Author Topic: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited  (Read 3697 times)

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« on: January 24, 2020, 07:14:12 AM »
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.

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2020, 08:18:57 PM »
Hi,

The task was to create a Grammar of Language.

step 1:
          We step outside of the box and give/make/describe (the Basics of) the Consciousness.
           /pages 1 - 8(thing, connections, event, ...), page 12(time)/

There is no human consciousness, animal consciousness or artificial consciousness. Consciousness is pretty simple thing. The more complex is a system the more simple it behaves. Neural networks will be the building material of "thing", "connection", "event",...

step 2:
          "Natural numbers"(p. 9), "Simple sentence"(p. 13) and so on are just examples of a Consciousness at work.





page 11 reads (at the bottom):

 ...
 * There is no Language by itself/(per se).
 * One's "thinking"/consciousness is the same in every "area".




The "paper" in (the Terms of) Consciousness part is a pure Guesswork. Important aspects of Consciousness are not covered or messed up. But these are little problems.



Well, I guess that that is it.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2020, 10:07:55 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2020, 06:10:37 AM by waive15 »

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2020, 02:31:21 AM »
Hi,

John read'' book.

Here " read'' " is a verb but it may be seen as a Non_Genitive_Connection, the 1st of which is a thing named "John" and the 2nd of which is a thing named "book".

---

4 is' even therefore it is' divisible by 2.

Here "therefore" is an adverb but it may be seen as a Connection_with_order/direction(which one is not important for now), the 1st of which is the clause/event "4 is' even" and the 2nd of which is the clause/event "it is' divisible by 2".
/"therefore" is an adverb(conjunctive) according to dictionary(dot)com and wiktionary(dot)org/

---

In Conditionals there are 1st clause/event and 2nd clause/event, so a Connection_with_order/direction is needed.

---

John and cat

Here "and" is a conjunction but it may be seen as a Connection_without_order/direction which connects Things named "John" and "cat".

---

John is' sitting and reading.

Here "and" is a conjunction but it may be seen as a Connection_without_order/direction which connects the clause/event "John is' sitting" and the clause/event "John is' reading".

---

Preposition (a Thing divides space into subspaces/Places(Tings) (named Prepositions and other))


John (is') with cat; Cat of John (is') under table

"With" and "of" are difficult prepositions because: "with" is a place in Non_Genitive_is (0d space) and "of" is a place in Genitive_has (0d space). There are troubles with "with" and "of": Who are the Dividers? Where are the Places?

Cat (is') under table

Here "under" is a place (subspace) in 3d space and Table is the Divider.

On top of that Non_Genitive_is connects the Subject and the Place (Preposition).

---

A piece of string has length of 2,34 metres.

Here "2,34 m" is the length of the string but it may be seen as a Connection_without_order/direction which connects three things/connections_without_order/direction:

1st connects two things : (1/a) metre and (1/a) metre

2nd connects three things: (1/a) tenth of a metre and (1/a) tenth of a metre and (1/a) tenth of metre

3rd connects four things: (1/a) hundredth of a metre and (1/a) hundredth of a metre and (1/a) hundredth of a metre and (1/a) hundredth of a metre

So from one side ("Outside") the String is a Thing and from the other side ("Inside") the String is a Connection/Space which connects/contains other things.


5 miles per hour

From one side ("Outside") The Hour is a Thing and from the other side ("Inside") the Hour is a Connection_without_order/direction which connects 5 things/miles.
{
{In the examples above "side" is used because "sounds" better. "Side" does not reflect relations there.
{(see Notes)


========
Notes:

There is "is"(be) in language. But actually there are 4 of them "is"-s:

1st : is'                       (the Quality/State of being of a Thing)
2nd: Genitive_is''         (the Definition)
3rd: Non_Genitive_is''  (                    )
4th: is ('', ''', '''', ...)     (the Equivalence)

Unfortunately I often don't know which it is - Genitive_is'' or is'' (Equivalence). is' doesn't give much trouble. Non_Genitive_is'' is invisible.

---

* Equivalence "gives" SIDES (of Thing).

* Genitive-ness "gives" LEVELS (for Things).

* ... {what Non_Genitive-ness and Connection_without_order/direction "give" 
=====

So we have Connection(-s) which is/are named differently according to what it/they connect(-s).


Thank you and have a nice day.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2020, 10:38:54 AM by waive15 »

Offline Rock100

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2020, 08:15:08 PM »
> 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.

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2020, 05:43:34 AM »
Hi, Rock100,

Thank you for you comment. I am just playing the role of the sidekick/wingman: I go wrong - you go right.

Offline Rock100

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2020, 11:26:14 AM »
> 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.

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2020, 12:14:10 AM »
Hi, Rock100,

Thank you for your reply.
It doesn't matter if the things somebody writes or says are wrong or right - somebody will make them right if they are wrong. The point is that Things remain Things and their Qualities (True/False) remain their Qualities and so on. Consciousness works exactly in the same way when produces true/right or false/wrong results. Thinking/Consciousness is detained/restrained by design.

The aim was on building blocks of Consciousness. Some guesses have been made. There are mistakes.

The questions are:

* Is The Kernel complete?

* Is It recursive/self-descriptive (is there embedding in It)?

* Are all connections in It Independent (is there a connection(-s) which is/are a combination of other connections)?

* ...

The next step is to make The Kernel live. This is easier than one may/would think.

Thank you and have a nice day.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2020, 01:14:27 AM by waive15 »

Offline Rock100

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2020, 01:18:54 AM »
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.

