Complementary Calculi.

nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

Complementary Calculi: Distinction and Differentiation

A further step to a graphematic turn in the construction and understanding of calculi
Rudolf Kaehr Dr. phil@
Copyright ThinkArt Lab ISSN 2041-4358

Abstract
The paper "Diamond Calculus of Formation of Forms. A calculus of dynamic complexions of distinctions as an interplay of worlds and distinctions was mainly based on a deconstruction of the conditions of the calculus of indication, i.e. the assumption of a world and distinctions in it. The present paper Calculi of Indication and Differentiation opts for a graphematic turn in the understanding of calculi in general. This turn is exemplified with the George Spencer-Browns Calculus of Indication and the still to be discovered complementary Mersenne calculus of differentiations. First steps toward a graphematics had been presented with Interplay of Elementary Graphematic Calculi. Graphematic Fourfoldness of semiotics, Indication, Differentiation and Kenogrammatics". Graphematic calculi are not primarily related to a world or many worlds, like the CI and its diamondization. Graphematic calculi are studying the rules of the graphematic economy of kenomic inscriptions. Graphematics was invented in the early 1970s as an interpretation of Gotthard Gunthers keno- and morphogrammatics, inspired by Jaques Derridas grammatology and graphematics. Spencer-Browns calculus of indication has been extensively used to interpret human behavior in general. The proposed new complementary calculus to the indicational calculus, the Mersenne calculus, might not be applicable to human beings, but there is a great chance that it will be a success for the interaction and study of non-human beings, such as robots, aliens, and Others. SHORT VERSION (work in progress v.0.4)

1. Indication and differentiation in graphematics

1.1. Bracket Grammars
Moshe Klein has given a simple introduction to George Spencer-Brown's calculus of indication (CI) as a special case of a bracket grammar. A context-free language with the grammar: S --> SS|(S)| is generating the proper paranthesis for formal languages. What was an act of a genius becomes an adhoc decision to restrict the grammar of bracket production. Set the restriction of bracket rules to: (()) () = () (()) and you get the basic foundation of the famous CI as introduced by George Spencer-Brown. Nobody insists that this is an appropriate approach but it seems that it takes its legitimacy from the formal

1 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

correctness of the approach. Now, with the same decisionism, albeit not pre-thought by a genius, I opt for an alternative restriction, (( )) = ( ). This decision is delivering the base system for a Mersenne calculus, interpreted as a calculus of differentiation, CD. I stipulate that both calculi, the CI and the CD, are complementary. And both calculi have additionally their own internal duality, delivering the dual calculi, i.e. the dual-CI and the dual-CD. It will be shown that, despite of its non-motivated adhocism, both calculi are well founded in graphematical systems, and are to be seen as interpretations of independent complementary graphematical calculi. In fact, they belong, with the identity system for semiotics to the only two non-kenogrammatic graphematical systems of the general architectonics of graphematics.

2 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

2. BROWNIAN AND MERSENNIAN CALCULI

2.1. Towards Spencer-Brownian and Mersennian calculi
2.1.1. Primary lessons out of the bracket systems
LoF Mersenne distinction -- differentation (separation) indication -- identification

2.1.2. Brownian calculus

A distinction of 2 distinctions is a distinction. A distinction of a distinction is no distinction. In Spencer-Browns wording:

3 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

A1. The value of a call made again is the value of the call. Calling A2. The value of a crossing made again is not the value of the crossing. Crossing" "In his Laws of Form (hereinafter LoF), in print since 1969, George Spencer-Brown proposed a minimalist formal system, called the primary arithmetic, arising from the primitive mental act of making a distinction. He reached the next rung on the ladder of abstraction by letting letters denote, indifferently, a distinction or its absence, resulting in the primary algebra. The primary arithmetic and algebra featured a single primitive symbol in LoF. (Meguire)

2.1.3. Mersenne calculus

A differentation between 2 differentiations is an absence of differentiation.

A differentiation of a differentiation is a differentiation. Paraphrase M1. The value of a call made again is not the value of the call. Calling M2. The value of a crossing made again is the value of the crossing. Crossing" "In his Laws of Differentiation (hereinafter LoD), in print since 2011, Rudolf Kaehr proposed a minimalist complementary formal system to the LoF, called the primary complementary arithmetic, pca, arising from the primitive scriptural act of perceiving a differentiation. He reached the next rung on the ladder of graphematic abstraction, the Mersenne calculus, MC, by letting characters inscribe, differently, a differentiation or its absence, resulting in the primary complementary algebra, CD. The primary complementary arithmetic and algebra featured a single primitive symbol in LoD. (Kaehr)

2.1.4. How to draw a difference between distinction and differentiation?

4 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

Metaphors Browns tabula rasa world, cut by the act of a distinction. Mersennes streams of signs. Differentiated by the perception of a differentiation. "Distinction without difference.: "Difference without distinction. The motivation for Brownian distinctions are founded in the Mersennian process of differentiation; both are interacting simultaneously together. This interplay of constructivist and recognicist actions is marked by the quadralectics of both calculi. "Discuss the distinction between indicational and differential calculi. Is there a difference or is it a distinction? "How to draw a difference between a distinction and a differentiation? How is it indicated? At first, the graphematic complementarity approach is in no way forced to establish a hierarchy between the concepts and strategies of distinction and differentiation. Secondly, the involved calculi are not forced to reduce their space of realizations to mono-contexturality. http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/paper-2003/gaon.pdf or but != ?

