Simmer

Is there a mathematical way to represent the formula itself?

i.e. this sentence is about itself being informative

Could an artificial womb be used to regrow limbs? 

no I'm looking for my original interpretation of the formula

not the usage stated

It was just so similar it inspired me

You know what it also looks like?

biochemistry

the outcome of a catalyst being the catalyst itself

Yep

i think it's something like e of w replaces w

Oh it was different than I thought it was 

its funny because I see this and I think self become entity

and cantors opinion was that of God

so I got confused 

anyway im trying something that looks the same but using empty sets instead of numbers and using relativization instead of exponentialism

what a confidence

i added "and not all(not e)"

So i have cantors equation doing the same thing

w^e=e

i added "and not all(not e)"

obviously is the relativization you were talking about, not a powerset

are there any other terms for relativization that might point me in the right direction to program it? 

I saw something today as I was at the bp gas station in reno

a pendulum, made of metal, swinging back and forth by the force of magnitism

one under, two on the sides of the pendulum

could this be an example of perpetual energy?

Thanks man. Means a lot.

Well I mean doing it backwards because I'm stupid 

I think it should exclude all but itself 

also do you happen to know how to do Relativizing in python?

i think it’s map()

but yeah all but itself excluded

It’s more like a warning about the equation not being complete 

Also I sense an all() in the midst 

Hi I’m crack with something simple

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CantorsEquation.html

w^e=e

obviously this is the relativity you were talking about

they attribute it to ordinal and cardinal numbers

but I want to see if it works with w being an undefined set

Of course it’s not programmable without the lack of the opposite of itself included

so I have all the time I’m the world 

If I were any smarter, it would probably be cuz of the progeam

good talk my friend. With many more to come.

On 8/23/2020 at 12:53 AM, wtf said:

Can you say how much of this material you understand? I can't see how what they're saying isn't clear to anyone who's made it to page 11 of this paper. I don't want to explain things you already know, but I can put some of this in context if you don't.

In particular, the question you asked is answered by the very next sentence of the exposition following Axiom 2. They define the symbol ΦVα  right there. Φ is a sentence in the language of set theory, and ΦVα   is Φ relativized to the set Vα . Relativizing a sentence means restricting its quantifiers to Vα ; or if Φ is second-order, to the powerset of Vα .

It makes me wonder if you might perhaps be in a little over your head, in which case just say so and I'll try to help. But perhaps you already know all this and you're asking a more subtle question, in which case I shouldn't try to explain what you already know.

Do you understand what V and the Vα 's are? This section of the paper is formulating a reflection principle consistent with the idea that there are sets that aren't in V ; and seeing if they can define reflection for those sets, not just the ones you get by staying within V . I can help you unpack the symbols but like I say, it's a curious question. My thought process is that if I can sort of understand what's going on with my limited knowledge of this material, anyone on page 11 should be able to.

Useful refs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_hierarchy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_principle

powerset()!!! I know that!!

Well when I use .index() a syntax error occurs

same with the compliment operator ~
 

Although I’m not sure how reversing binary code means to be everything except the variable before it

i just wanted you to know I will be holding onto the answers you gave me. And I will (eventually) go through them thoroughly 

Hi I’m back again

what does the superscript and subscript mean in set theory?

i mean I understand relativization but what are they individually 

I know this question has already been answered I just need more clarification 

please use high level language 

I found the formula for a

a = set(Va) is set(set()) rank() < a.
 

I have to do some python stuff now

ttyl

wikipedia:

 For each ordinal , the set  is defined to consist of all pure sets with rank less than ..

what does this look like in set theory?

What are all the qualities of a

It’s an ordinal number 

but what else

im sure one of the webpages yiou gave me has the answer 

I’m just not sure which one

Sorry I was using it for alpha

what is it called, ordinalizing?

like beta is bounding, alpha is ordinalizing

Well

V = ⋃αVα

and 

Va=⋃b<aP(Vb)

so what is a

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universe)

I don’t know what it is about V0, V1, V2,  and V3. I don’t understand