naitche

Is neither an argument or refutation.

I have been talking about the most basic laws of which the 'reality' of mathematics is built upon.

I didn't say the expectation is not real . Your Objective is not 'realized', is it? It is still the objective. The purpose served. Its subjective only in relation to... or relevance to...

By definition, and manifestation, or in a defined /specified totatality each is, or can be viewed, in the Objective. By definition, the words field or structure are objective. The mean(ing) is defined. Limited. It has margines to what can be included. The Objective is a subtraction of existence to a defined 'state' of being. Its marginalized to that state. The content/constituent, property, structure or systems that provide or enable that defined state are subjective. 4+5-1 =8 ^ ^ Subject. The objective/mean(ing) total. Defined. You don't have the objective with out a value/contribution to it. You may be able to conceptualize the objective. Like dark matter. It has little mean(ing) unless you find the values that contribute to its actuality or mean. The definition atm is just the word for nothing where there is an expectation something should contribute. In definition, the total has no value of its own. Thats given or brought through its subject properties. It only has value of its own when becomes subjective. When 8 +2 =10, serving another defined objective. Each part of the total sum is equal in the definition/total, as an equal contribution to the whole. But not equal to the sum, unless its the sole contributing value. Like an electron. 8=8 5 does not equal 8, or have greater value to the total than 4. But the total can be achieved just as easily by 3+5 Could you please point out where I said that? It would be incorrect. It has structure, or property, which is subjective. The 'system'. The objective doesn't define its system or subjective. The subjective or structure property defines the objective. Its 'Environment'. This may be my last post. The binary may be better expressed by 0/+. ? Crazy to me, So doubt I can convince anyone else. Just the same, it works. Language expressed with proper reference to the aspects of the Objective and subjective exposes negative bias to the mean expressions of existence.

The group is the Objective in this scenario. So that fits. It is a study of organizational/constitutional science that led me to this conclusion. It appears to work most obviously and literally in that realm. If you can not understand how this relates to the O.P and systems, I assume you are again skimming over information without taking what has been given.

Though I admit I am very far from a Mathematician, So perhaps 'R' or 'V' ( relation or value ) would better replace 1 ?

I hope the addition to my post above covers this. Recognition and application of those 2 aspects gives mathematics its structure/foundation. So the fractal expression of 0/1 seems apt.

I have answered your questions, where they have been direct enough to recognize as such. Bias is exposed when when more than one definition is applied to the Objective. Implication of value or relationship where only the negative is expressed gives a double negative. Value expressed negatively as a subtraction. Traditionally, when the same question comes from multiple sources, answering it once suffices for all participants. That there are Objective and Subjective realities is I believe is generally accepted. I propose these are expressed mathematically as 0/1 The values given to existence, or reality. The purpose of language is to express, and inform our realities. And the language I have used exists as 'real' in all iterations I have used. Language is both simplified and given more depth in their 0/1 , negative/positive, Objective/subjective. Its definition is improved. I can only assume your own comprehension is at fault, since you haven't shown how or where the above creates any conflict with reality. 1. Value must be given, or only 0, Nothing, is manifest. There is no structure to provide a meaning, or sum totality. 0, Nothing exists. + there is 1, existence. 0/1 is the structure of existence, expressed in language with the Objective and subjective.

False. You don't understand. Thats fine, but we get further if you can point out the problems. As below. You seem very sure the comprehension problem is mine. You have not given reason why that must so. Why the definitions I have provided would conflict with reality. O.K. Strictly speaking, Qualification of the Object is not a thing. It either is, or it isn't. Its definition is exclusive of anything else, or less than, Qualifications would be a value to the Objective, and exposing a negative bias. Requiring discreditation of its constituency. Qualification of the constituency is the thing. Definition is achieved through qualification of the contributing constituent value(s)- so if contributing values can be better qualified for the objective, Improved definition can be achieved. You are a Doctor, or you aren't, based on qualifications. What being a Doctor means, and how we define that, depends on whether or not your qualifications fit our definition, or how well. The constituent response-ability to The objective. What we term a Doctor is is not static, and its definition can be continually improved and expanded on as long we can accept new data demonstrated to add value to the purpose or objectives of a Doctor. The Meaning of a Doctor is expanded, while its definitions are not qualified. There is room for evolution of the mean. So Fractal Dimensions are not a falsification.