5 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

Bracket interpretation of graphematic constellations

Interpretations, again LoF Following Wolframs statement, according to M. Schreiber: "A kind of form is all you need to compute. A system can emulate rule 110 if it can distinguish: More than one is one but one inside one is none. Simple distinctions can be configured into forms which are able to perform universal computations. LoD "A kind of structuration is part of what you need to transpute. A system can inscribe the complementary rule 110 if it can differentiate: More than one is none but one inside one is

6 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

one. Complex differentiations can be inscribed into structurations which are able to create pluriversal transputations. LoF & LoD Both together, and set into a polycontextural framework, are staging polyversal co-creations in the doman of distinctions, differentiations and worlds.

2.1.5. Meta-theorems
CI-Brown T9: If any space contains an empty cross, the value indicated in the space is the marked state." (Varela, p. 114)

CD-Mersenne DT9: If any constellation is enveloped by a singular differentiation, the situation differentiated in the constellation is the singular differentiation."

Theorem DT13 Let p, q, r stand for any expressions. Then in any case,

7 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

2.1.6. Duality
Duality is well known as an interesting property of formal systems with structural and economic advantages; Two for one. CI: p = q --> CM: p = q --> = =

2.1.7. Epistemological complementarity

Both characterizations are referring to the distinctions (differentiations) made, and inscribed, by its marks. There is no reference to an outside world which has to be divided and marked needed. Mersenne calculi are not referring to a world to be divided but to the media they are inscribed. Hence, they are reflecting and referring to themselves instead of an external world which needs observer who are making distinctions in this world. Also the basic beginnings" (initials, axioms) of the complementary Brownian and the Mersennian calculi look intriguingly simple and more like duals of each other than highly different complementary approaches, the consequences of the differences and similarities becomes surprisingly decisive and clear in the algebra of both calculi. Spencer-Brown The most fundamental activity is to draw a distinction and to mark it. This marks the constructivitic appraoch of a subject to the world (Kant). Draw a distinction! Mark it! refers to a so called world, and implies an actor of the distinction. "Distinctions splits the world into two parts, [...]. One of the most fundamental of all human

8 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

activities is the making of distinctions. (Principles of Biological Autonomy, Varela, 1979, p. 84) There is no need to privilege a starting point as the ultimate beginning and determination of human activities as the Brownians are insisting. There are other possibilities too, and there is also no chance to legitimate or to prove the correctness of such a statement about any beginnings. http://www.vordenker.de/ics/downloads/logik-second-order.pdf Mersenne The most fundamental activity is to separate and to identify the separated. "Without separation no identification, and vice versa." This hints to the transcendental-phenomenological turn to the Sachen selbst (Husserl, Heidegger) as a complementary approach to cognitivistic constructions. There is no need to privilege a starting point as the ultimate beginning and determination of human activities as the Brownians are insisting. There are other possibilities too, and there is also no chance to legitimate or to prove the correctness of such a statement about any beginnings. There is also no need to insist on a Mersenne complementary statement about the importance of beginnings. Spencer-Brown/Mersenne The constructivistic approach of the CI is forgetting that it needs something to construct something, even if this something is self-referentially constructed by itself. The transcendental-phenomenological approach of the CD is forgetting that it needs methods to detect something that is not yet a detected method. Both approaches are denying their blind spot, unmasked by the graphematical approach as the graphematic gaps of the calculi. Both gaps are complementary to each other. Instead of the constructivist activity to draw a distinction in a presumed world as demanded by the CI, the CD ask to accept the perceived or encountered difference in the world as a separation or differentiation of something, especially something written or inscribed, independent of an active and constructivist observer but depending on someone who is able to accept what is given. The given is not a pre-given entity from nowhere but a cultural event of other cultural events, i.e. cultural agents. With this turn, miseries of solipsism are results of blindness towards what is given as encountered in an happenstance of encounter. In other words, the CI is drawing distinctions, the CD is encountering events. For the CI, the patron might be Immanuel Kant, for the CD, a reference to Alfred North Withehead might be accurate. Hence, the interpretation of the initials of the CD are becoming: M1: The iteration (of the acceptance) of an event is the absence of (an acceptance of) an event. And, M2: The (acceptance of an) event of an event is (the acceptance of) an event. Graphematics The most fundamental activity is to live the Schied of the Unterschied, i.e. the tinction of the dis-tinction, distinction and difference, between the two complementary tinctions of Brown and Mersenne and their dual forms of inscriptions as part of the general system of graphematics. The Schied of the Unterschied is in the history and ressemblance with the process of diffrance as close as possible to the movement of identity. Both, the Brownian calculus of indication and and the Mersennian calculus of differentation might be based on the graphematic system of inscription. Both appears as interpretations of different graphematic systems, belonging to the general system of graphematics. How is the system of graphematics introduced? Is there any transparency or is it as obscure as the introduction of the Calculus of Indication?

