simple sentence. zero dimensional space

[waive15]

Hi guys, recently I stumbled upon this strange video in youtube. I downloaded a 17 page handwritten pdf file from the description which is hard to read. I am not a mathematician nor a linguist and although I have read it I don't know what to think. It looks more like an incomplete exercise or speculations over the grammar of the simple sentence. But numbers and kind of their definitions were involved, which is strange for a grammar work. Here is the link:

 

[Strange]

I wouldn’t waste time on it. It looks like the deranged ramblings of someone with mental health or drug problems. 

If they can’t be bothered to explain clearly, it is not up to others to spend time on it. 

[waive15]

Thanks Strange,

Now i do think the author has some mental issues or it is some sort of a  prank at his/her expense. The name of the video was intentionally made catchy. There isn't even definition of the Zero dimensional space and the other so called "definitions" of simple sentence, grammatical case, number, and preposition also suck.

It awful, thanks again for reply.

 

[waive15]

Hi again,

Maybe I was too harsh initially, I am so sorry for my inappropriate words so I read it again and that is the result:

I saw this:

 

1. Thing and Connection are Basic Terms and have duality. There is a hint to Russell’s paradox.

/ attempts for “definitions” and “axioms” /

/0 d space is a metaphor for Connection and Thing /

2.There are several types of Connections. I think the definition of Equivalence as a Connection is messed up. But on it Event is defined.

3. Be and Have somehow make a symmetrical pair.

4. Simple sentence is defined on Event. Problem of MEANING is solved .

5. “Simple sentence”, as you see it, is the term Name = Encoding of the Event in sounds or writing.

                                                                                                              /different Encoding = different languages /

There is a whole page on “Simple sentence” which is almost sane.

 

6. The definition of the Grammatical case is almost okay in the first fourth of the page if you don’t mention the awful handwriting. But only definition for Instrumental case is given.

 

7. A thing/Divider/ divides Space into subspaces/places/ – some of them are called prepositions, the others differently. That was nice, even OF and WITH have logical meaning.

 

About numbers:

 

9. Natural number is a Connection over 1 (quality in 0 d). Addition, multiplication and division are here. I don’t know if this is true but page is awfully written.

10. The next page as I understand is about Complex numbers (Vectors in 2 d).

Even if these two pages are WRONG this is a nice try of clear separation of Natural numbers and their addition, multiplication and division

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 /just directions of Embedding in 0 d/

AND Complex numbers and their addition and multiplication.

 

About Time in simple sentence:

 

11. The idea is nice and practical. 0 d fits in.

 

That is only some DRAFT – incomplete and messed up. (down side)

A DRAFT trying to use mathematical thinking (up side)

 

Edited December 1, 2019 by waive15

[Strange]

30 minutes ago, waive15 said:

Maybe I was too harsh initially, I am so sorry for my inappropriate words so I read it again and that is the result:

I assume some (or all) of this is copied from the document. If so, it would be a good idea if you could make it clear which parts you have copied, perhaps using the Quote function.

 

!

Moderator Note

I don't think this belongs in Speculations - there is no science here.

I'm not sure there is anything to discuss, but I will move it to The Lounge in case anyone does want to comment on it.

 

[waive15]

1 hour ago, waive15 said:

Hi again,

Maybe I was too harsh initially, I am so sorry for my inappropriate words so I read it again and that is the result:

I saw this:

 

1. Thing and Connection are Basic Terms and have duality. There is a hint to Russell’s paradox.

/ attempts for “definitions” and “axioms” /

/0 d space is a metaphor for Connection and Thing /

2.There are several types of Connections. I think the definition of Equivalence as a Connection is messed up. But on it Event is defined.

3. Be and Have somehow make a symmetrical pair.

4. Simple sentence is defined on Event. Problem of MEANING is solved .

5. “Simple sentence”, as you see it, is the term Name = Encoding of the Event in sounds or writing.

                                                                                                              /different Encoding = different languages /

There is a whole page on “Simple sentence” which is almost sane.

