?

That is the question I'll take up next.

Regards,

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs : 18
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/10/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-18/

We had been contemplating the penultimately simple
algebraic expression "(a)" as a name for a set of
arithmetic expressions, namely, (a) = { () , (()) },
taking the equality sign in the appropriate sense.

Figure 6. Cactus Graph Equation (a) = {(),(())}
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/box-a-1.jpg

Then we asked the corresponding question about the operator "( )".

The above selection of arithmetic expressions is what it means
to contemplate the absence or presence of the operand "a" in
the algebraic expression "(a)". But what would it mean to
contemplate the absence or presence of the operator "( )"
in the algebraic expression "(a)"?

Clearly, a variation between the absence and the presence of
the operator "( )" in the algebraic expression "(a)" refers to
a variation between the algebraic expressions "a" and "(a)",
respectively, somewhat as pictured below:

Figure 7. Cactus Graph Equation ?a? = {a,(a)}
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/box-a-queaa.jpg

But how shall we signify such variations in a coherent calculus?

(end of season cliff-hanger ...)

Regards,

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

We have encountered the question of how to extend our
formal calculus to take account of operator variables.

In the days when I scribbled these things on the backs of computer punchcards,
the first thing I tried was drawing big loopy script characters, placing some
inside the loops of others. Lower case alphas, betas, gammas, deltas, and
so on worked best. Graphics like these conveyed the idea that a character-
shaped boundary drawn around another space can be viewed as absent or present
depending on whether the formal value of the character is unmarked or marked.
The same idea can be conveyed by attaching characters directly to the edges
of graphs.

Here is how we might suggest an algebraic expression of the form "(q)"
where the absence or presence of the operator "( )" depends on the value
of the algebraic expression "p", the operator "( )" being absent whenever
p is unmarked and present whenever p is marked.

Figure 8. Cactus Graph (q)_p = {q,(q)}
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/box-q-que-pqq.jpg

It was obvious to me from the outset that this sort of tactic would need
a lot of work to become a usable calculus, especially when it came time
to feed those punchcards back into the computer.

Regards,

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs
19: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/11/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-19/
20: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/11/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-20/

Another tactic I tried by way of porting operator variables into logical graphs and
laws of form was to hollow out a leg of Spencer-Brown's crosses, gnomons, markers,
whatever you wish to call them, as shown below:

Figure 9. Transitional (q)_p = {q,(q)}
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/box-q-qua-p.jpg

The initial idea I had in mind was the same as before, that the operator
over q would be counted as absent when p evaluates to a space and present
when p evaluates to a cross.

However, much in the same way that operators with a shade of negativity
tend to be more generative than the purely positive brand, it turned out
more useful to reverse this initial polarity of operation, letting the
operator over q be counted as absent when p evaluates to a cross and
present when p evaluates to a space.

So that is the convention I'll adopt from here on.

Regards,

Jon

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

This section sent me back to the 'Laws of Form' for a quick review.

I think I see the connection, time will tell..

Have fun,

Joe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-mode...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/structural-modeling/02d7b568-c0e7-e88a-d716-fbd39f4abba0%40att.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs : 21
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/12/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-21/

A funny thing just happened. Let's see if we can tell where.
We started with the algebraic expression "(a)", in which the
operand "a" suggests the contemplated absence or presence of
any arithmetic expression or its value, then we contemplated
the absence or presence of the operator "( )" in "(a)" to be
indicated by a cross or a space, respectively, for the value
of a newly introduced variable, "b", placed in a new slot of
a newly extended operator form, as suggested by this picture:

Figure 10. Control Form (a)_b
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/box-a-quo-b.jpg

What happened here is this. Our contemplation of an operator variable
just as quickly transformed into the contemplation of a newly introduced
but otherwise quite ordinary operand variable, fitting into a new form of
formula. In its interpretation for logic the newly formed operation may be
viewed as an extension of ordinary negation, one in which the negation of the
first variable is "controlled" by the value of the second variable. Thus, we
may regard this development as marking a form of "controlled reflection", or a
form of "reflective control". From this point on we will use the inline syntax
"(a , b)" for the associated operation on two variables, whose operation table
is given below:

Operation Table for (a , b)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/table-ab-space-cross.png

: The Entitative Interpretation (En), for which Space = False and Cross = True,
calls this operation "equivalence".