9 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

Graphematics are an interpretation based on the classification of partitions of a set of signs. It is proved that this classification system of sets of signs is complete. With the Stirling Turn, graphematics is based on kenogrammatics and not anymore exclusively on semiotics. Gaps Gaps appear in the interaction between different calculi, i.e. CI, CD and semiotics. There is no direct access for a calculus to its gap. Hence, a gap is a blind spot of a calculus. A interactional calculus of indication and differentiation is including the interactivity of calculi and gaps. Gaps are a third category to the mark, unmark , , and differentiation and absence of differentiation, . Algebraic and Co-algebraic characterizations There is also no single point of beginning in graphematical scriptures, like Mark it!. The algebraic distinctions of syntax, semantics and pragmatics are not guiding for graphematic formal systems (languages, i.e. scriptures). Algebraic CI: In the beginning there is a space, normally a plane surface, that is featureless but upon which symbols (a primitive notion) may be inscribed. (Meguire) Co-algebraic graphematics "There are always symbols to encounter that are defining a space of inscriptions. Such a scriptural space is never featureless, and symbols, marks and signs (complex kenoms) are always distinguishable and are always further differentiated by coordinated inscriptions. What might be presupposed for the CI as minimal conditions, is a 2-dimensional open field of kenomic marks. Then, to each identified kenomic mark of the two dimensions the questions leading to the initials J1 and J2 might be asked and answered by the indicational rules of J1 and J2 of the Laws of Form. Calculi, like the CI and the MC, arise as interpretations of graphematic streams of kenomic inscriptions. A formalization of the behavior of the graphematic systems implied by the calculi CI and CD would have to be realized as an interplay between algebraic and co-algebraic tectonics. Also both calculi are, in their complementarity, very similar, they are based on strictly distinct graphematic systems. The whole wording introduced by GSB to characterize the process of distinction and indication related to a space and time, is a relict from a subordination of writing to the aim of representation in the tradition of sign-related ontology. From a graphematic point of view, only the inscriptions and their laws are of relevance. This is a step further towards a graphematic understanding of calculi compared to the sketch presented by the Diamond Calculus approach which is still emphasizing the proemiality of world and distinction.

2.1.8. Qualitative characterizations

Qualitative characterizations of the graphematics of Brownian and Mersennian configurations Following Matzkas charcterizations of semiotic, indicational and trito-systems (or strings), but omitting Mersenne systems, the formal approach of Schadach gets some intuitive support additionally to its strictly combinatorial treatement. General assumption (A) If the two given tokens of strings have different lengths, then they are different. If they have equal lengths, then go to (B). x = (a1 a2 a3... an), y = (b1 b2 b3 ... bm),

10 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

m=n or m!=n. Identity (B) For each position i from 1 to the common length, check whether the atom at the i-th position of x equals the atom at the i-th position of y. If this is true for all positions i, then the given tokens are equal, otherwise they are different. Spencer-Brown (B') Check whether each atom appears equally often in both string-tokens. If this is the case, then they are equal, otherwise they are different. Here we have enlarged the abstractive distance between string-token and string-type, by including the abstraction from the order of the atoms into the abstraction from token to type. Trito-stucture (B'') For each pair i, k, i<k, of positions, check whether within x there is equality between position i and k, and check whether within y there is equality between position i and k. If within both x and y there is equality, or if within both x and y there is inequality, then state equality for this pair of positions, otherwise state inequality for this pair of positions. If for each pair of positions there is equality, then x and y are equal. Otherwise they are not. Mersenne (B) For each pair i, k, i<k, of positions, check whether within x there is equality between position i and k, and check whether wihin y there is equality between position i and k. If within both x and y there is equality for all i, k, and additionally (B) holds, then x and y are equal. Otherwise they are not.

2.1.9. Combinatorial characterizations

11 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

2.2. Comparison of primary arithmetics and algebras of CI and CD

The graphematic complementarity of CI and CD is reflected in the complementarity of their arithmetics and algebras. Graphematic constellations

How are the graphematic situations mirrored in the formulas of the calculi? For the CI it seems easy to show the property of commutativity of the terms, like

12 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

= = How is the non-commutativity in the CM represented? = --> = --> = .

