Miscellaneous| 17/3/17: Does every relation represent new operation (similar to addition, multiplication, etc)? (Clarification required, 17/3/17)
Old Post: As I have already explained on how I am observing our brain to be comparing different experiences to find common share and thus tending to find generality (See: Generality), now I have found my brain to have found a new pattern in experiences tending towards generality.
Let me give some of the experiences I had before coming to the new generality; this is the extract from William Rowan Hamilton's letter to Sydney$_1$:
I was excited when my brain connected the data of Boolean, yeah that Boolean, the one who is known with Boolean "Algebra", you can make it Boolean Math now (if possibly we may obtain entire set later). You can notice that Boolean Algebra or our Boolean Math uses the property of electric switches status --on or off-- property (did you notice that this is coming from my previous experience of reading the CODE book?), and then uses it to create "algebra". This is an exciting model for our attained generality, but it is a stereotype restricted to specific problem.
You can see that the number of experiences are less, but we are seeing pattern of generality, we may expect it to become bright later by many experiences. The major data to store is that, when we deal to solve any particular problem, we need to see the elementary property and use it to create new math, thus to solve in a higher general way. I am sure we can use it later in our Mission Immortality problems, but it is also open to use in solving other problems. It is to be found on how the reasoning is going, it seems to be crude, blurry, but that seems to be the way. Be ready to fight problems as immortal warriors. Anything against or for is welcome.
Old Post: As I have already explained on how I am observing our brain to be comparing different experiences to find common share and thus tending to find generality (See: Generality), now I have found my brain to have found a new pattern in experiences tending towards generality.
Let me give some of the experiences I had before coming to the new generality; this is the extract from William Rowan Hamilton's letter to Sydney$_1$:
To Sydney Sep.16, 1828: ..The idea of Number is derived from that power of abstraction and comparison which some have thought to be the distinguishing faculty of our species. It is by this power that we come to consider different individuals similar, and to denote them by a common name, and thus acquire the idea of a plural and a group, containing more or fewer members. A father, for example has a name for each of his children. He calls, perhaps, one Alfred, another Henry, another George; but a stranger, who sees these children at play, without knowing or earing for their names, will call them all boys; and if you ask him how many, he will answer three. He would have made the same reply had you inquired the number of horses in a field, where Selim, Buoephalus, and Pegasus were grazing and thus, while the word boys or horse, like every other plural, denotes a first abstraction, by which Alfred is compared to George, or Selim to Buoephalus, the term three is the mark of a second and more refined generalisation, by which the group of boys is compared with the group of horses, and the one group pronounced to be similar to the other, as containing neither more or fewer individuals...The familiar thought that numbers are common in everything is reflected above in a wonderful analogical manner. Numbers...the sounds, are the properties existing in everything. Numbers represent the higher generality, and whatever you do with them applies to everything, this suggests on why math is powerful and the best medium to attain bigger generalities. We can use this experience to find generalities; if similar properties is found in many, and if that property is taken, and then if we produce mathematics, it applies to everything which have that property. You see color is found in everything, so one can use this property as the element and make entire new math; similarly we can have atom-math, metaphor-math. Metaphor-math is amusing, where you can see language itself to be full of metaphors; every sound we make is a metaphor used to represent something; and this metaphor is the property like color which creates a new mathematics; just to mention, another amusing pattern, you can see that the way you use sounds to express something gives new ways of exploring the same in an analogical way, thus the many expressions you know, the better able you will be to find generality. This expression analogy seems to be the way I have used to reach generality.
I was excited when my brain connected the data of Boolean, yeah that Boolean, the one who is known with Boolean "Algebra", you can make it Boolean Math now (if possibly we may obtain entire set later). You can notice that Boolean Algebra or our Boolean Math uses the property of electric switches status --on or off-- property (did you notice that this is coming from my previous experience of reading the CODE book?), and then uses it to create "algebra". This is an exciting model for our attained generality, but it is a stereotype restricted to specific problem.
You can see that the number of experiences are less, but we are seeing pattern of generality, we may expect it to become bright later by many experiences. The major data to store is that, when we deal to solve any particular problem, we need to see the elementary property and use it to create new math, thus to solve in a higher general way. I am sure we can use it later in our Mission Immortality problems, but it is also open to use in solving other problems. It is to be found on how the reasoning is going, it seems to be crude, blurry, but that seems to be the way. Be ready to fight problems as immortal warriors. Anything against or for is welcome.
$_1$ The extract is from the public domain book Life of Sir William Rowan Hamilton
The words in italics represent the words with some letters missing and to which I have added the appropriate letter, if felt any other suitable word, please comment below. The words are underlined by me; underlines were not present in the letter.
The words in italics represent the words with some letters missing and to which I have added the appropriate letter, if felt any other suitable word, please comment below. The words are underlined by me; underlines were not present in the letter.