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2020, 09:41:12 PM »
Hi,

The link to the "paper" has expired. The new link is

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

Thank you.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 04:11:02 AM by waive15 »

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2020, 02:15:28 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2020, 03:55:00 AM by waive15 »

Offline panini

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2020, 09:03:03 AM »
I have just a few comments on this. The main comment is that a set of words provides no information. A set of propositions would, especially if structured  according to a discernable logic. I can make a lot of assumptions about what you intended based on the vertical lines and big dots that you include, but conveying the ideas as a set of clear English-language propositions would eliminate a lot of probably incorrect guessing. For example, you seem to have two fundamental concepts, “things” and “connections”. But “connection” is not a first-order concept, it is an n-th order concept that articulates “identity”. In other words, things have an identity, what is an identity? Eventually it includes “connections” (except that connection is a bit vague, and “relation” is less vague – “function” is too precise and it is wrong). You can’t subsume “state” or “quality” under “connection”, which is what you seem to be doing. “Change” is not a conceptual sister of state, it is a daughter of state (a change is being in different states at different times). The rest of that cluster needs much more work and elaboration. BTW there isn’t a good powerpoint-compatible graphic metaphor for expressing logical relations between concepts: with tight formatting you might be able to convey a tree of depth 7 or so, but you need a really wide piece of paper.

Event and simple sentence are just haging there: what do they have to do with anything? What you’ve missed is a fundmental concept: consciousness. You need a chapter on consciousness (which has some relationship to the previous stuff, namely existence). “Event” is not a self-standing primitive, and it has some relationship to “action”. Very roughly, an event probably is an action as perceived by a consciousness. Thus if you drop an egg, this is just one event, and not an uncountable infinity of sub-events. The transition to “grammatical case” is really jumping the gun.

Offline K2

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: 00
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2020, 10:30:09 AM »
Some quotes of Eliezer Wiesel sound in order. Check them out and see how they work into your project.

K2

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2020, 03:25:46 AM »
Hi, K2,

Elie Wiesel was born in the same year 1928 as my step grand mother. I am sorry that he had to live through these horrors. I read his thoughts in:

 https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1049.Elie_Wiesel

They reflect his perilous early life. I agree with him that “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

Today we live more or less hedonistic life so "The People is brave but the people are coward." is more true. The vast majority is Neutral/indifferent.

I lived the 70-ies. I remember Pol Pot and Ieng Sary, Idi Amin, Augusto Pinochet, Papa Doc Duvalier and so on and so on up until now.

“Only the dead have seen the end of war.”
Plato

---
"...

  'No, an older one. Then a third, and a fourth ... I keep giving them change. And today I went to check the cash box, and there, instead of money - cut-up paper. They hit the buffet for a hundred and nine roubles.'       
  'Ai-yai-yai!' the artiste exclaimed. 'But can they have thought those were real bills? I can't admit the idea that they did it knowingly.'       
  The barman took a somehow hunched and anguished look around him, but said nothing.        'Can they be crooks?' the magician asked worriedly of his visitor.
  'Can there be crooks among the Muscovites?'       
  The barman smiled so bitterly in response that all doubts fell away: yes, there were crooks among the Muscovites.       
  'That is mean!' Woland was indignant. 'You're a poor man ... You are a poor man?'       
  The barman drew his head down between his shoulders, making it evident that he was a poor man.               'How much have you got in savings?'       
  The question was asked in a sympathetic tone, but even so such a question could not but be acknowledged as indelicate. The barman faltered.       
  'Two hundred and forty-nine thousand roubles in five savings banks,' a cracked voice responded from the neighbouring room, `and two hundred ten-rouble gold pieces at home under the floor.'       
  The barman became as if welded to his tabouret.       
  'Well, of course, that's not a great sum,' Woland said condescendingly to his visitor, 'though, as a matter of fact, you have no need of it anyway. When are you going to die?'       
  Here the barman became indignant.       
  'Nobody knows that and it's nobody's concern,' he replied.       
  'Sure nobody knows,' the same trashy voice came from the study. The binomial theorem, you might think! He's going to die in nine months, next February, of liver cancer, in the clinic of the First Moscow State University, in ward number four.'       
  The barman's face turned yellow.       
  'Nine months...' Woland calculated pensively. Two hundred and forty-nine thousand... rounding it off that comes to twenty-seven thousand a month... Not a lot, but enough for a modest life ... Plus those gold pieces... '       
  'He won't get to realize the gold pieces,' the same voice mixed in, turning the barman's heart to ice. 'On Andrei Fokich's demise, the house will immediately be torn down, and the gold will be sent to the State Bank.'       
  'And I wouldn't advise you to go to the clinic,' the artiste went on.

..."

The Master and Margarita

https://libcom.org/files/eben002_mastermargarita_pevear.pdf

page 98, CHAPTER 18. Hapless Visitors

We know who is who. That makes  the scene sarcastic. One of my favorite scenes.
The Master and Margarita is a book about POWER. On that book(and the film of 2005) I studied Russian.

---

I just wanted to understand English tenses and Russian grammatical cases. Nothing more. Then go to work. Instead Pandora's box opened.  Now I understand more than I can handle. I intentionally don't learn French nor German so I can watch TV without thoughts entering my head.

I am not a scientist, I don't care about truth, projects nor grants.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6EG8RAdclE

Condoleeza Rice: Maybe I will be able to give an interview in Russian, but it is very difficult without the practice. In your language you have these awful cases, they are so difficult. It's difficult to speak without mistakes, but thank you very much and thank you./rough translation, not mine/

Rice is smart. She has studied in good schools. And even there they haven't told her that English has the same Grammatical cases as Russian. English and Russian have the same grammar but people insist on different grammars.


I am sorry, I got "a little" carried away.

Thank you for the attention and I wish you a nice day.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2020, 04:26:13 AM by waive15 »

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: simple sentence. zero dimensional space /// revisited
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2020, 08:16:01 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2020, 09:22:27 PM by waive15 »