States and constellations: CD = { , } CD-constellations = { CI = { , } , , } , , }.

CI-constellations = {

Concatenation, combination and superposition CI: X CI, Y CI => X^Y CI : concatenation X CI, Y CI => X(Y) CI : superposition CD: X CD, Y CD => X*Y CD : combination X CD, Y CD => X(Y) CD : superposition Equality in CI and CM Equality in the CI is defined in a traditional way: x = x and x != CI: != --> != . , hence:

This corresponds in the CI properly the graphematic situation: (aa) != (bb), confirmed with: CI: != --> != --> != .

The corresponding situation for the CD is given with (aa) = (bb) and confirmed with: CD: = --> = --> = .

And in particular: (a) = (b): CD: = --> = .

2.3. Basic interpretations

CI : CD: CI: CD:

= , , =

corresponds to: (aa) !=Brown (bb). corresponds to: (aa) =Mers (bb). corresponds to: (ab) =Brown (ba). , corresponds to: (ab) !=Mers (ba).

13 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

Hence, the formula of "exchange" in the calculus of differentiation CD is specific for the CD. It doesnt hold in the calculus of indication, CI, nor in a Boolean logical interpretation with negation and conjunction (disjunction). Therefore, the calculus of differentiation is not modeled by a Boolean algebra as this is the case for the calculus of indication (minus some differences).

14 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

"Negation in CD? How to define negation in CD if the calculus of differentiation, CD, is negation-invariant?

Again, M1: A repetition of a quotation is the absence of a quotation. M2: A quotation of a quotation is a quotation.

15 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

3. Primary arithmetics and algebra of CI and CD

3.1. Table of some complementary laws

16 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

3.2. Explanations for Mersenne laws

C1: A differentiation of a differentiation of a situation p is a differentiation: C2: The differentiation of 2 situations, p and q, combined with the second situation is the differentiation of the first situation p combined with the second situation q: C3: A differentiation of a differentiation combined with a situation is a differentiation:

17 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

C4: A differentiation of a situation p combined with a differentiation of a combination of a situation q combined with the differentiation of the situation p is a differentiation of p: . C5: The repetition of a differentiation is the absence of a differentiation: . (The iteration of the same differentiation is not a differentiation.) C5: The differentation of the repetiton of a situations p, is a differentiation per se: . : To differentiate and to differentiate and to differentiate again is to differentiate: = , i.e. p p = , but p p p = p, based on M1, i.e. = .

4. Proofs of some complementary laws

4.1. Algebraic proofs for CI and CD
Algebraic proofs are not referring anymore to states and meta-states of a formula. They refer solely to some selected formulas, proven as correct and used as axioms, and the rules of equality and substitutions applicable in the domain.

4.1.1. Algebraic proof for CI

Example Proof based on (GSB) the CI initials J1, J2 and equality. CI1: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. a a =a J1, 0 J2, 1 J1, 2 J1, 3 J2, 4 J1, 5.

4.1.2. Algebraic proofs for CD

Examples Proof based on N1, N2 and equality.

18 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

4.2. Tableaux proofs for CI, CD and PC

4.2.1. Tableaux for propositional logic
Rules for concatenation Concatenation is either disjunctive or conjunctive exclusively. Rules for signatures T( )=F F( ) = T. Example log2: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. F T F Fq Tpq T Fp = disjunctive (0 (0 (1 (3 (2 (6 log2: 1. F 2. T 3. F 4. T p q 5. T p 6. T q 7. T = (0 (0 (1 (3 (4 (4 (2 conjunctive

|Tq | #

| Fq |Tpq | Tp | Tq | #

19 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

8. T p | T q | 9. # #

(5

8. F p 9. #

(7

4.2.2. Tableaux for the calculus of indication

Rules for concatenation Concatenation is disjunctive or conjunctive. Rules for signatures T( )=F F( ) = T. e1: 1. F 2. T p 3. T 4. F p 5. # 1. Fp e2: 1. F 2. T 3. F 4. F q 5. T p q 6. T p | T q 7. F p | T q | # 8. # | # | = (0 (0 (1 (1 (3 (5 (2 (5 disj.

2. T 3. F 4. T p 5. #

4.2.3. Tableaux for the calculus of differentiation

Rules for signatures T ( ) = T but T ( )=F F( ) = F and F ( ) = T. Contradiction set: #={ , } for CD value set = {T, F} for signatures. Rules for concatenation Concatenation is disjunctive or conjunctive. Hence, Tpq /\ TpTq Fpq | Fp Fq .

