Revolution

Specifically, the late mid 18th century from 1761-1780 has most of the American Revolution. While losing most of the American colonies, the British consolidated their rule over Canada and expanded their dominions in India.

I have finished a rewrite of the middle prehistory of institutions. I still don’t have the specific detail I would like, but it will come eventually.

Personal studies have gone through a rewrite of their connections to science. The next stage is to further connect personal studies to Sociology. The remaining medium and smaller countries and cities will be better connected to biographies and to contributions in psychology and the human body.

More history

For the early mid 18th century, from 1721-1740, I have a particular interest in British history, which includes the reign of George I. In North America, this included King George’s War, the third of the French and Indian wars. There were other things going on in Europe which had an influence on the Americas, which I will probably discuss more on the next pass through the 18th century.

For the mid 18th century from 1741-1960, I have an interest in British history, which included the reign of George II. The Seven years war with France began. In North America, this was the fourth of the series of the French and Indian Wars. Other European developments also affected the Americas.

When you’re Hot

I normally do at most one post per day, but when you’re hot, you’re hot. (Or, perhaps, when you live in Phoenix, you’re hot…) British peoples were unified as the United Kingdom under Queen Anne. In North America, the second of the French and Indian Wars, Queen Anne’s War, between French and British colonists took place. The War of the Spanish Succession was another event in early 18th century Europe.

I have rewritten the early prehistory of Institutions; not that I really have more information about it, but because there are more connections to be considered. This was an area of much speculation based on insufficient data in the early part of this century, and although more evidence has been uncovered, it appears that there is still more speculation than established fact.

Back in the Saddle

I have had some health problems in the past week, which have delayed my creation of posts for this blog. I expect to pick up the pace

Picking up where I left off in the summary of history, for the late mid 17th century, I have given a little more attention to the British and to the restoration of the British monarchy under Charles II. There was also development of the the British colonies in North America, especially the British takeover of New Amsterdam, which was renamed New York. The British had an increasing presence in India.

For the late 17th century, I also have more attention to the British and the next generation of the British monarchy under William and Mary, continued development of the British colonies in North America and the beginnings of the French and Indian wars between English an French colonists in North America, and an increasing British presence in India.

For my studies in logic, I have been attempting to review Aristotle’s “On Interpretation”, and it’s not exactly easy to digest. In topic or section 1, he begins by attempting to define his terms, “noun” and “verb”, “denial” and “Affirmation”, and “Proposition and sentence”. I’m not inclined to give excessive weight to Aristotle’s authority: It’s a good beginning approach, but the discussion has, or should have, moved beyond him by now. I do note that with the development of mathematical and symbolic logic, his discussion seems more heavily linguistic than I am prepared to discuss. There will be more on this later.

Scattered Progress

It seems that I am going to have to upgrade my web development tools. I have been satisfied with HoTMetaL Pro, which I have been using for years, but the site has expanded beyond its ability to track the link structure, so I am switching to a new editor. I may have to learn CSS, which I have been resisting doing as well, but if that helps me improve the site’s appearance, so much the better.

I have cycled my studies of history around to the early 17th century. There is some coverage of the early settlement of North America, but most of the action is centered in Europe.
For the early mid 17th century, there is more settlement of North America and some coverage of England and Europe.
For mid 17th century, I have reference to the English Civil War, and still more settlement of North America including Canada.

I prefer to announce what I have finished, rather than what I am working on. Personal studies are now connected to details of anthropology, and Science is now connected to details of culture, which is an important advance.

More story

Although I had been working on a story, I like the research process too much to stop and write straight fiction. I’ve been thinking about a historical fantasy series, but that wasn’t working, because I wanted to work from the beginning and there is too much that needs to be connected and developed from later periods. So, I’ve changed tracks yet again.
I started in early modern history and created a fictional society, with a founder, that I will be using as a starting point for exploration. I carried this forward for a few centuries, and like the results enough to go back for another pass, with a little more detail, corresponding to areas I have developed or am developing. I liked this, too.

I was going to post the results of the third pass here, but decided not. For one, it’s in much too embryonic form; one paragraph to cover the 6th through 11th centuries, restricted mostly to France and Italy. Second, I think it would be better to keep work I may want to publish as historical fiction off the blog. I will say that, although I am not a member nor a great fan of the Roman Catholic Church, it did serve as a unifying, civilizing force throughout medieval times. Critiques will come up later as I get more details.

More connections

Since history depends so heavily on sociology, I have been reviewing and rewriting the connections of sociology to institutions. This is not producing much significant progress, because I haven’t been working in the details. A review of the history of peoples of the world has also produced fairly minimal progress. Nations are now connected to weeks of 2017, which is a bit further back than I have analyzed events. I am now free to begin connecting nations to biographies. For Western Civilization, I have felt a need to examine historical roots, which has meant connecting Greece to early antiquity and prehistory. I’ve finally accomplished this, and extended about a dozen other nations to the same periods, so there will be a little bit of catching up involved. I’ve also done a review of social mechanics and religion to Western Civilization, and it’s now time to finish connecting elements of government. I’m taking Asiatic peoples through a review of connections to Western Civilization. Oriental peoples, and India, are still being connected to particular nations. Communities are being connected to biographies, and so are social mechanics as. For Institutions in general, I’ve done a review of peoples, social mechanics, culture, and anthropology. These are now being connected to biographies. Connecting more things to biographies has long been a part of the overall plan, and I’m pleased to finally be making more progress with it.