: The Existential Interpretation (Ex), for which Space = True and Cross = False,
calls this operation "distinction".

Regards,

Jon

[Aleksandar Malečić]

Each step on its own, as far as I can follow them, makes sense. You are, if I understand it correctly, trying to figure out something fundamental, the rock bottom reality. When can we expect that results of such a research to become  "applicable to more than one of the traditional departments of knowledge" (http://isss.org/world/about-the-isss)? What kinds of tragedy, disaster, misunderstanding, mismanagement, or failure would/will be preventable by your approach?

Aleksandar

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/. 

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/3a37a436-0212-1db7-bf1d-6c6a4c7188fd%40att.net.

[joseph simpson]

Aleksander:

I am commenting on my view of the potential value associated with Jon's work.

Most, if not all, of the benefits associated with the "Laws of Form," appear to be associated with Jon's work on  animated logical graphs.  These benefits include:

-- complexity reduction (both cognitive and computational)

-- increased communication precision

-- interface between informal and  formal languages.

Many large scale human activities could be improved using the above listed benefits.

However, another more interesting (to me) aspect of this work is the dynamic, responsive form of the logical graphs.  

In any case, this is interesting material that could be applied in many areas.

I have started to map the relationships to the augmented model-exchange isomorphism (AMEI) logical groups.  Later, I plan of creating a collection of abstract relation types (ART) to document and communicate the application of this type of logical analysis.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-mode...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/structural-modeling/CACJD9WE4m4rfHcznqAhywsAgbDwwjBcXSw%2Bd4tKpP-%3DwyGqj-w%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jack Ring]

Joe, Jon,

Good work.

Jack

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/CAPnyebyaihD1sdsOPfOpn%3DJ7YYpF5YAr1fXzNnw8mQOcPg3diw%40mail.gmail.com.

[joseph simpson]

Bruce:

Interesting observations and comments.

Much of the material contained in the "Laws Of Form," relates a formal language to natural language.

The last statement of Chapter 12, on page 76, states:

"We now see that the first distinction, the mark, and the observer are not only interchangeable, but, in the form, identical."

The statement above, to me, indicates that the formal language representations associated with the "Laws Of Form," are highly restricted.

No one would say that a mark on a sheet of paper is an observer, in real life.

The challenge is to find a suitable natural language that properly applies the Laws Of Form to a range of real situations.

The space, state or contents associated with the distinction is a key consideration in the proper application of the Laws Of Form.

The relationships associated with the real space, state or contents are not as restricted as the relationships associated with the Laws Of Form.

Anyway, interesting material.

Take care and have fun,

Joe

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 9:58 AM <bruces...@cox.net> wrote:

Thanks for these comments, Joe – thanks to Jon for exploring the connection with Laws of Form. Thanks for linking to a few other conversations.

 

I just want to mention that G. Spencer Brown and LOF had a significant influence on me as well.  This book was popular in the late 1960’s or early 1970’s, and it was very up my line.  I was exploring topological approaches to logic, and Brown’s book was very striking and influential.

 

I did not really understand his graphic symbolism – the notion of “crossing”, etc. – and I think a lot of people were mystified by it, but yet intrigued.  It just so happened that in 1973, I met a couple of times with the famous anthropologist/epistemologist Gregory Bateson (author of the very influential Steps to an Ecology of Mind, which introduced the theme of “The Pattern That Connects” into the new-thought conversation).  He was in residence at UC Santa Cruz at the time, and one of the things we talked about was Laws of Form.  Like me, Bateson was intrigued – but asked me if I thought the book was a trick, a mystifying joke being played on a gullible public.  He found some citation in the index that he thought was a clue.   https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6706-8_14

 

But for me, this question was just a distraction.  The idea that stuck with me – and shaped everything I’ve been doing since, including a lot of messages posted to Ontolog – has to do with the concept of “distinction”, which LOF first put in my head.

 

“The first command – draw a distinction”

 

That’s something I’ve been feeling for a long time.

 

In what I am doing right now, this idea is at the core –

 

“Draw a distinction in a distinction”

 

There’s a lot we can say about this.

 

In Dr. Susan Carey’s “The Origin of Concepts”, she talks about “Quinian Bootstrapping” (W.V.O. Quine)  – which I think relates to this kind of mysterious coalescence of concept and form from a mysterious figure/ground tension.  She is talking about concept formation in children.  Something organic drives an emerging fuzzy notion that becomes explicitly codified.

