Springer, This sounds interesting but the language is a little too academic for me, without looking up and reading other sources. Perhaps you could expand a little in future for a more general audiences,
Not withstanding that, you triggered me to mention my long term goal of building a database system where all objects (say tiddlers) are defined, but the tiddlers attributes (fields eg color,description,icon, status), are only defined by relationships to other objects. For example colour as an attribute, would have a relationship to all or a specif colour object rather than a specific colour value. Thus every time you create an new attribute, that may contain values, you first have to build a set of objects to which you can relate this instance of the attribute. It makes for a slow start but you can see how you will have back links to every attribute, forced to explicitly define everything in use within this data universe. If you were building a set of colour objects they could be arranged according to different colour theories... but then you would need a structure of colour theories. Critical to such a structure is to provide fuzzy values, ie if you do not know the colour, or if has not be defined yet, to be able to give it a value that will eventually be resolved. However the ultimate goal would be for the system to be complete one day, but the reality is it will possibly only ever approach completeness, if not more each time new information is captured. Regards Tony On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 5:00:13 AM UTC+10, springer wrote: > > Hans, > > I'd love to hear more about what you're *doing* with this idea of a > dimensional array. > > As my prior post hints, there's a great deal of resonance between your > big-picture musings and Charles Peirce's logic. > > However, Peirce argues that the conceptual structures you end up needing > will be triadic, and whenever you're tempted to find 4 or five "dimensions" > you're probably looking at triads within triads. ;) > > Here's some reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_(Peirce) > > It's important to note that to function as a "character" in the Peircean > sense is to manifest a recognizable and repeatable quality that is not > *experienced as* compound — in just the way that the letter and numeral > forms do for people who are familiar with them. To think of something as a > character is thus to abstract away from any aspects of the thing (such as > its font) that is irrelevant to this repeatability. (Chinese characters > aren't actually "characters" in this sense for those who aren't fluent with > them, though; for most of us, we're just like kids who don't see p and b > and q and d as anything but vaguely similar shapes. Even Chinese and > Japanese people sometimes have to "parse" an unfamiliar character into its > component parts in order to go look it up.) > > The distinction between "character" and "word" however is an artifact of > some languages rather than others; it shouldn't be baked into your logic > that characters are *only* building blocks and words are *always* a > combination of characters. In Chinese (and hieroglyphics) every character > is a word. And some characters even in English can function as words. (I > have a speed-typing program such that any single letter (other than a and > i) expands into the most easily-associated common word.) Still, treating > someting as a character is different from treating it (functionally) as a > word. > > I would like to hear more about why "key" and "name" would be seen as > separate dimensions from each other in your scheme... But here's a Peircean > starting point that resonates with your word - name - category sequence: > > possibility-by-itself > pointer-to-something (what Peirce calls an "index" as in "index finger") > regularity or field of connection > > These correspond, roughly, to zero-dimensional point, one-dimensional > line, and two-dimensional plane figure. > > I wonder whether what you might want, then is something like... > > (a) identifiable building block of meaning considered AS independent of > whether it can be considered to have its own semantic content (The > character "I" is not excluded, but we bracket its ability to function as a > word) > (b) word-AS-semantically meaningful unit (usually a string of characters > in English, but that's a coincidence) > but then there's further division between words that name ... > qualities ("green") and other relations ("beside") > [all qualities are relations, with simple qualities being > 1-place relations] > actualities ("Hans") and other locatables (via reference-index > pointing relations) > kinds / types ("human") (categories) > (c) word-combinations as *affirmed* (or as open to affirmation) > > And then it turns out that there are lots more triads that open up from > this one. Among the things we can do with an assertable is: (a) simply > entertain it, discuss it as a proposition; (b) accept it; (c) build with > it, in connection with other claims (meaning, getting it into inference > relations, arguments, proofs, etc.). Among the kinds of propositions we can > affirm, meanwhile, there's another triad: possibilities, actualities, and > necessities. > > The triad-talk may sound mystical at first. But once you get the hang of > it, it's pretty powerful. For example, Peirce was able to prove that the > robust structure of triadic relations is irreducible (you can't express a > 3-place relations in 2-place languages), but all 4+-place relations can be > expressed as (reduced into) 3-place relations. > > -Springer > > On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 10:39:20 AM UTC-4, HansWobbe wrote: >> >> I think it's time I started to at least collect my insights regarding >> Characters, Words, Keys, Names, and Categories as they appear to me to >> collectively form what mathematicians call "an N-Dimensional Array". >> Please consider my interest in this area to be a peculiar Quirk (which is >> why I use that tag). >> >> Everyone is welcome to chip in questions, ideas, perceptions, and >> perspectives. Hopefully that will lead to a better articulation of what >> I've been rambling about at intermittent times. This is likely to be a >> long and drawn out process, so: first, as a jump off point ... >> >> >> Hans, >> >> When you say 5 dimensions do you mean in the same key? >> >> That is inspirational, but what do you mean? >> >> I feel we should have a way to register a unique id for any tiddlywiki we >> make, then that can be part of a compound key to get an universal serial >> wiki/tiddler. Would that be 2 dimensional? >> >> Then we could have a third for our self eg wiki/my "brand"/tiddler? >> >> Regards >> Tony >> >> >> then: ... >> >> >> - Once upon a Time: (actually in the early 1990's), WardCunningham >> gave us WardsWiki ( a.k.a. the PortlandPattern Repository, c2:, ... ) >> - Interestingly, that spawnedL >> - WikiPedia. >> - ... >> - TiddlyWiki 1. Classic and 2. TwFive >> - ... >> >> >> >> - Ti >> >> >> ... more ... later ... >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/7589a264-8686-4630-b9a0-a1b0fe223a4fo%40googlegroups.com.
