briand@infmx.UUCP (brian donat) (06/19/89)
Please feel free to hack away at the following:
Contextual Logic Theorem 1: (Fundamental Theorem)
There exists a fundamental context which contains one (or a
finite set of) fundamental truth(s).
Contextual Logic Theorem 2: (Truths Theorem)
Given any set of contexts such that they are stacked whereby
upper contexts map to lower, there is an exclusive and
finite set of 'truths' as one maps downward through these
contexts.
Alternatively, as one maps upward, the number of truths
becomes limitless.
Contextual Logic Theorem 3: (Evolutionary Theorem)
Given any single context, sets of truths may be defined
above it such that those truths define new contexts.
Contextual Logic Theorem 4: (Matching Truth Theorem)
Contexts may overlap, either partially or totally if one is
at a higher level than the other or if they are lateral to
each other.
Overlapping Truths are an indication of Ultimate Truth at a
more fundamental context.
Contextual Logic Theorem 5: (Limited Truth Theorem)
Laterally generated contexts may conflict or negate either
partially or totally in that truths in one may deny truths
in another.
Contextual Logic Theorem 6: (Ultimate Truth Theorem)
The farther a context is removed from the most fundamental
context, the greater the probability that its set of truths
contain truths which are not ultimately true.
Contextual Logic Theorem 7: (Chaos Theorem)
The farther a context is removed from the most fundamental
context, the greater the lack of ability to make predictions
based upon movements in the fundamental context.
Corollary to Theorem 7:
The farther a context is removed in an upward direction from
a more fundamental context, the greater the lack of ability
to make predictions based upon movements in the lower
or more fundamental context.
Contextual Logic Theorem 8: (Confusion Theorem)
Contexts which are incongruent in that they are separated by
levels or lateral generation, may be compared and may
contain equivalent truths, but the act of comparing such
contexts will ultimately lead to confusion and the
generation of truths which are ultimately meaningless in
that those truths will not be mapable to the ultimate truths
of the fundamental context.
Meaningless Truths may exist.
Contextual Logic Theorem 9: (Larger Context Theorem)
An upwardly generated context may include all or part of any
other context(s).
Contextual Logic Theorem 10: (Functional Theorem)
A context is a set and a relation, such that truths are
defined (ultimate or otherwise).
Contextual Logic Theorem 11: (Contextual Truth)
A context is true in and of itself and therefore may define
a truth in an alternate context.
-- brian
/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\
| Brian L. Donat Informix Software, Inc. Menlo Park, CA |
| ... infmx!briand |
| |
\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (06/20/89)
briand@infmx.UUCP (brian donat) wrote: > Please feel free to hack away at the following: > Contextual Logic Theorem 1: (Fundamental Theorem) > There exists a fundamental context which contains one (or a finite set of) > fundamental truth(s). If this is a theorem, what's it derived from? If it's an axiom, that's OK as long as "context", "truth" and "fundamental" are recognized as undefined terms. > Contextual Logic Theorem 2: (Truths Theorem) > Given any set of contexts such that they are stacked whereby upper contexts > map to lower, there is an exclusive and finite set of 'truths' as one maps > downward through these contexts. What's "stacked" mean? "Map"? "Exclusive"? "Maps downward"?... and so on through the rest of that posting; it is not at all clear what's being used as a technical term and what as common usage. If all these words are taken as common usage, then these statements about them are gibberish (try them on a random Joe Q. Public serving behind a Macdonalds counter and you'd be taken for a Moonie). If they're terms of art, Brian owes us an explanation as to which are primitive and which defined. If you're calling a text a contribution to "logic", you're claiming to be involved in the same kind of praxis as every logician since Aristotle; start with some undefined primitives, define some new terms on top of them, provide informal explanations of why the game might matter, and prove things about its formal structure. I can see nothing recognizable as "logic" in Brian's posting. -- Jack Campin * Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND. 041 339 8855 x6045 wk 041 556 1878 ho INTERNET: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk USENET: jack@glasgow.uucp JANET: jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack