## Is this a new form of logical notation?

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Is this a new form of logical notation?

In forming a basic logic considering all is context:

1. (X) for context

2. ((X)Y) for context of context or context within context as a modality or that which describes. This modality, as a fraction of the original context, is divisive by nature considering this context is part of a prior context.

3. (X)(Y) for context transitioning to another context as in the original context is multiplying to a new context. One context, or set of contexts, change into another thus multiplying the original context through new contexts. Each context, as fundamentally empty, multiplies itself through its progression to a new context.

4. ((X)Y-->) for a transitional context or the context transitioning to another context through a basic action such as a verb. One context acts as a means of transition to another context. This transitional context as descriptive, considering it is a set of actions which define the prior context, shares the same form as "((x)y)". This context is empty in itself and as empty acts as the variation of one context into a newer form.

A. The cat eats food.
((Cat)eats-->) ((Food)Cat)

B. It rains in November
(((It )rains-->)November)

C. The sky is blue.
((Sky)is-->)(Blue) or ((sky)blue)

D. 1+1=2
(((1)1-->)-->) (2)

E. 1+2=3
(((1)2-->)-->) (3)

F. 2-1=1
(((2)-1-->)-->) (1)

G. 2x2=4
(((2)(2))-->)(4)

H. 4/2=2
(((4)2)-->)(2)
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:32 am, edited 8 times in total.
Impenitent
Posts: 2997
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

### Re: Context as Logic and Logic as Context

therefore the wet cat has the blues...

-Imp
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Context as Logic and Logic as Context

Impenitent wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:44 pm therefore the wet cat has the blues...

-Imp
((...)therefore-->) (((cat)wet)has-->)(blues)

Or (((Cat)wet)blue)
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Context as Logic and Logic as Context

E. The distributive property can be observed as 3×(2+3)=(3×2)+(3x3) where:

(((3)((2)3-->))-->) (((3)(2))((3)(3))-->)

F. The associative property can be observed as 4+(5+3)=(4+5)+3=12 where:

(((4)((5)3-->)-->)-->) ((((4)5-->)3-->)-->)(12)

G. The commutative property can be observed as 1+2=2+1 where:

(((1)2-->)-->) ((2)1-->)

H. The identity property can be observed as 1+0=1 and 2×1=2 where:

(((1)0-->)-->) (1) and (((2)(1))-->) (2) respectively.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Context as Logic and Logic as Context

All transference of contexts is in itself a context. All contexts that contain contexts are also contexts.

Addition is an act of transference.

((+1)+2-->) observes 2 transfer over to 1. This would be equivalent to saying plus to is the action of one transfering over to a new state. The action of adding 2 in turn defines 1 thus the action of addition is the act of transference. The transference of 1 through 2 observes 1 as being defined through 2.

"Equals" is an act of transference

(((+1)+2-->)-->)(+3) observes the summation of the transference of +2 to +1 transfer to another context of +3. This would Be equivalent to saying 1+2 equivocates to the context of 3.
Equivocation as an action is transference. One context transfers over to another with this transference transfering over to a new context. The act of transference itself, one context through another, is in itself a context.