[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 111, Issue 34

[Karl Javorszky]

Hi Kate,

Explications 1 to liaison 2024 04 25

Thank you for reading my contributions, and apparently attentively.

1.       *What are the few “relevant tautologies” within the “value
bundle”?*

The value bundle goes back to one of the co-actors in the Great (Basic)
Discongruence. The Basic Discongruence (depicted in oeis.org/A242615) is a
discongruence that is basic, namely that there are more sequences than
mixtures, both made up of *n *units, if the number *n < 32 | n > 97.* The
discongruence is in the order of magnitude of some 3.2E-92 %. The peak
deviation between *n! ↔ n? *is near *n* *~ 66. *

The definition of n? being *n? = exp(ln(part(n))²) *or *n? = part(n)ln
(part(n)), *the numeric extent of the number of independent dimensions in
which the assembly can be categorized into is *ln(part(n))*.  Part(n)
refers to the number of partitions of n, oeis.org/A000041.* Ln(part(n)) is
for n ~ 66 *near *14,56. *Thence the 15.

Semantic: Conducting test campaigns on a universe of 66 students, one will
notice that the sequence of the administration of tests is of a huge
relevance for the discriminatory selection power of the tests. If test
1 is *month
of birth*, we expect 12 groups with groups strengths of 66/12. If the next
test is *weekday-of-birth*, we expect 66/7 to be the next group size.

If we catch a Tuesday person, we do not know whether he had been caught as
a February person already, in which case we would doubly count the same
person. One has to discount for the probability that the unit that is
caught by test *i *had been already counted by a test *j*.

Different example: Human resources of a large corporation seeks candidates
for a special mission. It filters the database of employees for {being
available, physically robust, between 30 and 40 years of age, have a degree
in Origami, speak Mongolian}. These 5 tests can be given in any sequence if
we don’t care about efficiency. Whichever the sequence, conducting
additional tests will result in finding Zero new – previously caught –
records in the database, because previous tests have already turned up an
increasing proportion of candidates.

The examples shall help to understand the general mantra: *About an
assembly of a limited size, only a limited number of distinct logical
sentences can be said.*

This upper limit number is reached by two different paths: by sentences
that state that elements have something in common, and by sentences that
state the elements are different to each other. The latter uses similar
places as background and counts the possible variants of differences
between elements’ places. This is called sorting (sequencing) and yields
permutations, of which the maximal number *f(n) = n!*

Counting groups of elements, we have the similarities of the symbols shared
among the members of a group, in the foreground of our attention. The
differences remain in the background. The background and the foreground are
additive. In how many groups we delineate the universe, and which of the
groups we declare foreground, is irrelevant. What remains that we have a
partition of *n *into *k *summands.

There is an identity in test theory about the number of tests that can be
validated on a universe of *n* probands being the same as the number of
groups the *n *probands can build. The information content lies in which of
equally many pictures one assigns to which of equally many objects. The
content is obviously quadratic on the number of partitions on *n*. This
brings forth *n? = exp(ln(part(n))2). *

The Great Discongruence comes from *f-1(x) *pointing to slightly different *n
*if the *f-1(n!, n?) *are compared.

As to the relevant tautologies, which are in everyday life few: The etalon
collection instructions of use foresee presently 9 properties of *a, b *to
be relevant. This is already much less than the 14 or 15 possible. Among
the 9 properties, *a, b, b-a, b-2a, a-2b *are ‘primitive, low-level’
properties, as they do not use *c, 2b-3a, 2a-3b, d-c *which require
addition or at least a 3rd instance of an argument. In fact, animals appear
to assemble their mental cartography based on the lower 5, a very simple
but robust orientational tool achievable without doing additions or
counting above 2.

The higher four cooperate in creating geometries and a wonderwork of
Nature, the metronome cycle, which is concurrently the folding cycle. This
reorder [c,d-c ↔ 2a-3b,2b-3a] is a cycle 129 resp 128 members long and
appears to be a fundamental ordering principle, used specifically in the
DNA translation business.

