<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span lang="DE-AT">Accounting
is not a science<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span lang="DE-AT"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">There is an old joke about the mafia boss, who needs a new
accountant. Proband 1 is asked: how much is 2+2? Answer: 4. Next candidate: How
much is 2+2? Answer: anything between 3 and 5. No good. Next candidate, same
question. Answer: whatever you wish, boss. He gets hired.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">More traditional approaches to accounting disqualify the art
from being a science, as there is no room for error. Accounting embodies all
that Wittgenstein stood for: true statements that rely on each other and are
invariably inherently – grammatically – correct, otherwise it would not be
accounting but spaghetti. <span> </span>Science, like
philosophy, deals with such, what is presently unknown, while trying to
explore, understand, qualify and quantify it. There is room for error in
philosophy and science, which room does not exist in an ideal Wittgenstein set
of sentences. Among tautologies, nothing can turn out to be otherwise.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Theoretical genetics has forced us to leave the traditional
understanding of what a number is and where it is placed. Its place has been heretofore
inseparably fused with its value, form, appearance, properties and
associations. By repeatedly sorting, one denies the connection, naively
believed to be inherent, of a value with its place. What is a king, if he is
among beggars? Can the Captain of Koepenick be represented in a numeric tale? Are
some changes more problematic than others?<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">One never knows, what hidden revolutionary instincts slumber
deep in the hearth of an individual. Maybe mathematicians are not so much given
to overthrowing age-old agreements, definitions, rules and conventions.
Biologists, however, should maintain the idea of sudden, <i>deus ex machina</i> <span> </span>type improvements,
as tools of evolution by mutation and variation. It could well be, that a rupture
from its place of a number does introduce a new species of counting. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If numbers are no more married to their place, where are
they then? Here, accounting helps. We know that they cannot simply disappear;
furthermore, we add them up and expect grand totals that match. We add them up
actually twice, once according to place occupied and once as carriers of
symbols. <span> </span>This one can only do, if one
switches to cycles as units of counting. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Accounting in units of cycles may sound more complicated
than it is in actual practice. Classical logic degenerates into the special
case of a plane across the number line: as the ever-present moment of “now”,
which is eternal, because it is timeless. In this cross-section of time, the
rules of Wittgenstein apply. The actual content of the “now” is one of the
varieties made possible by its neighbours, the predecessor and the successor. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The intermediate state of actual (real, existing, true)
state does have a-priori rules in it. These are given by the fact that the
predecessor and the successor states are ordered. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If we take the table we have constructed with (a,b) and
watch the process of reordering between the two sorted states <set sorted on
AB> vs. <set sorted on BA>, then we see that the collection is subject
to very potent sets of restrictions, on what can be where. Knowing the end
state allows building estimates about what is missing, that is: yet to come.
Cycles are of a great help here, as they are successions, ordered in specific
ways. Of that, what has happened before, human intelligence can confer, what
will happen next. That, what we deduct, is different to that, what we observe.
The former is meta-physic to the latter’s physic, meaning to the latter’s
message. Learning is basically an ability to improve the efficacy of
predictions. To be able to imagine the continuation of partly finished cycles,
periods and rhythms is to be able to respond intelligently. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">One enters a territory here, which separates accounting from
predicting the future. Classical logic will not speak about the future, because
the future is not tautologic. Seen, however, as an exercise in combinatorics,
one may be able to construct – at least, theoretically – all true sentences
that can be consistently said about up to 136 objects. In this hypothetical
case, whichever state the set is in, possible predecessors and successors of
this state can be established. Taking the most probable of among the possible
next steps, the system begins a walk. It is then possible to find such walks
that are a closed loop. If the version is included, that some facts that relate
to the sequence of arguments restrict the ways commutative assemblies can be
contemporary, and that the configuration of symbols of commutative assemblies
restricts the ways arguments can be sequenced: in this case theoretical
genetics has been made accessible to a Wittgenstein type logical discourse,
reduced to tautologies and probabilities, that is: predictions, which are again
part of the art of accounting. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><span> </span><span></span></p>
<br></div>