3 ms·
> The whole is the topic plus the inverse of the topic. let the topic = x let the whole (the organising concept) = T x is related to T thus, x:T, : changes d
by igravious 10y ago
> The whole is the topic plus the inverse of the topic.
let the topic = x
let the whole (the organising concept) = T
x is related to T thus, x:T, : changes depending on the organising relation
inverse topic is T-x
so T = x + T-x is what you have stated.
George Boole, Lincoln, 1847, The Mathematical Analysis of Logic, being an Essay towards a Calculus of Deductive Reasoning http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36884/36884-pdf.pdf http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36884/36884-pdf.pdf See the Table on page 25
the reverse appears to me to be T′, as you say, that's a very big space
it's unclear to me what you intend by the converse. you say that it is located within T′, let's call it x′ (pronounced x prime).
following on from that the obverse appears to be T′-x′.
the whole of the topic (T) and its reverse (T′) could be 1 using this notation, and this notation is fairly standard.
Boole called the conceptual space we're trying to pin down the “domain of discourse”, this is fairly standard terminology.
> Note that I used the word "universe" just now. It turns out that there's just no good word for the combination of the whole of a topic and it's reverse.
In that case I don't think you should use the word universe for that designation. Maybe just use domain of discourse? However, be aware that there is a precedent for the use of the word universe: https://ncatlab.org/homotopytypetheory/show/universe https://ncatlab.org/homotopytypetheory/show/universe
> kind of logic
To my mind what you are doing is not logic per se but analysis. Specifically a narrow kind of conceptual analysis https://philpapers.org/browse/conceptual-analysis https://philpapers.org/browse/conceptual-analysis Though if pressed I would not quibble with you calling what you are doing a kind of logic. Again, there is a precedent for this.
I'm kind of intrigued as to what you're getting with the notion of a converse. Maybe give a concrete example? From there it should be obvious what is meant by the obverse.
- vinceguidry 10y agoI really don't feel the need to ground my axioms in academic philosophy. I am completely unsurprised that there is already someone out there analyzing things the way I do. I see the 6 verses as universal and would be totally unsurprised to see neuroscience confirming that the way thought works in the brain operates along these principles. I developed them in states of deep meditation and there's much, much more than I can really articulate. Previous times I've tried to articulate these concepts to an audience I've gotten no bites. What I'd really like one day is to sit down with someone who does work in theoretical philosophy and articulate my views over the course of a few weeks / months. I see that as about as likely as Donald Trump actually being a good president. In the meantime I satisfy myself with iterating and refining my beliefs by myself.
- hythloday 10y agoI understood the /converse/ to be the hyponyms of x's hypernym that were not x. So "spoon's" converse are forks, knives, maybe chopsticks, etc.