[FoRK] The quantum-logical theory of truth and irony

Stephen Williams sdw at lig.net
Fri Jan 22 09:42:59 PST 2010

Bill Stoddard wrote:
> On 1/22/10 12:00 PM, Jeff Bone wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Jeff Bone wrote:
>>> One small lemma in the theory, worthy of note:  anti-anti-irony is 
>>> not +1 irony, but rather -4/3 irony.  Anti-anti-anti-irony = -2 
>>> irony.  However, anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony, yet 
>>> quasi-meta-anti-meta-anti-meta-anti-irony (or any of its well-formed 
>>> tangles) = negative infinity +/- 2/3.  (Dimensional analysis reveals 
>>> this number, intriguingly, to be unitless.)
>> You're probably confused.  I know what you're thinking:  "shouldn't 
>> anti-anti-anti-irony = +2 irony, not -2 irony?"
>> This tripped me up at first, too.
>> However, recall "Seinfeld's Law":  in any linear composition of 
>> anti-ironic applications to collapsed quantum-logical products, the 
>> sign-twist result of every other application is implicitly reversed.  
>> In practice, this means that any odd number of sequential 
>> applications of anti- to an unmodified truson with positive 
>> intensionality and any whole-number extensionality has negative 
>> sign-twist.  (Hence, "sign-folding.")  However, when the number of 
>> such applications has been "lifted" transfinitely via the application 
>> of e.g. meta or other operators, the sign becomes unknowable.  Only 
>> the linear subsequences of such applications have deterministic sign.
>> In practice this is not a problem for most common speech-act 
>> applications.  The primitive expression of the typed truson calculus 
>> using positional operators does, however, permit disambiguation;  
>> consider the twist-type signature of the following tangle, for 
>> example:  (anti-)-(anti)(-anti)-(anti-)-(-anti-) X.
>> I hope this clarifies things and therefore preemptively avoids a 
>> shit-storm of confusion and debate on this issue.
> Russell,
> You're in Austin, right?  Need to go over and talk Jeff down...

No, no, take down notes first.  This is great stuff.  We need to 
document this new Bone Calculus.  I smell a book.  Or at least a web site.

Funny thing is that it makes sens to me so far! ;-)
And the sign-twistiness reminds me of something I just figured out that 
kind of blows my mind: circular polarization of light and its uses.  
Next post.

> Bill

More information about the FoRK mailing list