Contradiction 1. Proof by contradiction of signatures, based on Mersenne M2: Equality =" is taken as double implication. Examples d1 = Tableau (d1): 1. F 2. T 3. T p 4. F 5. F p 6. # (0. (0. (2. (1. (4. 1. F 2. T 3* F p 4* T p 5* # (0. (0. (1 (2

20 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

d2 =

= Stripped of differentiation operation: (0. (0. (1. (1. (3. (2. (6. (6, 4; 7, 5 1*. F (0. (0. (1 (2 (3 (3

Tableau (d2): 1. F 2. T 3. F 4. F q 5. F p 6. T q | T 7. |Tp 7. # #

2*. T 3*. F p q 4*. T q p 5*. F p 6*. F q

7*. T q | T p (4 8*. # | #

2. Proof of annulation: p p = , based on Mersenne M1: d3: p p = 1. F p p (0.) 2. T (0.) 3. F p (1.) 4. F p (1.) 5. # d4: Tableau (d4): 1. F 2. T 3. T 4. F 5. F 6. 7. 8. 9. Fr Fp Fq T (0 (0 (2 (1 (4 (4 (5 | Tq r (5 (3 (9 (10 =

1. F 2. T p p 3. T p | T p 4. # | # (1, 3')

10. T p r |Tq|Tr 11. T p | T r | 12. # # # # Comment The formulae =

are generally provable in CI, CD and PC.

4.3. Recursive arithmetics for Mersenne and Brownian calculi

4.3.1. Recursive arithmetics for Mersenne calculi
A comparison of Spencer-Browns calculus of indication, CI, and the postulated complementary Mersenne calculus of differentiation, CD, is not emphasizing properly enough its differences based on its underlying structural difference of the corresponding graphematical systems. In fact, the underlying graph-models, tree and commutative graph, are hinting to the very difference of the structures of both calculi.

21 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

It seems that the strictly complementary behavior of both calculi is clearly established. This give the chance to disseminate them in a polycontextural framework, where they hold simultaneously, and allowing to study the complementarity of the indicational and distinctional aspects of events. A similar comparison to the recursive arithmetic setting is available with the modeling of indicational and differentiational features in a cellular automata framework. Both calculi are extracting interesting features out of the graphematic systems but are, as far as they are defined up to now, not yet covering the full range of its operative and formal properties. Both calculi, the CI and the CD, are state"-oriented, i.e. the results of their demonstrations are, in fact, the states mark and unmark. Both states are atomic, there are no patterns, i.e. morphograms involved. Like it would be suggested by the constellations (tt), (tf), (ff)" for the CI and (tt), (tf), (ft)" for the CD. Hence, the variable are defined over tuples of states and not on atomic states. The asymmetry of both graphematic systems is not yet mirrored in the calculi. It seems, that a further analysis, based on the recursive behavior of both graphematic systems might give some additional insight into the developed structure of the calculi. In contrast to semiotic and numeric recursivity, i.e. recursivity in the mode of identity, Mersenne and Brown recursivity has to introduce a normal form (standard notation) selection from the possible semiotic representations of Mersenne and Brown strings or numbers. Similar to the trito-normal form (tnf) for trito-kenogrammatic operations.

Examples for Mersenne calculi

Addition Sum Sum(a, 0) = a

22 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

Sum(a, Succ 0)

= Succ(Sum(0, a)) = Succ(a) = {aa, ab, ba}.

: R2.x

Sum(a, Succ a)

= Succ(Sum(a, a)) = Succ(aa, ab, ba) = {aaa, aab, bba; aba, abb; baa, bab}. Succ(Sum(a, aa)) Succ(aaa, aab, bba), Succ(aaa) = {aaaa, aaab, bbba}, Succ(aab) = {aaba, aabb}, Succ(bba) = {bbaa, bbab}.

Sum(a, Succ aa) = = = = =

: R2.x : R2.1, R2.2 : R2.1. R2.2

Sum(a, Succ aaa) = Sum(a,(aaaa, aaab, bbba) = {aaaaa, aaaab, bbbba; aaaba, aaabb; bbbaa, bbbab}. Multiplication Prod Prod(a, 0) = 0 Prod(a, Succ 0) = Sum(a, Prod(a, 0)) = Sum(a, 0)) = a = Prod(a, a) = a Prod(a, Succ a) = Sum(a, Prod(a; aa, ab, ba)) = Sum(a, (aa, ab, ba)) = {aaa, aab, bba; aba, abb; baa, bab}.

