Hi there,

What is true and what is false I couldn't tell. I am promoting "simple sentence. zero dimensional space" because I like it and not because it is mine or true.


La guerre! C’est une chose trop grave pour la confier à des militaires.  /Georges Clemenceau/(copy-paste)
War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.
War is too important a matter to be left to the military.

If we paraphrase: The Language is too important a matter to be left to the grammarians.

I took a piece of advice: "it would be to narrow your focus to more specific questions/analyses, rather than trying to look at the big picture and solve it all at once. Science usually progresses in small stops, bottom up, not top down."
/thank you for the advice, D./


I am a YouTube fan.
If someone wishes, he or she can go to YouTube// Is Anything Real?//  Vsauce
Go strait to 7:18 minute.
One will hear about Charles Sanders Peirce and Phaneron. Both Charles Sanders Peirce and his Phaneron are on/in Wikipedia.


Now let's go to the "paper" on page 8. It reads:


Simple sentence

 * So called Real and nonReal stuff/things are identical.
 * Event is a unit of "Reality".
 * Simple sentence is a unit of "Language".
 * "Language" is a part of "Reality".
 * Simple sentence is an Event and consists of events.
...

So, if you think that the table in your room is REAL and/but not a thought of yours, well... I can/nobody can/ not make you think otherwise. If for someone TABLE is REAL but "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." is UNREAL - well I am helpless.

Some things we don't like but they works(Socrates, Plato, Charles Sanders Peirce, ...).

Table is just as IMAGINARY as "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - no matter true or false are they.


People, I'll say it again:

War is too important a matter to be left to the military.

I wouldn't trust myself if I were you.

/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA-8PwObSPA
/

Thank you and have a nice day.

Hi,

{ There is no Language by itself  -  just working Consciousness.
{ So called Real and Non_Real things are identical.
{ Event is a unit of "Reality".
{ Simple sentence is a unit of "Language".
{ "Language" is a part of "Reality".
{ Simple sentence is an Event and consists of events.
{
{ "."  stands for Thing.
{ "=" stands for Equivalence and "not=" stands for the negative of it.
{
{ "0d" stands for Zero dimensional space, "1d" for One dimensional space and so on.
{Connection is (Genitive_is) Space.
{Space is (Genitive_is) Connection.
{Connection/Space is not a thing to/for the things it connects/contains.
{
{" Verb'  " stands for one-valent_verb/intransitive verb.
{" Verb'' " stands for two-valent_verb/transitive verb.
{
{ Connection         -         Thing          -           Equivalence
{ Connection is (Genitive_is) Thing, Thing is (Genitive_is) Connection(called Equivalence, which is a Connection_without_order/direction).
{                                        order/direction                       
{
{ Complete           -         Complementary     -      Complement


//Grammar

* Thing, Connection_over_1, Equivalence

* Connection
   * Equivalence - a Connection_without_order/direction      {aka Thing
   * Connection???(Change)_over_0/1                                {aka Creation/Annihilation
   * Connection_over_1                                                     {aka Quality; Verb' is Quality
   * Connection_without_order/direction                             {aka Set
   * Connection_over_2_with_order/direction                      {aka Verb''; Verb'' one level below is Verb'
      * Genitive_has                                                           {inlay (embed)/vlagat', vlozhit' (in Russian)
      * Genitive_is                                                              {define
      * Non_Genitive_is                                                      {outlay (lay away)/razlagat', razlozhit' (in Russian)
      * Non_Genitive_has                                                   { ...

//The Kernel

* Dynamic (Change) and Static (No Change) are Complementary.
    { Thing/=              ;     Connection, = as Connection
    {     .  / =

    * Static (No Change)
       * Equivalence and Connection (p. 4) are Complementary.
       * Connection_without_order/direction and Connection_with_order/direction are Complementary.
       * The Things in Connection_without_order/direction are Complementary.
       * Genitive and Non_Genitive are Complementary.
       * Genitive_is and Genitive_has are Complementary.
       * Non_Genitive_is and Non_Genitive_has are Complementary.
       * The second in Connection_with_order/direction is Complement.
       * Connection_over_1 (Thing) {, Connection_over_1 is (Genitive_is) Thing
       {                                    order/direction
   * Dynamic (Change)
     
             
        =          A --> B      (Changing point of view
    /A = B/     B --> A       (of the Observer


        .           0 --> 1      (Creation     : (A)_not_is' --> (A)_is'
    Thing        1 --> 0      (Annihilation: (A)_is' --> (A)_not_is'

//The Kernel

* Order/Direction                          { ...

* Thing_without_order/direction(-s) {0d_Thing

* Thing_with_order/direction(-s)     { Non_0d_Thing: 1d_Thing; 2d_Thing; 3d_Thing; ...

* Name                                       { Thing

* Observer                                   { Thing

* Event                                        { Equivalence (of Observer and Connection)

* Simple_sentence                         { Event

* "Simple_sentence"                       { Name

* "Time"                                        { 0d (Non_Genitive_is, Genitive_has), 1d

* Grammatical case                        { Connection

* Preposition                                  { Thing; Connection

* Conjunction                                 { Connection; ...

* ...

//Grammar


========
Notes:

* Is The Kernel recursive/self-descriptive (is there embedding in it)?! Is it complete?! Are all connections in it Independent (is there a connection which is a combination of other connections)?!
{
{ When it is said "A and B are Complementary" this means that a Connection_without_order/direction connects them.
{ So there are:
{
{  * Dynamic and Static are Complementary.
{  * (in Static) Equivalence and Connection (p. 4) are Complementary.
{  * (in Connection (p. 4)) Connection_without_order/direction and Connection_with_order/direction are Complementary.
{  * ...

