- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Hal Ruhl <hjr.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:07:34 -0700

Dear Juergen and Bruno:

Clearly I have a problem when I try to use mathematical terminology in

which I am not formally trained to explain my approach.

So here is an attempt to explain it in just a few normal words. My

"system" be it a FAS or not is modeled on the logistics equation process

not the equation itself.

Here is the cascade:

{Rules(String 0) + SD(0)} -> String 1;

{Rules(String 1) + SD(1)} -> String 2;

{Rules(String 2) + SD(2)} -> String 3;

etc.

"String 0" is like an axiom.

"Rules" define a cascade [universe] and is the entire rule set.

"String 0" contains the entire initial alphabet.

"SD(N) is the self-delimiter.

All the "Rules" apply to each "String N".

The cascade is considered to define a universe as opposed to imposing from

"outside" a restriction to "mathematical structure".

For this reason I prefer "Pattern N" instead of "String N".

The cascade is a self contained system. I call it a FAS because I believe

it meets the definition.

The cascade is initially assumed everywhere [each step and overall] single

valued and elegant = deterministic. As a result each "String N" is more

complex than String (N -1).

The assumption leads to a contradiction when "String N" exceeds the

complexity allowed by Chaitin. More information must be added to the

cascade for it to continue.

Add to this Godelian incompleteness and a touch of just plain "do not care"

as possible aspects of the Rules. The result is a succession of fresh

"String O" initiations to the cascade. Some cascades are sufficiently well

behaved to support SAS.

The cascade is modified by considering it to be an isomorphism and its

association with a particular pattern to be an isomorphic link. All

patterns as considered to exist simultaneously in infinite repetition in a

Superverse. The Rules act as a comparator mitigating isomorphic link

shifts between successor patterns.

The necessary gradients within the Superverse are provided and stirred by

the Superverse/Nothing alternation which is historyless and driven by an

incompleteness in both the Superverse and the Nothing.

I will expand my reading in logic to help my communication, but I believe

the above total Superverse be an infinite collection of "FAS" of all

complexities including those where the Rules are completely "do not care".

Hal

Received on Tue Apr 24 2001 - 17:24:11 PDT

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:07:34 -0700

Dear Juergen and Bruno:

Clearly I have a problem when I try to use mathematical terminology in

which I am not formally trained to explain my approach.

So here is an attempt to explain it in just a few normal words. My

"system" be it a FAS or not is modeled on the logistics equation process

not the equation itself.

Here is the cascade:

{Rules(String 0) + SD(0)} -> String 1;

{Rules(String 1) + SD(1)} -> String 2;

{Rules(String 2) + SD(2)} -> String 3;

etc.

"String 0" is like an axiom.

"Rules" define a cascade [universe] and is the entire rule set.

"String 0" contains the entire initial alphabet.

"SD(N) is the self-delimiter.

All the "Rules" apply to each "String N".

The cascade is considered to define a universe as opposed to imposing from

"outside" a restriction to "mathematical structure".

For this reason I prefer "Pattern N" instead of "String N".

The cascade is a self contained system. I call it a FAS because I believe

it meets the definition.

The cascade is initially assumed everywhere [each step and overall] single

valued and elegant = deterministic. As a result each "String N" is more

complex than String (N -1).

The assumption leads to a contradiction when "String N" exceeds the

complexity allowed by Chaitin. More information must be added to the

cascade for it to continue.

Add to this Godelian incompleteness and a touch of just plain "do not care"

as possible aspects of the Rules. The result is a succession of fresh

"String O" initiations to the cascade. Some cascades are sufficiently well

behaved to support SAS.

The cascade is modified by considering it to be an isomorphism and its

association with a particular pattern to be an isomorphic link. All

patterns as considered to exist simultaneously in infinite repetition in a

Superverse. The Rules act as a comparator mitigating isomorphic link

shifts between successor patterns.

The necessary gradients within the Superverse are provided and stirred by

the Superverse/Nothing alternation which is historyless and driven by an

incompleteness in both the Superverse and the Nothing.

I will expand my reading in logic to help my communication, but I believe

the above total Superverse be an infinite collection of "FAS" of all

complexities including those where the Rules are completely "do not care".

Hal

Received on Tue Apr 24 2001 - 17:24:11 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*