It is my sorry duty to remind the learned friends that sorting and grouping
are faculties that the human child learns before going to school. The
regions of the brain that manage sorting and grouping are as uneducated in
mathematics as the regions that manage calligraphy, rhetoric, or dancing.
It is unfortunately necessary to do some self-education until one has a
solid entry into the world of cycles and liaisons, and information. The
simplest didactic exercise has been suggested to the learned friends: take
12 books, sort them on your table in [author, title]. Then resort the books
into [title, author]. Please observe the instances where a book pushes away
a book from its place. Note the names of the books that generate a cycle.

It is not too late yet to do the 12 books initiation ritual. Without it, it
appears doubtful whether the learned friends can make hands and feet of the
present contribution.

*2. expand on distance and “asynchronicity” , opportunity, attraction,
force, potential, energy… ground this is direct human experience*

Please read the definition of information in ijita29-01-p02.pdf (foibg.com)
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol29/ijita29-01-p02.pdf__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UnN9ArfvPHt_bYxIZ3imUewBURV1Irot2-FJ6-OqSFDIlT6faHC6Z2zBAvlQ5zWuIvNVuaTBtx6jJzRmVedEutyqESo$ > p. 85ff. There,
information is defined as based in *(∑b - ∑a)/run, *where *run = ∑ dist, *where
*dist *is the distance between two consecutive members of a cycle on a
Descartes plane. Cycles have an interpretation in the world made up of
interval scales (Euclid, Descartes, rigid axes, units equally distanced),
too. Human experience: the extent of *més- *in a *mésalliance *has as a
part the necessary efforts to travel to the in-laws. The farther the
in-laws live the less (more?) happiness in the marriage, depending on
culture.

Two cycles have a temporal relation, too. If cycles A, B have equally many
members, the asynchronicity appears as offset variants. We do not know,
which is the 1st element of a cycle. The etalon collection has such
markings on the elements, caused by the grammar of the sequence of
arguments, according to which the cycles are generated. Artificial cycles
can have agreed-on first elements. Genetic shows lots of offset variants. If
cycles A, B have differently many elements, there is a cicada breed type
asynchronicity present. Different plants flower at different seasons. Some
life phases overlap in the course of the year. The lunar months wander
along the solar years. Portions of cycles can be concurrent, with their own
offset patterns. Partner A wants weekly meetings, partner B every
fortnight. The build-up of tensions which partly result in misses and
partly in hits, is a predictable pattern. These are implications of the two
cycles being different. The overall name for implications of two cycles
being different is: information. There is a numeric Unit proposed for the
construct, based on differences of cycles 3, 6 of [ab-ba] of Cohort 16.

*3).. agree … interplay of chemistry and electromagnetism at various levels
of spatiotemporal scale… transcending mind~body dualism.*

Wittgenstein said: … thing is the totality of its possibilities of being
related. So, we have a fraction of a thing per a given number of logical
relations. It is the logical relations that condense into things. The Great
Discongruence shows the translation keys. It is a hairy business, because
the relations are *(=, <, =, >, =, <, <<) *at values of *n (1, 11, 32, 66,
97, 135, 140). *How many additional almost-objects are welcome, with which
properties, depends on how many are already condensed into a state we call
‘object’ and how similar and diverse these that already exist, are.

*4)** …** homunculus (or AI) … my 4-steps: comparison, signal, corrective
response, learning…  dynamical systems, read and evaluate in real time. *

Full in agreement.

*We are much more than predictions machines*

Based on what one learns in 42 years of direct client contact, we are lust
optimization machines. Lust as a cybernetic motivator has its intricacies.
The whole system of psychology is nebbich embedded in physiology and
neurology, which in their optimal form are zero-sum games. One sees a
stream of persons who have tried by all conceivable means to super-optimize
lust production, notwithstanding the costs, until the costs grew too large.
There is an economy to a pleasant life, with uncountable variants. Your Zen
is your Zen. It optimizes something in your system. That what the central
nervous system optimizes the production of is called lust. It has many
material and relational forms and variants. We are production machines, and
the production of predictions is the first step towards a hit in a hit and
miss process the embryo begins.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240425/0a44df83/attachment-0001.html>