4.3.2. Recursive arithmetics for Brownian calculi

Examples for Brown calculi Addition Sum Sum(a, 0) = a Sum(a, Succ a) = Succ(Sum(a, a)) = Succ(aa, ab, bb) = {aaa, aab; abb; bbb} : R2.x with {aba, bba} bnf Sum(a, Succ aa) = Succ(Sum(a, aa)) = Succ(aaa, aab, bba, bbb) = {aaaa, aaab, bbba; aaba, aabb; bbaa, bbab; bbbb}. with {aaba, bbaa, bbab} bnf Sum(a, Succ ab) = Succ(Sum(a, aa)) = Succ(aa, ab, bb) = {aaa, aab; abb; bbb}.

23 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

Sum(a, Succ bb) = Succ(Sum(a, aa)) = Succ(aa, ab, bb) = {aaa, aab; abb; bbb}. Multiplication Prod Prod(a, 0) = 0 Prod(a, Succ 0) = Sum(a, Prod(a, 0)) = Sum(a, 0)) = a = Prod(a, a) = a Prod(a, Succ a) = Sum(a, Prod(a; aa, ab, bb)) = Sum(a, (aa, ab, bb)) = {aaa, aab; abb; bbb}. Comparision Prod(a, Succ a) Brown: Sum(a, Prod(a; aa, ab, bb)) = Sum(a, (aa, ab, bb)) = {aaa, aab; abb; bbb}.

Mersenne: Sum(a, Prod(a; aa, ab, ba)) = Sum(a, (aa, ab, ba)) = {aaa, aab, bba; aba, abb; baa, bab}.

5. Recursion and self-referentiality

5.1. Reentry for CD

24 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

http://memristors.memristics.com/MorphoReflection /Morphogrammatics%20of%20Reflection.html

6. Bifunctoriality of Brownian and Mersennian calculi

6.1. Polycontextural distribution of CI and CD
Brownian and Mersennian calculi are accessible to category-theoretic considerations. And might therefore been distributed over different contextures of a polycontextural category. Interactions between different contextures containing different calculi are well ruled by the construction of bifunctoriality between discontextural contextures. Such a polycontextural dissemination is just a first step to emphazise with the means of category theory the complementary aspects and their interplay of Mersennian and Spencer-Brownian calculi.

25 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

26 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

With such a bifunctorial framework it is possible to distribute complementary formulae over the polycontextural grid. From the point of view of the third contexture, both calculi are accessible to analysis of their semiotic properties and the embedment into the general framework.

6.2. Monocontexturality of CI and CD

Albeit the insistence of a two-dimensional notation and conception of the indicational Laws of Form, any dimensionality is reduced to one-dimensional linearity by the primary arithmetic law J2 and the law of reflexion. The same holds complementarily for the CD. The law of double differentiation is reduced to a single differentiation. Their might be some topological detours but the results of such journeys is always something simple and never involved in any non-reducible complexity. Such a indicational and differentiational simplicity is, together with the identificational simplicity of semiotics (logic), a strong criterion for mono-contexturality. As it was pointed out with the paper Diamond Calculus of Formation of
27 of 42 09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

Forms there is a natural way to disseminate the calculus of indication over different loci: the double meaning of the zero'-indication as a nullity in its calculus and at once as an indication in a neighboring other indicational calculus. This is formalized by the law of enaction. Obviously, the same holds complementarily for the calculus of differentiation too. The Diamond Calculus paper is not yet dealing with the complementary calculus of differentiation, CD. The elaborations for the CI of interactional and reflectional indications, enactions and retro-grade recursivity have to be mirrored in the complementary setting of the CD. With the concept of distributed and mediated enaction, the limitations drawn by the mono-contexturality of the CI and the CD are well overcome. The price to pay is an acceptance of other graphematic systems as grid for dissemination, keno- and morphogrammatics, of the trito-structure of graphematics. 6.2.1. Enaction rules for the CI

28 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

6.2.2. Enaction rules for the CD

29 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

7. Cellular automata of CI and CD

7.1. Indicational CAs
Indicational CAs are identical to the indCAs introduced in previous papers. Calculus of indication: a=a, a!=b, ab=ba For 1D indCA: Indicational normal form (inf): inf([ ]) = inf([ ])= [ ]) inf([ ]) = inf([ ]) = [ )] inf([ ]) != inf([ ]) inf([ ]) !=inf([ ])

7.2. Mersenne CAs

30 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

8. Appendix
8.1. Appendix 1: Headaches with complementary calculi
If two formal systems have a very close familiarity as a duality or even a complementarity, and are therefore to some degree nearly indistinguishable, but you nevertheless discovered in a strange situation of an insight a decisive difference between them. Then it might easily be possible, as in my case, that you get nightmares of endless oscillations and manifestations of something you dont yet have access to, and what, as far as you guess, what it could be, you anyway wouldnt like at all. Thats what happens with the discovery of the complementary calculus of indication, a calculus I call a Mersenne calculus of differentiation and