 

6. The definition of the Grammatical case is almost okay in the first fourth of the page if you don’t mention the awful handwriting. But only definition for Instrumental case is given.

 

7. A thing/Divider/ divides Space into subspaces/places/ – some of them are called prepositions, the others differently. That was nice, even OF and WITH have logical meaning.

 

About numbers:

 

9. Natural number is a Connection over 1 (quality in 0 d). Addition, multiplication and division are here. I don’t know if this is true but page is awfully written.

10. The next page as I understand is about Complex numbers (Vectors in 2 d).

Even if these two pages are WRONG this is a nice try of clear separation of Natural numbers and their addition, multiplication and division

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 /just directions of Embedding in 0 d/

AND Complex numbers and their addition and multiplication.

 

About Time in simple sentence:

 

11. The idea is nice and practical. 0 d fits in.

 

That is only some DRAFT – incomplete and messed up. (down side)

A DRAFT trying to use mathematical thinking (up side)

 

Hi there, as I am not a native speaker I think a little bit slowly and there is the problem of exact words to choose. So I wrote it down in LibreOffice Writer and than copped and pasted it.

 

42 minutes ago, Strange said:

I assume some (or all) of this is copied from the document. If so, it would be a good idea if you could make it clear which parts you have copied, perhaps using the Quote function.

 

!

Moderator Note

I don't think this belongs in Speculations - there is no science here.

I'm not sure there is anything to discuss, but I will move it to The Lounge in case anyone does want to comment on it.

 

Hi there, as I am not a native speaker I think a little bit slowly and there is the problem of exact words to choose. So I wrote it down in LibreOffice Writer and than copped and pasted it.

[waive15]

Hi,

Basic concepts: Thing, Connection/Space, Flow

Connection/Space is a thing but it is not a thing to things it connects/contains.

- - -

Connections/0-d spaces:

Equivalence - Thing itself is Connection_without_direction/order;

Set - Connection_without_direction/order;

-

State/Quality - Connection_over_1 (colour, intransitive verb', ...)

-

Genitive connections:

Definition - Genitive_is''

Embedding/Recursion - Genitive_has''

-

non_Genitive connection:

“Next-ness” - non_Genitive_is'' (Instr. case, transitive verb'', ...)

- - -

1-d space/connection

- - -

2-d space/connection

- - -

3-d space/connection

- - -

...

= = =

Name is Thing.

-

Observer is Thing.

-

Event is Equivalence (Connection) of an observer and a connection (which are Things).

-

Natural number is State/Quality of a set (which is Connection, which is Thing) of things which have same (common) quality.

-

Simple sentence is Event (simple sentence and event are equivalent).

-

"Simple sentence" is the Name of a Simple sentence/Event; ...
... (in the next post)

-

Grammatical case is a denotation (by certain means) of a missing (left out) verb/connection ...

-

Divider divides Space into Sub_Spaces/Places called Prepositions and other.

Sub_Spaces/Places in 0-d Space are the prepositions of and with.

/of is a place in Genitive_has''
/with is a place in non_Genitive_is''

= = =

Complementarity:

Things in a set are complementary;
Without_order and with_order are complementary;
Equivalence and Set are complementary ("Out" and "In" Connection_without_order);
Genitive and non_Genitive are complementary (Connection_with_order);
Genitive_is'' and Genitive_has'' are complementary;

good and bad are complementary;
right and wrong are complementary;
beginning and end are complementary;
positive and negative are complementary;
...

/there are sets of 3, 4, ... elements/


= = =

"Static": Things, Connections/Spaces

Equivalence "gives" Sides (points of view).

Set "gives" Complementarity (the whole and its parts).

Genitive-ness "gives" Levels/Hierarchy/Power.

Non_Genitive-ness "gives" Next-ness.

Connection_over_1 "gives" Existence (States/Qualities).


"Dynamic": Flows

Connections/Spaces with direction/order form Flows.

Genitive forms Feeding/Eating.

Non_Genitive forms Transactions/Exchange.

