<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">glen sed:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:098a6671-9d9b-bc1d-19e6-af84424138ba@gmail.com">Exactly!
That's the point. By denouncing negation, I'm ultimately
denouncing contradiction in all it's horrifying forms. It's judo,
not karate.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>And yet you are this list's ultimate contrarian which makes the
paradox/contradiction of it all the self-negating perfection one
could hope for!</p>
<p>The best phrase (IMO) of the post yet:</p>
<p><i> </i><i>But it seems further that we can define logics
without negation and logics without currying.</i></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:098a6671-9d9b-bc1d-19e6-af84424138ba@gmail.com">
<br>
On 5/12/22 13:56, Jon Zingale wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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. </blockquote>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
On 5/12/22 19:54, Marcus Daniels wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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)|.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>