31 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

separation, in contrast to the Spencer-Brown calculus of indication and distinction. I have never been a friend of this calculus of The Laws of Form, therefore to get involved with its complementary calculus is no pleasure at all. Obviously, to get rid of the headache with the CI and its ambitious and annoying celebrations, especially in German humanities, the best is to show, or even to prove, that there is a complementary calculus to the calculus of indication, too. With that, the sectarian propaganda of the CI boils down to a strictly one-sided and utterly restricted endeavour. In-between I have written some papers dealing with the complementarity and applications of the concepts of the CI and the MC. There might still be too much undeliberated obfuscation involved, at least, some clear aspects of the new calculus of differentiation, CD, and its complementarity to the calculus of indication and distinction are now elaborated as far as it takes to get a primary understanding of the new situation. Specification

This study Interplay of Elementary Graphematic Calculi is a direct continuation of the previous paper Graphematic System of Cellular Automata which is studying 9 levels of graphematical inscription.

8.2. Appendix 2: Logical interpretations

8.2.1. Boolean algebra and CI
Recalling Varela: CI: Calculus of Indication, PC: Propositional Calculus, Variables: A, B, ... CI, PC. Procedure: . Definition B.1 If A is B, write for A in CI; If A is B C, write BC for A in CI; If |- A in PC, write (A) = in CI; If |- A in PC, write ( ) = in CI. Lemma B.2 To every expression in PC there a corresponds an indicational form. Lemma B.3

32 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

Every demonstrable expression in PC is equivalent to the cross, , in CI. (Varela, Principles of Biological Autonomy, 1979, p.285) DeMorgan =A = corresponds to: ( A B) = A B.

contra "I want to conclued by emphazising once again, that the calculi of indication are not a subtle form of logic. They really intent something quite different ..." (Varela, 1979) Nevertheless, there is a strong isomorphism between the CI and Boolean algebra (Kaehr, Schwartz). Such a kind of isomorphism is not (easily) to establish between the CD and a Boolean algebra.

8.2.2. Mersenne calculus and algebra

33 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

8.2.3. Trichotomic interpretation

34 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

8.2.4. Constellations
Combinatorial studies are determining the number and structure of indicational and differentiational constellations. Constellations are similar to logical functions for Boolean algebras and propositional logics. The hidden dynamics of such constellations are becoming manifest and productive if the constellations are interpreted as rules of cellular automata or finite state machines. The classical presentation of the Laws of Form, and its calculus of indication, are not giving any hint to dynamize the very structure of the calculus. Dynamics are studied inside the calculus on the base of so called second-order formulas and reentry functions based on speculations about recursion in the framework of the CI (Kauffman, Varela, et al). The new turn, presented in previous papers, is changing the static constellations into dynamic CA rules. Of special interest is the functional change of morphograms into morphic CA rules. But the same mechanism works for indicational and differentiational calculi too. Where are the constellations from? Constellations are automatically introduced with the use of variables for values and to build expressions by concatenation of terms. Therefore, the study of constellations instead of singular values (states) as results or cases of demonstrations (proofs) is well defined. Following the classification of the valuation of constellations by Spencer-Brown, there are, as for propositional logic too, 3 different classes: truth, untruth, or contingency. The first we learn from the constellations of the values CI is that the

35 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

correspondence between the CI and Boolean logic, with a distribution of and m , m=2, for Booleans, is not as close as it seems. Neither for the CD, with

for the CI .

Hence, the story of the isomorphism between the CI and Boolean algebra has to be reconsidered again.

Indicational case

Logical representation of indicational constellations Following the example of G.Spencer-Brown, a CI-expression is representing a set of logical functions (Laws of Form, 1979, p. 115). Hence, the CI-expression " represents 6 binary logical functions: AB, ( A (A BA B), ( B B), (B A), A).

But thats not really the point. Because of the property of permutationinvariance of the basic elements, the constellations op2 and op3 are representing 4 different logical realization of the CI-expression. And the constellation op4 is representing 5 logical functions. The constellations op1 and op5 are invariant. All together, the 5 CI-constellations are representing the full range of binary two-valued logical functions: 1+4+4+6+1 = 16. This kind of modeling is not taking into account the commutativity of conjunction respectively disjunction as in GSBs model but is focusing on the primary structure of indicational forms. The commutativity might be added secondarily as a property of the logical connectives.