Change of State/Quality is here.

1-d space with its 2 directions of movement/flow is here.


= = =

...

Hi,

"Simple sentence":

is the Name of a Simple sentence/Event;
consists of Names;
is a result of events.

The "Simple sentence" is (has to be) simple, convenient, not exact.

Then the "Simple sentence" is one defined verb by:

subject (and object);
exact moment;
...

The "Simple sentence" has/employs:

Grammatical cases;
Prepositions;
Omissions;
Abbreviations;
Errors;
...

= = =

There are different is (be) in a "simple sentence" (the Name of an Event/Simple sentence):

is' - State/Quality of Existence of a thing;
Genitive_is" - Definition;
non_Genitive_is" - "next-ness";
is" (''', '''', ...) Equivalence.

= = =

Word is Name.

A sentence is Word. A phrase is Word. A word is Word. A root is Word. An affix is Word. A word ending is Word.
A word is made of words.

- - -

Set (Connection_without_direction/order) or Equivalence (Connection_without_direction/order)?!
Set will be used for simplicity, Equivalence will be meant.

Word is both Set (Connection; Connection is Thing) and every element (Thing) of that Set of:

written word - an encoding of letters (, signs and gestures);
spoken word - an encoding of sounds;
misspelled, mispronounced, ... word - an encoding recognised as the word in question;
meaning - an encoding of/through Things and Spaces.

Meaningful_Word is a Set (Word) which contains Meaning.
not_Meaningful_Word (gibberish, babble) is a Set (Word) which does not contain Meaning.

= = =

Verb read" in " John read" book " is a non_Genitive connection (transitive"/divalent verb).

Verb read' in " John read' " is a Connection_over_1/State/Quality (read' and red' (colour) are states/qualities).

is', go', ... (intransitive verbs) States/Qualities
red', true', false', small', ... States/Qualities

" Apple is' red'. " but " Apple red'."
In some languages is' is omitted. Apple is in a state of red' therefore it is in a state of existence is'.

= = =

Have a nice day.
 

[Phi for All]

We need some points for discussion. Is this still about that video in your OP? I don't watch videos like that because it seems like they're just made to increase views rather than inform or teach. 

Can you add some clarity here? Your title implies some physics being applied, but your last post is more like redefining language and terms. I'm not sure at all what you want to talk about.

[Bufofrog]

18 hours ago, waive15 said:

Word is Name.

A sentence is Word. A phrase is Word. A word is Word. A root is Word. An affix is Word. A word ending is Word.
A word is made of words.

Word.  Word.

 

Word, word word, word.

 

Word you very much,

Word

[waive15]

Hi, Phi for All,

I am glad that you are interested.

 

I needed a grammar for English, German, Russian, Turkish and so on. I did not need a grammar for "my" language.

This thread is about a dependency grammar. It is a guesswork (trial and error).  It has flaws. It is unfinished.

0-d space is not about physics. The idea is that each connection that binds two or more things is that space.

The connections are: Equivalence, Set, Connection_over_1 (State/Quality/intransitive verb'), Definition, Embedding and "Next-ness" (transitive verb"). 

I do not know how to express conjunctions. 

 

This morning I wanted to make two posts but somehow they merged into one. 

 

Thank you again.

15 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Word.  Word.

 

Word, word word, word.

 

Word you very much,

Word

Hi, Bufofrog,

Yes, to many words.

Simple sentence/Event is made of things and connections. "Simple sentence" (the Name of the Event) is made of words (word is thing).

one event: Apple is' red'

many "simple sentences"

"simple sentence" in English: "The apple is red".

"simple sentence" in German: " ..."

"simple sentence" in Japanese: " ..."

 

 

Hi,

the allegory of the cave: the fire, an apple, the apple's shadow on the wall, the chained observer.

The shadow on the wall is that Connection_over_1 which becomes the "apple" for the chained observer.

That works for the tangibles but also for the intangibles (things which one cannot touch, see, taste, ...)
Tangible and intangible things are cut from the same cloth. They are thoughts.

"Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" is in no way different from the chair in the room.
There is consistency.

===

One could compare with
...
For example "This 'a' is 'b'" (e.g. "This 'object a' is 'red'") really means "'object a' is a sense-datum" and "'red' is a sense-datum", and they "stand in relation" to one another and in relation to "I". Thus what we really mean is: "I perceive that 'This object a is red'" and this is an undeniable-by-3rd-party "truth".

PM further defines a distinction between a "sense-datum" and a "sensation":

That is, when we judge (say) "this is red", what occurs is a relation of three terms, the mind, and "this", and "red". On the other hand, when we perceive "the redness of this", there is a relation of two terms, namely the mind and the complex object "the redness of this" (pp. 43–44).
...

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

Bertrand Russell and Principia Mathematica, at the end of line 8

===

Apple is'.

sight: Apple red'.

touch: Apple hard'.

taste: Apple sweet'.

Red', hard', sweet' and is' are Connection_over_1 (State/Quality, 0-d space, Space is Thing).
Red', hard', sweet' are equivalent to is'.

Bertrand (observer, Observer is Thing)

E (event, Equivalence, Equivalence is Thing)

red' (State/Quality, 0-d space, Space is Thing)

event: Bertrand - E - red'

true' (State/Quality, 0-d space, Space is Thing)

E true'. (E is Thing)

[waive15]

Hi,

Instrumental case

 

Two things, the 1st and the 2nd, exist together. The connection which binds them is is"(full name non_Genitive_is").

The 2nd takes an Instrumental case ending or another case's ending or no ending at all.

The 2nd thing can be:

(a) the image of the 1st as in John (1st) - driver (2nd);

(b) the image of the action (the verb);

(c) the instrument;

(d) time;

(e) place.

 

===

Latin's Case System

 

===

Genitive - Instrumental, have - be, of - with, Observer (event) - Speaker (sentence) are suspicious pairs.

The speaker should be incorporated in the structure of the simple sentence.

Then Grammatical mood should be the State/Quality of the speaker/observer (observer is a thing).

Noun, verb, adjective (number is an adjective), adverb, preposition, conjunction (and, or, ... ),

grammatical mood, grammatical case, grammatical tense, ...

 

Basic English Grammar For Learning Latin Part I (3:31 min.)

 

Basic English Grammar For Learning Latin Part II (7:24 min.)

 

===

 

Time: exact_moment; not_exact_moment; (places in 0-d and 1-d)

0-d
Exact_moments here are: now/Present(ever); then/Past(ever); then/Future(ever).

Present is a set (a set is a thing) of Past and Future.
It is used for stating general truth.
Simple tenses are here: present simple tense, past simple tense, future simple tense.

---

1-d
Exact_moments here are: now/Present; then/Past; then/Future; Future in the past; ...

There are 3 not_exact_moments for every exact_moment: past; present; future.
/participles, .../
Compound tenses are here.

 

===

...

[waive15]

Hi,

Sources:

allegory of the cave (Socrates and Plato);

===

time and space are part of mind (Kant);

===

Dependency grammar (Lucien Tesnière);

===

Transactional analysis (Eric Berne);

“I think, therefore I am.”

No, “I think, therefore I am live.”

To live is to eat, to work is to feed and vice versa.

-

transactions; hunger

-

The types of hunger:

(a) food-hunger;

(b) stimulus-hunger;

(c) recognition-hunger;

(d) structure-hunger.

Pages 12-13 (a), (b) and (c) SOCIAL INTERCOURSE.

Page 14 (d) THE STRUCTURING OF TIME.

Games people play, Eric Berne
https://archive.org/details/games-people-play-the-psycholo-eric-berne/mode/2up?view=theater

===

The Blind Men and the Elephant (a thing is a connection - Equivalence)
/John Godfrey Saxe's (1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend/

It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approach'd the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," -quoth he- "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," -quoth he,-
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said- "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," -quoth he,- "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL,
So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean;
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!