 

What I want to suggest is that there is a organic drive dynamic that pushes conceptual form out of the continuum (Tao, real number line, unit interval, etc.) , under the force of some kind of “local” motivation.  A distinction gets drawn in a distinction.  Maybe this relates to Helen Keller’s powerful experience with the concept/word W-A-T-E-R as drawn on her hand….

 

In any case, thank you.

 

It feels to me like there is a powerful transcendental theorem in the air right now.  We are figuring this out.  Something wants to explode through the keyhole.

 

For those who want to decode this mystery, there’s a lot to consider right here in this excerpt from Wikipedia.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form

 

 

 

Bruce Schuman

Santa Barbara CA USA

integralontology.net

--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAPnyebyaihD1sdsOPfOpn%3DJ7YYpF5YAr1fXzNnw8mQOcPg3diw%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00e101d53a65%244d5e9610%24e81bc230%24%40cox.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs : 22
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/22/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-22/

The step of controlled reflection we just took can be iterated as far
as we wish to take it, as suggested by the following series of forms:

Figure 11. Reflective Series (a) to (a, b, c, d)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/reflective-series-a-to-abcd.jpg

Written inline, we have the series "(a)", "(a, b)", "(a, b, c)", "(a, b, c, d)",
and so on, whose general form is "(x_1, x_2, ..., x_k)". With this move we have
passed beyond the graph-theoretical form of rooted trees to what graph theorists
know as "rooted cacti".

I will discuss this "cactus language" and its logical interpretations next.

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

Very interesting work and ideas.

I went back to this section to address an area where I have some specific questions.

The area is associated with the operations of "equivalence" and "distinction".

I tend to view equivalence and distinction as relationships as opposed to operations.  I do not know if this makes any significant difference in this context.

Given the relationship of equivalence, the logical properties of the relationship are given as:

--- reflexive

--- symmetric

--- transitive

Object A is equivalent to Object A. (reflexive property)

Object B is equivalent to Object A and Object A is equivalent to Object B. (symmetric property)

If Object B is equivalent to Object A and Object A is equivalent to Object C, then Object B is equivalent to Object C. (transitive property)

Given the relationship of distinction, the logical properties of the relationship are given as:

--- irreflexive

--- symmetric

--- transitive

Object A is not distinct from Object A. (irreflexive property)

Object B is distinct from Object A and Object A is distinct from Object B. (symmetric property)

If Object B is distinct from Object A and Object A is distinct from Object C, then Object B is distinct from Object C. (transitive property)

The questions relate to the two different types of reflexive logical attributes; reflexive and irreflexive.

In the operations of controlled reflection are both types of reflexive logical properties allowed?

Does the term "controlled reflection" relate to a collection of operations or logical properties or both?

This is my first attempt to start associating your work to the augmented model-exchange isomorphism (AMEI) logical groups.

The AMEI logical groups may then be used to help associate these logical graphic terms to a natural language implementation.

Thanks for continuing to share and explain your work.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/. 

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/3a37a436-0212-1db7-bf1d-6c6a4c7188fd%40att.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[Jon Awbrey]

Joe, Thanks, those are very good questions. We just got back from
our annual "dramatic immersion" at the Stratford Festival in Canada
and I learned a lot from the plays this year that I'm still working
to metabolize and integrate into my everyday outlook on life. I'll
hold off just a bit on replying to your questions and the intervening
discussions until I get my next blog post out, as it has a table that
should help things along.

Regards,

Jon

>> ...

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs : 23
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/23/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-23/

The following Table will suffice to show how the "streamer-cross" forms
C.S. Peirce used in his essay on "Qualitative Logic" and Spencer Brown
used in his "Laws of Form", as they get extended by successive steps
of controlled reflection, translate into syntactic strings and
rooted cactus graphs:

Table. Syntactic Correspondences
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/syntactic-correspondences/

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

Today I found an interesting publication that might relate to the current discussion of Animated Logical Graphs (ALG).

Please see:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematician-solves-computer-science-conjecture-in-two-pages-20190725/

The “sensitivity” conjecture may be a topic that could be explored using ALG.

There appear to be many interesting connections between ALG and the sensitivity conjecture.