* Continuous (1d, 2d, 3d, ...) and Discrete (0d) are Complementary.
{"~ infinite", without borders, without direction(-s), ... /// "~ finite", with borders, with direction(-s), ...
{                                               with direction(-s), ... ///                                without direction(-s), ...
{                                                         for the aspect of the Verb (as a thing)
{ This has to be in The Kernel but to keep it light this will stay in the Notes.

------

{"C" stands for Connection (of A and B)

* A = C, B = C              / Equivalence   A  =  B
* A = C, B not= C         / Genitive        A has B
* A not= C, B = C         / Genitive        B   is  A
* A not= C, B not= C    / Non_Genitive; Connection without order/direction

------

* Non_Genitive_has is a tricky one. Probably one can live with and without it.
* Similar trickiness one can see in Dynamic (Change). Words are omitted  on purpose.

------

* One metaphor: Let’s draw a circle. Top half of it is Connection and Bottom half of it is Equivalence. Let’s move Bottom half up and Top half down so they touch each other in one point. This point is Thing.
Thing/Equivalence is “OUT_Connection"("OUTSIDE") and Thing/Connection is “IN_Connection"("INSIDE"). The Thing connects these two, the Thing is made of these two.

========


https://gofile.io/?c=qsKKOl


Have a nice day.

> So we have Connection(-s) which is/are called differently according to
> what it/they connect(-s).
I believe that thinking in terms of semi-groups and binary operations might probably appear to be more useful. At least it is true at this very moment for the formal languages. On the other hand no one really succeeded in describing a real (or more or less complex formal language) with algebra. But I bet you will end up with developing a kind of your own algebra (unlikely) or establish a new set of entities and binary (or even higher order??) operations for the existing group theory.

> I go wrong - you go right.
I do not go anywhere – I stand. And by the way, it looks like you consider the questions that are supposed to be dealt with context-sensitive grammars (type 1 by Chomsky hierarchy). If you succeed, I will have the honor to claim I somehow know a person who can really make use of them right. They say one needs the Turing machine to build a lexer for a real language (Chomsky type 0 grammar in fact). Literally, this means the modern algebra is nearly useless for describing a real language. So, I will get back in a millennium or two to check your progress. Please, do not give up.

I was not talking about right or wrong -- I am not qualified or competent enough. The thing looks like a fun entertainment that may or may not develop into something more serious. I have not even analyzed it, sorry, but I have noticed something (among other things) that makes me think you have come close to the problem that is unlikely to be solved in the nearest future by existing methods. I have tried to understand what you do and ended up with translation it into something that I believe looks like I already know. But my knowledge is rather limited and incomplete and is not enough to understand you in my (translated and probably wrong) terms. So, it is unlikely I understand your alternative (for me) view. I have just given up. But I envy you. Your recreational activity here looks much more intellectual than my “consonants before the long e” -- palatalized or not?? problem.

Hi,

I hope that this link will last.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1MAFRnPzsWdAR8kE07kTQsRlysTux17rE

I'll try to make it clearer:
* the "paper" is some sort of a theory of Consciousness and not exactly Grammar;
* there is not Language by itself but Consciousness at work;
* the terms here have different meaning, only for the theory.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Some quotes of Eliezer Wiesel sound in order. Check them out and see how they work into your project.

K2

Hi, panini,

I missed your cool reasoning/healthy suspicion.

Let's pretend for the sake of simplicity that I wrote that "paper". And I start answering questions:

"... For example, you seem to have two fundamental concepts, “things” and “connections”."

Yes. These are undefined terms. Thing and Connection/Space have not a Definition - they are Primal.
/this means that I don't know what Thing is or what Connection/Space is. One is made that way(as a machine) "to operate with"/"see" Things and Connections. One "thinks" Things and Connections/Spaces (Inst. case); Connections are different types (Static): Equivalence, Connection_without_order, Genitive_is, Genitive_has, Non_Genitive_is(?Non_Genitive_has?) + Connection_over_1 (Quality) + Thing.

---
One fails to see aforementioned Connections as examples of 0d space and fails to see 1d space, 2d space and 3d space as Connections.
---
* Why did I write it?

I went to/in school. And went out with more questions than I entered. The worst language classes were on "my own language". I couldn't stand it.

I needed a grammar to understand English tenses and Russian grammatical cases. I did not need "a true grammar", I needed a good grammar - short and simple.


* What does it mean?

Grammarians use graphs, maybe they must try spaces. The Observer/The Speaker has to be in the structure of the Sentence. Equivalence between Observer/Speaker and the Verb/Connection is a move to achieve that ( Equivalence as a connection). Then the Grammatical Mood makes sense.



* Is it true?

Nothing I believe is true.



* Why is it in that format(handwritten and messy, and incomplete and so on)

I use it but someone has to prove it.   


---

Let's take as example [Apple is red].

[Apple is red] is a "Simple sentence" which is a Name (which consists of Names) which is a Thing. "Simple sentences" are just encodings made by some rules (different rules of encoding means the different languages that people speak). "Apple" is a name of a Thing, "is" is a Name of a Quality (Connection_over_1 thing) and "red" is a Quality too. In some languages "is" is missed, in other languages the verb ending of "is" is attached to "red". But everyone has just one "mental picture" of a red apple (the Meaning. By the way the Meaning is the place where most interesting events/"processes" take place. And a lot of naming goes on too).
The Simple sentence(is just "to top of the pyramid")(the Event: Apple is red) consists of the Observer/Speaker which is Equivalent to a Connection (Non_Genitive_is or Connection_without_order) which consists of the Meaning ("the mental picture of the red apple"(which is placed appropriately in 1d space or 0d space (Time) - many embeddings/events are here)) and "Apple is red" (the Name/"Simple sentence").
And everything above is made of Things and different Connections.


Thank you and have a nice day.