The F.E.D. Psychohistorical Equations

Great Debates
1

Eight of the core rules of the F.E.D. “rules-system”, or “axioms-system”, for their “First Psychohistorical Algebra”, which answer your questions, were given in a letter dd. 09 June 2009, by Aoristos Dyosphainthos –
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Correspondence_files/Letter17-06JUN2009.pdf
– and a fuller list, by Hermes de Nemores, in a “Preface” to an essay by “J2Y”, dated 20 February of this year [see p. 2] –
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Briefs_files/Hermes_de_Nemores,F.E.D._Preface_to_New_Guest_Author_E.D._Brief_5,revision,posted_20FEB2013.pdf

However, it is the last three “rules of purely-qualitative calculation” that address your questions most directly –

Rule 6. "Self-Addition [or “doubling”] of any “meta-Natural meta-number is redundant. [The principle of “additive idempotency”, or of “unquantifiability”].”

( qn ) [ qn + qn = qn ].

Rule 7. The Addition of one “meta-Natural meta-number” to a different one does not reduce to any single “meta-Natural meta-number” value.

( qj )( qk ) [ [ qj not equal to qk ] ==> [ there is no qx such that qj + qk = qx ] ].
Rule 8. [Mutual] Multiplication of ontological qualifiers multiplies ontology [ M.D.: i.e., adds new ontology [represented by additional ontological qualifiers, with higher subscript-index than those extant prior to the performance of the multiplication operation] ].

( qj )( qk )[ qj x qk = qk + qj+k ].

Rules 6 and 7 define “ontological addition”, or “qualitative addition” of “category meta-numbers”, or of “ontological-categorial qualifiers”, as primitives of this axioms-system.

Rule 8 so defines “ontological multiplication”, or “qualitative multiplication” of “category meta-numbers”, or of “ontological-categorial qualifiers”,

F.E.D. usually uses a “plus sign” with a box around it for “qualitative addition”, and ususally uses an “x” sign with a box around it for “multiplication of qualities” [of “qualifiers”], to distinguish each operation from the “+” and the “x” operations of ordinary, “purely quantitative arithmetics”.

For the example you cited, if we identify / assign / interpret X or qX to be represented by q1,

which F.E.D. signs by –

q1 [—> X = qX
– then, indeed –
X**^2** = X x X = X + DX = X + q****XX = X + Y
– just as –
q1^2 = q1 x q1 = q1 + q1+1 = q1 + q2
– and –
DX ** <—] Dq1 = q2**
– and –

Y <—] q2.

2

Can you translate this gobbledygook into real math and/or English?
Can you cite a non-pseudonymous source of information for contra-Boolean algebra?
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that there is anyone outside of yourself involved with the " Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica", other than the websites you are the sole spokesman for?

edited to add: This thread is a continuation of this GQ thread.

3

Okay then.

4

Ontologies are epistemological errors.

5

How do you define “additive idempotency” since you seem think it equates to “unquantifiability” but wikipedia defines idempotency as follows:

So as was so often the case in your closed thread, the terms you use seem to either have no discernible meaning or one that is self-contradictory.

6

It’s contra-Boolean algebra, where every day is Opposite Day.

7

I feel a pit thread coming on.

8

Page 2 of one of the links:

“The most rudimentary version of this dialectical calculus involves a new kind of number, which these texts characterize as “meta-Natural meta-Number”, and which is built on the set of standard “Natural Numbers”, usually denoted by N, where N s {1, 2, 3, …}, but which appear to be, qualitatively, the exact opposite of their corresponding “Natural” Numbers.”

What in the name of hell is the “opposite” of the natural numbers? A NASA count-down perhaps?

This is just the time-cube, only slight less so.

9

Maybe it means gay numbers since the opposite of natural numbers would have to be ‘unnatural numbers’ (and yes, I’m immediately signing myself up for a few weeks of diversity training.) :wink:

10

Does this have anything to do with fizzbin?

11

I think I speak for everyone when I say, “bwuh?”

12

The F.E.D. “First Psychohistorical Arithmetic”, NQ_, is the arithmetic of a space of “meta-numbers” aptly described as “unquantifiable [ontological] qualifiers”.

This is an opposite of the arithmetic of the space of “unqualified quantifiers” that is the “Natural” Numbers.

13

Did you miss my question? Here, let me restate it.

14

:confused: But, they recapitulate phylogeny.

Of course, so does coffee.

15

Later “Boolean arithmetic” features both “additive idempotentcy” and “multiplicative idempotentcy”, viz. –

1 + 1 = 1;

0 + 0 = 0;

and;

1 x 1 = 1;

0 x 0 = 0.

The F.E.D. “contra-Booelan arithmetic” for psychohistorical modeling also features “additive idempotentcy” –

qn + qn = qn

– but not “multiplicative idempotency”.
Instead, the F.E.D. “contra-Boolean arithmetic” features what F.E.D. calls “multiplicative meta-potentcy”, or “multiplicative hyper-potentcy”, which breaks out of any closure of its “meta-number” space, by generating qualitatively different qualifiers, not extant among the “factors” of the multiplication, and also added together with one of the factors, non-amalgamatively, to form “compounded [summed] qualifiers”, not extant among the factors, or in their space, NQ, thus producing a “strong negation” of Boole’s “fundamental law of [formal-logical] thought”, or “law of duality” –

x^2 = x

– which F.E.D. calls “the fundamental law of psychohistorical thought” –

x**^2 is qualitatively unequal to** x

– the “law” that makes this arithmetic “contra-Boolean”, and that gives it and its algebra their names –
qn x qn = qn + qn+n = qn + q2n, wherein q2n is qualitatively unequal to qn.

16

LOL. This is complete gibberish. To the pit with you.

17

As promised

18

MiguelDetonacciones, can you show any evidence at all that contra-Boolean algebra and/or the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica existed before you started talking about them?

19

You’re thinking of a different word: Ontogenies.

He was a Greek mathematician.

20

Who would grant you ln(π) wishes (evil bastard)