I am looking for an area where ALG application examples may be created and discussed.

My first attempt at an example, using the augmented model-exchange isomorphism (AMEI), raised a number of conceptual and structural application issues.  Which can be addressed as we move forward.

My plan is to continue the search for specific application areas.

I believe that finding domain specific applications will help me better understand the ALG material.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/. 

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/3b228a4d-1bc3-ecb0-444a-c584284d81fb%40att.net.

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs : 24
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/26/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-24/

Re: Joseph Simpson
At: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ontolog-forum/wF03K5KG1vQ/ZRlQdavJBgAJ

Boolean functions f : B^k -> B and different ways of contemplating their
complexity are definitely the right ballpark, or at least the right planet,
for field-testing logical graphs.

I don't know much about the Boolean Sensitivity Conjecture but I did run across
an enlightening article about it just yesterday and I did once begin an exploration
of what appears to be a related question, Peter Frankl's "Union-Closed Sets Conjecture".
See the resource pages linked below.

At any rate, now that we've entered the ballpark, or standard orbit, of boolean functions,
I can skip a bit of dancing around and jump to the next blog post I have on deck.

Resources
=========

* Frankl Conjecture
( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/category/frankl-conjecture/ )

* R.J. Lipton and K.W. Regan : Discrepancy Games and Sensitivity
( https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2019/07/25/discrepancy-games-and-sensitivity/ )

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs : 25
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/26/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-25/

Let's examine the formal operation table for the third in our series
of reflective forms to see if we can elicit the general pattern:

Formal Operation Table (a, b, c) Variant 1
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/formal-operation-table-a-b-c-variant-1/

Or, thinking in terms of the corresponding cactus graphs,
writing "o" for a blank node and "|" for a terminal edge,
we get the following Table:

Formal Operation Table (a, b, c) Variant 2
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/formal-operation-table-a-b-c-variant-2/

Evidently, the rule is that "(a, b, c)" denotes the value denoted by "o"
if and only if exactly one of the variables a, b, c has the value denoted
by "|", otherwise "(a, b, c)" denotes the value denoted by "|". Examining
the whole series of reflective forms shows this is the general rule.

* In the Entitative Interpretation (En), where o = false and | = true,
"(x_1, ..., x_k)" translates as "not just one of the x_j is true".

* In the Existential Interpretation (Ex), where o = true and | = false,
"(x_1, ..., x_k)" translates as "just one of the x_j is not true".

Regards,

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Animated Logical Graphs : 26
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/07/28/animated-logical-graphs-%e2%80%a2-26/

This post and the next wrap up the Themes and Variations section
of my speculation on Futures Of Logical Graphs. I made an effort
to "show my work", reviewing the steps I took to arrive at the
present perspective on logical graphs, whistling past the least
productive of the blind alleys, cul-de-sacs, detours, and forking
paths I explored along the way. It can be useful to tell the story
that way, partly because others may find things I missed down those
roads, but it does call for a recap of the main ideas I would like
readers to take away.

Partly through my reflections on Peirce's use of operator variables I was led
to what I called the "reflective extension of logical graphs", or what I now
call the "cactus language", after its principal graph-theoretic data structure.
This graphical formal language arises from generalizing the negation operator "( )"
in a particular direction, treating "( )" as the "controlled", "moderated", or
"reflective" negation operator of order 1, and adding another operator for each
integer parameter greater than 1. This family of operators is symbolized by
bracketed argument lists of the forms "( )", "( , )", "( , , )", and so on,
where the number of places is the order of the reflective negation operator
in question.

Two rules suffice for evaluating cactus graphs:

* The rule for evaluating a k-node operator,
corresponding to an expression of the form
"x_1 x_2 ... x_{k-1} x_k", is as follows:

Figure 12. Node Evaluation Rule
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/box-xj-node-evaluation-rule.jpg

* The rule for evaluating a k-lobe operator,
corresponding to an expression of the form
"(x_1, x_2, ..., x_{k-1}, x_k)", is as follows:

Figure 13. Lobe Evaluation Rule
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/box-xj-lobe-evaluation-rule.jpg

References
==========

Futures Of Logical Graphs
https://oeis.org/wiki/Futures_Of_Logical_Graphs

Themes and Variations
https://oeis.org/wiki/Futures_Of_Logical_Graphs#Themes_and_variations

Regards,

Jon