A new form of philosophy I came up with

[naitche]

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

 

[Genady]

59 minutes ago, naitche said:

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

 

In mathematics, relation on set S is defined as a subset of SxS, and value is a result of some mapping. I doubt this is what you have in mind.

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, naitche said:

I have answered your questions, where they have been direct enough to recognize as such.

Questions are really easy to recognise, they have have one of these ? at the end.

You're more than welcome to say my question's are meaningless, with an appropriate explanation of the reason.

But just deciding not to answer, for whatever reason, is not a recognised method of a meaningful discussion, it's kinda rule one in the philosophical lexicon, it's certainly nothing new (consider this my last attempt to steer you towards the actual topic). 🙄🙏🤞😣 

[naitche]

On 2/7/2025 at 1:35 PM, Genady said:

 

How about group theory? Groups have only one identity element, which can be 0 or 1 (or something else), but not two of them.

 

The group is the Objective in this scenario. So that fits.

On 2/8/2025 at 4:54 AM, dedo said:

A practical example that may apply about how both the "object" and the "interaction" matter could be organizational science ..

 

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.

On 2/10/2025 at 11:18 PM, dimreepr said:

Questions are really easy to recognise, they have have one of these ? at the end.

You're more than welcome to say my question's are meaningless, with an appropriate explanation of the reason.

But just deciding not to answer, for whatever reason, is not a recognised method of a meaningful discussion, it's kinda rule one in the philosophical lexicon, it's certainly nothing new (consider this my last attempt to steer you towards the actual topic). 🙄🙏🤞😣 

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.

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, naitche said:

The group is the Objective in this scenario.

Do I understand correctly that groups and vector spaces are Objectives, while rings and fields are Subjectives?

[Genady]

6 hours ago, naitche said:

The group is the Objective

Another question in addition to the one above:

The group is a structure of a set. OTOH, you said earlier that Objective has no structure. Isn't it a contradiction?

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, naitche said:

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.

If I'm being taught, then you don't understand what a teacher has to do... 

[naitche]

On 2/12/2025 at 11:16 AM, Genady said:

Do I understand correctly that groups and vector spaces are Objectives, while rings and fields are Subjectives?

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

On 2/12/2025 at 6:12 PM, Genady said:

Another question in addition to the one above:

The group is a structure of a set. OTOH, you said earlier that Objective has no structure. Isn't it a contradiction?

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.

[Genady]

10 hours ago, naitche said:

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.

I see the problem now. I was talking about mathematics while you are talking about accounting.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Genady said:

I see the problem now. I was talking about mathematics while you are talking about accounting.

Indeed, definition's do seem to be an ongoing problem.

14 hours ago, naitche said:

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.

What you don't seem to understand is, the expectation is real (objective), it's only the words 'dark matter' that's subjective; an arbitrary title for something we know but don't fully understand; not unlike your contributions thus far.

[naitche]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, definition's do seem to be an ongoing problem.

What you don't seem to understand is, the expectation is real (objective), it's only the words 'dark matter' that's subjective; an arbitrary title for something we know but don't fully understand; not unlike your contributions thus far.

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...

 

[naitche]

11 hours ago, Genady said:

I see the problem now. I was talking about mathematics while you are talking about accounting.

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

Edited Thursday at 11:15 PM by naitche

[Genady]

16 minutes ago, naitche said:

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

Dream on.

[naitche]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Dream on.

Is neither an argument or refutation.

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, naitche said:

Is neither an argument or refutation.

As I said above, what you think is mathematics in fact is accounting.

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, naitche said:

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...

 

You're only confusing yourselves. 😉