The Black Vault

at1with0 wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:Oh and I just bought me a new mouse today for my pooter.

It's a wireless. . . lesse, man I don't know what half this stufff means. . .

It says It's an optical 2.4 GHz wireless with auto synch, scalable DPI, scroll wheel, and a stowable nano receiver. . . is that good?

It just means you're going to get a lot of range outta it.
So you could, perhaps, use your mouse while in bed to watch videos on your screen from long range. 2.4Ghz is probably gonna reach beyond the confines of your room.

at1with0 wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:You and your precious Tegmark.

What exactly does ALL math structures mean?

And please keep in mind that I suck at math when you answer.

I used to be a teacher so I will try to not suck at explaining this.

A structure as such is essentially a "corporation" comprised of some specific things: an underlying set (which could be called the universe of discourse), as well as distinguished elements in that set (such as 0 in the set of natural numbers), as well as distinguished relations and functions acting on the set. Using the numbers structure as a continued example, one possible distinguished relation is less than and a distinguished function is successor.

The notation would look something like this:
N = {n, 0, <, S}
N is the name of the structure, n is the name of the set of natural numbers, you got the distinguished element 0, the relation less than, and the function Successor (which inputs a number and outputs its successor).

All structures can be "glued" together to form that amalgam of all structures. And this amalgam is itself a structure (when the "gluing" is done right). My continued problem has been to show that every structure is embedded within the amalgam. This type of inclusivity would underscore the importance of that amalgam and, at least in the context of Tegmark's speculation, make that amalgam a candidate for what the multiverse is (or is like).

DIss0n80r wrote:I judge you to be INFERIOR.

Point well taken.

DIss0n80r wrote:I was a bit annoyed by her myself. It was like she had to be dragged kicking and screaming from one idea to the next.

Oh I dunno, I think she's doing just fine.

at1with0 wrote:A structure as such is essentially a "corporation" comprised of some specific things: an underlying set (which could be called the universe of discourse),

at1with0 wrote:as well as distinguished elements in that set (such as 0 in the set of natural numbers),

at1with0 wrote:as well as distinguished relations and functions acting on the set.

at1with0 wrote:Using the numbers structure as a continued example, one possible distinguished relation is less than and a distinguished function is successor.

The notation would look something like this:
N = {n, 0, <, S}
N is the name of the structure, n is the name of the set of natural numbers, you got the distinguished element 0, the relation less than, and the function Successor (which inputs a number and outputs its successor).

at1with0 wrote:All structures can be "glued" together to form that amalgam of all structures. And this amalgam is itself a structure (when the "gluing" is done right). My continued problem has been to show that every structure is embedded within the amalgam. This type of inclusivity would underscore the importance of that amalgam and, at least in the context of Tegmark's speculation, make that amalgam a candidate for what the multiverse is (or is like).

at1with0 wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:I judge you to be INFERIOR.

Point well taken.

at1with0 wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:I was a bit annoyed by her myself. It was like she had to be dragged kicking and screaming from one idea to the next.

Oh I dunno, I think she's doing just fine.

DIss0n80r wrote:What is odd to me is how relations seem considered separate to some extent from entities. It makes it difficult for me to grasp some stuff.

at1with0 wrote:All structures can be "glued" together to form that amalgam of all structures. And this amalgam is itself a structure (when the "gluing" is done right). My continued problem has been to show that every structure is embedded within the amalgam. This type of inclusivity would underscore the importance of that amalgam and, at least in the context of Tegmark's speculation, make that amalgam a candidate for what the multiverse is (or is like).

So there must be some governing language, a Language of languages, that describes how description occurs, its limits of composition.

One would assume.

Unless there isn't.

Is that possible?