From: Chris Lofting (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri 19 May 2006 - 00:08:22 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf
> Of Kenneth Van Oost
> Sent: Friday, 19 May 2006 6:09 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: RS
> Hi all,
> Becoming somewhat of a lurker these days, but you all got my
> I like to add the following and will give you something to think
> Ardinoccg an ivtignesaoitn at an Eclisgnh usitervniy it dneos' t
> mttear in wcihh
> sgneuecne the lttrees of a wrod are pclead; the olny tnihg taht
> cnutos is taht
> the frsit and the lsat are at the rghit sopt.
> The rset of the ltteres may be pcaled in any atrabriry oderr and we
> wlil sltil be
> albe to raed the txet.
> Taht is due to the fcat taht we dno' t raed ecah lttreer speatere
> but the wrod
> as a wohle.
Yes -this reflects the use of recursion overall in the processing of
information. With the begin/end once determined (a dichotomy) so it is easy
to fill in the middle. ;-)
From a basic language processing perspective (or more so meaning) we apply
recursion 'down' the page and categories of the whole appear across the page
in each row - see diagram
Note that the pairing that comes out of this indicates the 'best' language
is the 'interdigitations' of qualities of noun/verb. The pairing also
reflect an attribute of language, nominalisation. Thus a pair is the derived
'noun/verb' differentiation of the category in the previous level from which the pair has been derived. THAT category is interpretable as being in the form of a gerund.
Given the recursive element, each word as such is a dimension made-up of the
entanglement of the letters but sorted into a begin-end order, or more so an
ordering isomorphic to a spectrum - indicating we do what other life forms
do, we communicate through spectrum exchange. (see my page
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/prisms.html ) - note that the
asymmetric forms of dichotomy, manifest in general-to-particular mappings -
are associated with power laws and spectrums and so the 'ubiquitous' 1/f.
LOCAL conditions can 'skew' the preferred ordering (e.g. French grammar vs
English grammar) but the general form is the same.
This leads into the 'illusion' of 'orthogonality' using Cartesian
perspectives where the dimensions used, e.g. X, Y, Z are generalised to
being +/- dichotomies and so their relationship of Z <= Y <= X manifests the
ordering of dichotomies that will elicit eight categories. To make these
categories 'clear', to define a 'meaning space' the distance between each is
maximised and that will give us a cube or octagon form. This maximising is
easily demonstrated using four categories where their meaning space will
form a tetrahedron. We find this in our sense of taste where the space is
derived from the distancing of the four basic tastes. The surface of each
'side' is lumpy due to local 'variations' and that can include specialist
'spikes' sticking out of side. The formation is NOT some 'ideal' it is a product of mindless growth dynamics.
When we SCALE a dichotomy, as we do with +/- so that act is the equivalent
of recursing the dichotomy and numbering the resulting categories; we just
use our basic sense of ordinality to flag 'differences' (we could formally
'name' the categories but that would remove our ability to manipulate them with advanced mathematics methods - all based on self-referencing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 21 May 2006 - 03:42:40 GMT