I will study the link you provided to understand fractal dimensions better before I make any statement, but the contributing values, and their own properties, are going to affect the total. Thats the point. Hence improving out comes in organizations not only through qualification of 'the Object', but also by enhanced and better informed interactions. Same Objective organization, its manifestation is altered.

If you understood, you would find proper use of the objective and Subjective serves more to expose bias. ie back to the computer, It is real, but is not equal to reality. It is equal in reality, as a subtraction. Its not reality to accept that a computer is it, that one could be a substitution for reality. To accept that one would have to discredit the reality of anything else. Subtract the whole to that state. As I am Human, but I am not Humanity itself. That believe would require that I discredit the humanity of the rest of you. It is negative. To negate. The root remains. The context varies. The word objective does exist in all those contextual variations, because language is our means of expressing and informing reality. We had binary treatment too, before computers. To add or subtract. Positive or negative.Value or its absence. We had to have the Objective, and the relationship/values to support its meaning. As to the relevance of 0/1 to express this binary, I think 0 should be obvious. Yet even the negative, zero, or nothing, is something when recognized as such. +1, for recognition, or relativity. With out which there is no value or means to provide any sum total.There is no evidence for any thing to exist with out its value 1st provided. 0, +1 for affect/effect which must be relativistic. I believe logic supports this, and the evidence is every where if you look. Also supported in marketing psychology, where its been shown that the Objective is best achieved when the value is demonstrated. Evidenced. Ditto for organisms or organizations relationship with environment and selection processes within various media.

Positive and Negative. Values given, or subtracted to achieve the objective summation of totality or mean(ing) There is no logic other wise. Its built on that premise. There is no existence/reality to measure with out 1. There is no foundation to support 2 or 5 with out the value of 1. There is only Nothing to express with with out its value 1st given. There is no evidence for those values with out 1 given. Positive and negative for value. 1, value is relative/subjective. 0,The Objective is neutral. If I find value, in an Objective, thats relative/subjective to me. To be Objective, you must put aside your subjective values, discard personal relationship or perspective. To achieve an Objective, you must 1st provide the values or properties that will serve its purpose. Subjectively support or provide the foundations of property needed . If I join a canine pedigree association, I become a property of that that Objective. I am contributing subjectively to its current manifestation, but am bound by the limits of its definition. I could still breed a cross bred dog, but that contribution would not be included by definition. One has no relationship to the other, by definition. If the Pedigree association tries to merge those definitions,(as they have done) neither can be supported. They are each Objective to the other. In conflict. They can only achieve a totality by negative value expression. Subtraction. One has nothing to do with the other. Each stands on their own merit or lack of, as far as expression, or their current sum totality of their Objective is concerned. Relativity given that Pedigree Objective in its definition is not sustainable. Objectivity has been lost. The Objective or purpose is not sustainable. It can't be defined. Its a double negative. 0.0. Its Value can only be lost, or expressed in the negative while that language is accepted in the Objective given. Equal and opposites in perpetual opposition until only 0 exists. Value has been incorrectly placed to the objective. It will Object to value it can not define or recognize. As it does.

It IS ALL BINARY! Value exists objectively, As a definition of reality. Defined without relationship. Its expression though, is always subjective. Relative. By definition though, Value is relative to Nothing. Its application must always be relative. Definition 0. Expression 1. Expression is the collective of values given.

Because they are the foundations of Mathematics. With out that binary there is no foundation for Mathematics. There is no 2 or 5. In Language they are represented by their Objective and subjective aspects.

Its BINARY. It is objectively a computer. It clearly exists in all its definition. Its not The Objective under discussion. Its not the same thing as reality. Its a property or component that could not exist without ONE. 1. Reality. Its a value that contributes to the meaning or sum total. The computer is relative in this aspect. Subjective to reality/existence. Value is always subjective, so how do you square that? No. The objective is the purpose served by the exchange. Sure. Our reality is only what we can recognize as such. As being 1