Aristotle’s “Categories” relates to linguistics and logic, which is not quite my area of focus. I’ve now downloaded his next book; “On Interpretation”which has more of the content I am looking for.

What does Aristotle say?

I really don’t know. For some time, I’ve been avoiding looking closely at the origins of logic, and specifically modal logic, in the writings of Aristotle. I’ve run out of excuses and I finally downloaded a copy of Aristotle’s “Categories” (E.M. Edgehill’s translation, from the Gutenberg project), to start looking it over. I will have a little more to say on this when I’ve studied more of it.

One of my ongoing projects has to do with writing what I call historical fantasy. I finally broke down and connected two areas of particular changes and movements; namely stone age developments and the agricultural revolution, all the way back to their origins in the Knoweldge Base. This should allow me to do more with those subjects.

Switching

I’ve come close to the limit of what I currently have to say about logic. I had a comment that commended me for putting it out there for free instead of an e-book, but it appeared in my spam comments and the reference was generic. I may want to go that route anyway, including all the tables and proofs of the theorems and equivalences and various other claims. There are more ideas percolating and more extensions I can work ing, but I’ve spent the pent-up steam until I can get more questions or comments. I’ve been active on MathExchange and Google+ and have posted a few more comments and claims there, but so far nobody has really bitten.

I’ve been continuing work on the Knowledge Base. The last time I reviewed progress, I found the major subject of Institutions to be most in need of development. I’ve been going through a review of how peoples of the world apply to them and I’m currently connecting regions of China. Culture shouldn’t be too far behind it. I still need to get this caught up to current weeks, and I also want to broaden the connections to the smaller nations.

I’m also trying to use the eLearning feature on LinkedIn to pick up and renew my work in computer programming, but this isn’t the most urgent priority right now.

What’s so revolutionary?

This is a continuation of a series of posts on three-valued logic which began with “The learned professors”

There are about seven reasons this work is revolutionary.

1) First, it is a full-featured extension of classical logic into the realm of the uncertain. The arithmetic of the integers is an extension of the ordinary arithmetic of whole numbers into the negative, and the arithmetic of common factions is an extension of ordinary arithmetic into the realm of parts of objects. Both are fully compatible and include the whole numbers as a special case. In a similar fashion, all the laws of classical two-valued logic remain true in the two-valued case, but some of them must be modified in the three valued case.

2) It is truth functional and the same methods of truth truth tables and algebraic manipulation apply in this logic as in two valued logic. It follows the associative, commutative, distributive, identity, annihilator, idempotent, double negation, and De Morgan laws of Boolean algebra but does not follow the complementation laws x & ~x= F and x ∨ ~x = T. This is called a De Morgan algebra.

3) It is a truth functional system of modal logic. It differs from the Lewis systems S1-S5, because it uses a different version of the strict conditional, and because it does not include the law of the excluded middle. However, theorems of L3M that are parallel to the axioms of S5 can be formulated, therefore anything that can be proven in S5 can be proven with this logic. It has been established that S5 itself cannot be reduced to 3 values, but this is a narrow result and can probably be traced to the difference in conditionals.
It can also be established that that if the strict material conditional []( P =) Q) holds, then so does the strict Lukasewicz conditional [](P -> Q), but not conversely.

4) It is a truth functional version of intuitionism. In similar fashion to modal logic, if all the axioms of intuitionism are replaced using the strong negation ~<>P instead of the ordinary negation, and using the strict Lukasewicze conditional instead of the ordinary material conditional, the resulting axioms are theorems of this system. Therefore, anything that can be proven using these axioms is also true in this systems.

5) It clarifies long-standing controversies in logic, notably the meaning of the conditional and its relation with concepts of implication and entailment, and doubts about the universal validity of modus ponens. Along with fuzzy logic, it offers a resolution to the Sorites paradox. It addresses some of the same concerns as relevance logic. The Lukasiewicz conditional can be defined as (~Q \/ P \/ P==Q), if P== Q has been defined as P and Q having the same truth value.

6) It is connected to Fuzzy logic. It has some of the same features, although this logic includes all the values between T and F in the one value U, where Fuzzy logic gives each truth value a distinct number.

7) It shares features with paraconsistent logic. (P & ~P) => Q is not a tautology, so it is not explosive, and is not sufficient to prove any other proposition at all. However, this logic does include methods of indirect proof, which work by establishing contradictions. It is simply necessary to establish a contradiction and not merely a contrary. Expressions such as (p & ~<>P) “true and impossible”, ([]p & ~P) “certain and false”, ([]p & ~[]P) “certain and not certain”, (<>P & ~<>P) “possible and impossible”, and ([]P & ~<> P) “certain and impossible” all work.