[FRIAM] quotes and questions

[glen]

On 5/12/22 10:32, Steve Smith wrote:
> I personally don't think "Turbulent Flow" is an oxymoron.

Exactly! That's the point. By denouncing negation, I'm ultimately denouncing contradiction in all it's horrifying forms. It's judo, not karate.

On 5/12/22 13:56, Jon Zingale wrote:
> An interesting property of turbulence is that it need not be a statement about fluids, but rather a property entailed by a system of equations. 

I'm a bit worried about all the meaning packed into "property", "entailed", and "system of equations". But as long as we read "equations" *very* generously, then I'm down.

On 5/12/22 19:54, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Unitary operators are needed.  Apply a Trumping operator you get a Biden and apply another one to get a Trump back.    To make this work a bunch of ancillary bits are needed to record all the wisdom that Trump destroys.    I am afraid we are dealing with a dissipative system, though.

IDK. The allowance of unitary operators seems to be a restatement of orthogonality. In a world where no 2 variates/objects can be perfectly separated, there can be no unitary operators. (Or, perhaps every operator has an error term. f(x) → y ∪ ε) I haven't done the work. But it seems further that we can define logics without negation and logics without currying. Can we define logics with neither? What's the expressive power of such a persnickety thing? Is it that such a thing can't exist? Or merely that our language is incapable of talking about that thing with complete faith? Biden is clearly not not(Trump), at least if the object of interest is "too damned {old, white, male}". If that's the object, clearly Biden ≡ Trump and ∀x|x(Trump) = x(Biden) ∪ ε, where |ε| >> |x(Trump)-x(Biden)|.

-- 
Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