"string" Theory

[sigurdV]

:(x

 

On Truth:

 

1 "String" is a string in six letters. (Truth by Exemplification.)

 

2 "x" is a string in six letters. (function having an instance: Truth by Abstraction)

 

3 "x" is a string (another such)

 

4 And again : xZ

 

Ending in a reminder :x (What waz all that fuzz about?)

 

The Truths of a Language forms a Model of Reality.

The tools (of logic) are Abstraction and Exemplification.

 

Obviously there are abstraction levels: x = "x"

 

1 this time this is this level! (my personal level)

2 SigurdV obviously is a nutcase (Said to myself: You! Intruded on My Territory!)

3 thoughts expressed in clusters (belonging to the powerset)

4 our minds are not constructed for much more then stepping three steps up on abstraction ladders.

 

We have the ordinary language level for expressing and comparing sentences, use of the signs """ , "(" , ")" , and ":" divides the string into subject level(beginning part = left) and object level (ending part = right). Right?

 

PS Im sorry if you thought the topic was string theory its ""string"Theory" :)

[Rade]

x = x

x = "string"

"string" = "x"

x = "x",

 

thus, no x, no string...hence why all the fuss about x.

[sigurdV]

Hi Rade!

 

I dont recall whether you are matematician logician, both or neither.

Looking at foundations makes me think on beginnings.

The further past you go the less distinktion there is between sciences themselves and philosophy.

 

x = x

x = "string"

"string" = "x"

x = "x",

 

thus, no x, no string...hence why all the fuss about x.

 

Eloquent! :)

 

I definitely get the feeling you can detect flaws in arguments.

 

1 x = x (The Law of Identity.)

 

2 x = "x" (Something of Abstraction?)

 

All strings are now divided into two sets , strings inside and outside quotation marks.(Minding the possibility of strings being both or neither.)

 

What obviously can be done with any divider of strings.(Living strings ending in a variable called "now " in time)

 

(Should be continued "I think"... what next? What are we doing and why? Who and how are we? And where are we? And where is there? (Yes! I am talking to You!))

 

Truth and negation:

 

1 x = "x is true" (Truth)

2 -x = "x is not true" (Negation)

 

Having made some progress, maybe I should consider strings not made up by letters... like strings of time and/or space? Or should I wait until everything necessary is done with the study of strings consisting of letters and/or numbers?

 

PS Do me a favour, please, if you can find the time... check the arguments in "The Final Solution of the Liar", and tell me what you think.

[Rade]

Truth and negation:

1 x = "x is true" (Truth)

2 -x = "x is not true" (Negation)

 

However,

 

1. x = "man is beautiful"

2. x = ""man is beautiful" is true" (Affirmation-Truth)

3. -x = ""man is beautiful" is not true" (Denial-Truth)

 

thus,

 

x = -x = Truth

 

...maybe I should consider strings not made up by letters... like strings of time and/or space?

Let "---" = time' date=' and "| |" = space, and "." = moment, and "< >" = infinity, then

 

spacetime = "< .|---|.|---|.|---|. >" , thus

 

Time is that which is intermediate between moments and both are contained within the innermost boundary of space, yielding the strings "past" "present" "future".

[sigurdV]

However,

 

1. x = "man is beautiful"

2. x = ""man is beautiful" is true" (Affirmation-Truth)

3. -x = ""man is beautiful" is not true" (Denial-Truth)

 

thus,

 

x = -x = Truth

 

Let "---" = time, and "| |" = space, and "." = moment, and "< >" = infinity, then

 

spacetime = "< .|---|.|---|.|---|. >" , thus

 

Time is that which is intermediate between moments and both are contained within the innermost boundary of space, yielding the strings "past" "present" "future".

 

(i) Whether your derivation of "x = -x" was correct or not,

 

I add as "last defence":

 

Whatever "x" is, it is not its negation. (Negative definition of Negation.)

 

Form all x, subtract all y such that "y is true" is true, then what remains are nontruths all not identical with x.

 

So the foundation is:

 

1 Law of Identity

2 Definition of Negation

 

(ii) "..." is more traditional as infinity...

 

(iii) "Time is that" ... is there but one time? Time is necessarily singular?

Theres "parallell times" and there might be an eternity of time inside a moment. Thanx for the notation :)

 

(iv) A Being in Time "me" notes that living time strings end in one or more variables...What must preceed them? The past, free of variables?

[CraigD]

"string" = "x"

Huh?!

 

Unless you’re using the symbol “=” to mean “is not equal to”, this statement isn’t true in any sense that I know of involving strings!

 

I think this thread would benefit from introducing some conventional terms and concepts of string arithmetic and arithmetic (or algebra) in general, especially some from computer programming disciplines.

 

A string is an ordered set of elements. It’s common to call the elements of a string characters, but to avoid confusion with standard definitions such as ASCII, better I think to use a more general term from the literature, letter, and refer to the collection of all letters in a particular string system (sometimes, as in GEB, called a typographical axiomatic system) as its alphabet. The term symbol is more commonly used as a synonym for letter, but I prefer letter, to avoid confusion with the user of the term symbol as a synonym for variable common in computer science.

 

It’s important to note that an alphabet need not be limited to a finite number of letters - Some important proofs involving strings, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, begin with the description of a simple means of assuring an arbitrarily large alphabet known as Gödel numbering.

 

A distinct visual mark used to represent a letter is called a glyph. It’s important, in the same way it’s important not to confuse the map with the territory, not to confuse letters with their glyphs.

 

A string that has a truth value or is a command in some representative system is called an expression. An expression that asserts its own truth is known as an assertion, definition, or in special cases, an assignment. All of the lines that Sigurd and Rade have been interspersing between the natural language in their posts in this thread are expressions.

 

It’s convenient to divide strings into substrings, calling the substrings terms and operators. For example, in the expressions

x = “string”

and

“string” = “x”

, ‘x’ and ‘”string”’ and ‘”x”’ are terms, while ‘=’ is an operator

 

As with numbers in more common arithmetic, there are two kinds of terms: variables (also called symbols) and literals. For example, in

1 + 2 = 3

y = 0

x = “string”

and

name = “Alice”

,’y’, ‘x’ and ‘name’ are variables, while ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘0’ ‘string’ and ‘Alice’ are literals.

 

It’s common to indicate string literals by enclosing them with double and/or single quotes, though I know an obscure computer languages (Converse) in which they’re used to indicate variables.

[sigurdV]

Hi Craig! Welcome to "String"Theory :)

 

I dont think you are wrong, but i dont think you are right either: You are on track but our direction is perhaps inversed. There is nothing wrong in introducing "Top to bottom concepts" but to us beginners/researchers "Bottom to top concepts" assimilates easier. Anyway, in the end theres not much else to do than reversing, if possible, so I agree with the proviso that one takes the steps carefully, one thing/concept/string at the time.

 

Also since "Truth" is my basic subject matter i want to start on a level where "Logic" and "Mathematics" might be "easily" modelled.

 

So lastly: What is needed to unify "String"Theory, "String Theory" and String Theory...

A slightly cheating answer is perhaps "Mind." and its constructing/analysing capability...

 

This climbing of Mount Semantics is tiresome to old legs, so thanx for your helping hand!