36 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

The listed constellations op1, op5, and op2 and op3, correspond to Kauffman's classification. The constellations op4 are not represented in Kauffmans graphs. The second graph entails all constellations build by binary applications only, i.e. and are not considered. The Brownian algebra is a system of 5 basic patterns, op1 - op5, and a concatenation operation. The calculus of indication is abstracted from this algebra and reduced to an element-oriented calculus of distinction, with the operator and element with its supplement , supported by the traditional concept of variables and equality, operated by concatenation on the base of linearized strings. CI-Algebra = (Brown; op1, ..., op5, concat, , , =). Classification of the constellations op1: "truth, tautology op5: "untruth, contradiction op2-op4: "contingency". The CI is still a calculus of the dichotomy of "truth" and "untruth", with an emphasis on indicational "truth". Kauffmans graphs

37 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

Reectional analysis Apart of a logical interpretation of CI-constellations, there is or reflector-oriented analysis of direct interest. The merits approach becomes evident in a polycontextural framework of CIs. The reflector-analysis was succesfully applied for morphogrammatics. Reflector analysis for CI a reflectional of a reflectorcomplexions of the study of

Reflector analysis for CD refl(1) = (1) refl(4) = (7) refl(2) = (12) refl(5) = (15) refl(3) = (11) refl(6) = (9). Differentiational case

38 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

Here, there are just two constellations that are coinciding: "op1" as logical tautology,T", and as logical contradiction , ". The other constellations are accessible to a direct logical interpretation. Classification of the constellations op1: "truth" = "untruth", op2- op15: "contingency". The CD is a calculus not so much of "truth" but of "contingency". Nevertheless it is still mainly focused on differentiational truth". Reectional analysis Apart of a logical interpretation of CI-constellations, there is a reflectional or reflector-oriented analysis of direct interest. The merits of a reflectorapproach becomes evident in a polycontextural framework of complexions of CIs. The reflector-analysis was successfully applied for the study of morphogrammatics. The calculus of indication intents to strip down the logical corset of variable and functions down to the structural bones of its mechanism. Therefore, a reflectional analysis is achieving more directly the attempts of a skeleton analysis than the common approaches of logical comparisons. Reflector analysis for CI

Reflector analysis for CD refl(1) = (1) refl(4) = (7) refl(2) = (12) refl(5) = (15)
39 of 42 09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

refl(3) = (11) refl(6) = (9). (1) : self-reflective (i), i=2,...,15 : reflective

8.3. Appendix 3: A second look at the calculi

8.3.1. From elements to patterns

8.3.2. Pattern oriented CI and CD Calculi shall be developed that are dealing not with atomic elements (states) but with patterns of behaviors, as far as it is possible within the framework of calculi like the CI and the CD.

8.4. Appendix 4: Mersenne analysis of Brownian de/inscriptions

Second-order formulas have different motivations in Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form. A new turn is achieved with the introduction of the complementary Mersenne calculus. The CI is studying distinction in or of a world, while the CD is studying the differentiations of inscriptions of calculi in a graphematic (scriptural) space. Hence, a new second-order type of analysis is opened up: the differentiational study of distinctional inscriptions, i.e. the CD-study of
40 of 42 09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

CI-notations.

This is similar to GSBs the study of Russell/Whiteheads logic with the means of his CI. This analysis of logic by the CI offers a specific reduction of the logical material: this represents a reduction of the mathematical noise-level by a factor of more than 40000 (LoF, 1972, p. 117) Hence, a minimal graphematic comparistics of formal languages is in place: logic, distinctional and differentional calculi. A self-application of CI formulae are a reentry of the form into the form. A CD self-application is analyzing the form of the CI.

8.5. Appendix 5: Quadralectics of distinction and differentiation

As we learned from the papers Diamond calculus and Quadralectics, there is a precise architecture and mechanism of 4-fold disseminations of calculi, esp. the calculus of indication. What wasn't established in the previous papers was an exact specification of the laws of a complementary calculus of indication, i.e. the Mersenne calculus. Dual-forms to existing calculi had been well defined but not elaborated. With the approach to Mersenne calculi the promise for a complementary calculus is fulfilled and the gap closed. Quadralectics of CI and CD

41 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49

Complementary Calculi.nb

le:///Volumes/KAEHR/HD-KAE-Texte/KAE-TEXTS/Publi...

Complementary and inverse forms Because of the principle of "perfect continence, there are no dual forms in a logical sense in the calculi of forms. What is reflecting the formation of forms are parallax and complementary, i.e. diamond formations of form. This is mirrored first, by the systems of inverse forms. Hence, the basic, and not yet disseminated planar forms, are the forms of complementarity and inversion. Complementary calculi are based on complementary graphematic systems. Dual systems remain in their graphematic framework. Hence, the graphematics of the CI is complementary to the graphematics of the CD, while the graphematics of the dual systems are unchanged. Distinctions between distinction systems Beyond the systematics of planar distinctions, a polycontextural theory and calculus of distinctions, is demanding for distinctions between discontextural distinction systems. This might be realized by the introduction of topological and knot-theoretic constellations of distinction systems. A simple start could be a 3-dimensional distinction system with the set of planar distinctions and reentries at each contextural position and the transcontextural distinctions and reentry forms between distributed contextural distinction systems.

42 of 42

09/02/2012 21:49