# The F.E.D. Psychohistorical Equations **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 15, 2013, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520 "2013-07-15T01:11:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MiguelDetonacciones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MiguelDetonacciones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MiguelDetonacciones)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/1 "2013-07-15T01:11:26Z")
> [@Hari Seldon's "Psychohistory"-is It Feasible?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hari-seldons-psychohistory-is-it-feasible/129256/75): > > Here is the first “equation” above > > **t+1** : **X** \*\*^2\*\* = **X** **x** **X** **=** **X** **+** **DX** = **X** **+** **q\*\*\*\*XX** = **X** + **Y** > > [syntax “healed” by M.D.] > \*\* > t+1\*\* is obvious. > > Can you rigorously define “ **x** ”? > > Equating it to X^2 makes it look like standard multiplication, though I’d think matrix multiplication would work better, but it is far from clear how the multiplicative factor of X is converted to the various additive groups. > > Thus my request for a rigorous definition of this operation. … 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](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](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- **N** atural meta-number is redundant. [The principle of “additive idempotency”, or of “unquantifiability”].” **( qn ) [qn + qn = qn]**. **Rule 7**. The Addition of one “meta- **N** atural meta-number” to a different one _ **does not reduce** _ to any single “meta- **N** atural 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 **q** ualifiers multiplies ontology [M.D.: i.e., adds new ontology [represented by additional ontological **q** ualifiers, 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 **q** ualifiers”, as primitives of this axioms-system. Rule **8** so defines “ontological multiplication”, or “qualitative multiplication” of “category meta-numbers”, or of “ontological-categorial **q** ualifiers”, 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**. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/2 "2013-07-15T01:26:57Z")
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.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=136343) ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/3 "2013-07-15T01:27:58Z")
Okay then. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/4 "2013-07-15T01:29:08Z")
Ontologies are epistemological errors. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/5 "2013-07-15T01:44:49Z")
How do you define “additive idempotency” since you seem think it equates to “unquantifiability” but [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence) defines idempotency as follows: > [@](#): > > **Idempotence** ([/](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)[ˌ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[aɪ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[d](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[ɨ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[m](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[ˈ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[p](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[oʊ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[t](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[ən](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[/](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English) [_ **EYE** -dəm- **POH** -təns_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key)) is the property of certain operations in [mathematics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics) and [computer science](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science), that can be applied multiple times without changing the result beyond the initial application. The concept of idempotence arises in a number of places in [abstract algebra](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_algebra) (in particular, in the theory of [projectors](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projector_%28linear_algebra%29) and [closure operators](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_operator)) and [functional programming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming) (in which it is connected to the property of [referential transparency](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_transparency_%28computer_science%29)). So as was so often the case in your [closed thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=136343), the terms you use seem to either have no discernible meaning or one that is self-contradictory. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/6 "2013-07-15T01:49:09Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > How do you define “additive idempotency” since you seem think it equates to “unquantifiability” but [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence) defines idempotency as follows: So as was so often the case in your [closed thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=136343), the terms you use seem to either have no discernible meaning or one that is self-contradictory. It’s _contra_-Boolean algebra, where every day is Opposite Day. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/7 "2013-07-15T01:51:10Z")
I feel a pit thread coming on. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/8 "2013-07-15T02:12:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/9 "2013-07-15T02:18:22Z")
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.) 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/10 "2013-07-15T02:19:43Z")
Does this have anything to do with fizzbin? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/11 "2013-07-15T03:18:31Z")
I think I speak for everyone when I say, “bwuh?” ---
**Author:** ![MiguelDetonacciones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MiguelDetonacciones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MiguelDetonacciones)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/12 "2013-07-15T04:07:25Z")
> [@](#): > > 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- **N** atural meta-Number”, and which is built on the set of standard “ **N** atural Numbers”, usually denoted by **N** , where **N** **=**** {1, 2, 3, …} **, but which appear to be, qualitatively, the exact opposite of their corresponding “** N**atural” Numbers.” > > [mis-quote “healed” by M.D.] > What … is … “opposite” of the “ **N** atural” numbers? 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 “ **N** atural” Numbers. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/13 "2013-07-15T04:11:14Z")
Did you miss my question? Here, let me restate it. > [@deltasigma](#): > > How do you define “additive idempotency” since you seem think it equates to “unquantifiability” but [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence) defines idempotency as follows: > > > [@](#): > > > > **Idempotence** ([/](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)[ˌ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[aɪ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[d](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[ɨ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[m](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[ˈ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[p](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[oʊ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[t](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[ən](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)[/](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English) [_ **EYE** -dəm- **POH** -təns_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key)) is the property of certain operations in [mathematics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics) and [computer science](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science), that can be applied multiple times without changing the result beyond the initial application. The concept of idempotence arises in a number of places in [abstract algebra](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_algebra) (in particular, in the theory of [projectors](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projector_%28linear_algebra%29) and [closure operators](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_operator)) and [functional programming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming) (in which it is connected to the property of [referential transparency](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_transparency_%28computer_science%29)). ] > > So as was so often the case in your [closed thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=136343), the terms you use seem to either have no discernible meaning or one that is self-contradictory. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/14 "2013-07-15T04:31:57Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Ontologies are epistemological errors. 😕 But, they recapitulate phylogeny. Of course, so does coffee. ---
**Author:** ![MiguelDetonacciones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MiguelDetonacciones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MiguelDetonacciones)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/15 "2013-07-15T04:42:07Z")
> [@](#): > > How do you define “additive idempotentcy”… ? … > > How does it equates to “unquantifiability” … > > [quote “healed” by M.D.] 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**. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/16 "2013-07-15T04:51:28Z")
> [@MiguelDetonacciones](#): > > . . .which breaks out of any closure of its “meta-number” space, by generating qualitatively different qualifiers, not extant among the “factors” of the multiplication. . . LOL. This is complete gibberish. To the pit with you. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/17 "2013-07-15T05:03:59Z")
[As promised](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16474003#post16474003) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/18 "2013-07-15T15:11:02Z")
**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? ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/19 "2013-07-16T01:23:31Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Ontologies are epistemological errors. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 But, they recapitulate phylogeny. > . You’re thinking of a different word: Ontogenies. He was a Greek mathematician. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520/20 "2013-07-16T01:45:08Z")
> [@Maserschmidt](#): > > You’re thinking of a different word: Ontogenies. > > He was a Greek mathematician. Who would grant you ln(π) wishes (evil bastard) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-e-d-psychohistorical-equations/663520.md?page=2)