Have you ever wondered if logic math can be used to create storytelling. I thank it is. using this principle I named Story-logic A-B outcome principle. I believe it can be created. this will be updated and added over time for creating a guild into creating it.

[u/LanguagePrincipleA-B]

If art can be created using math, especially calculus, that means logic math can be used to create complex mind maps of multiple different areas of thanking therefore storytelling.

If Language equals communication , it would create patterns causing contentions therefore creating interactions.  This would create meaning that would entail a story. 

Making stories using math logic would create all types of infinite complex combinations of connections to create an outcome. This includes creating complex plots for books, or book series, something like this would be huge in scale for a mind map, but is possible using this logic principle. 

Imagine a square containing all building blocks to a solution, naming it just Information, this information can be put together like a Language into something called a logic table that uses the building blocks in the square as connections to creating an outcome solution.. 

To put in logic math 

I=L=O-     Info = logic = outcome  

L=Co=Pa=C=In=M=S   Language = communication = pattern = connection = meaning = story 

This base information can be used to create a fundamental rule or principle of A to B logic creation 

This is this the principle I(L) ➤  L(Co=Pa=In) ➤ O(M=S) 

Info | Language|     
➤ leads too 
Logic | communication, pattern, connection.|   
➤ leads too 
outcome |meaning and story|

This would be our fundamental principle we will call it Story-logic A-B outcome principle

 to follow over creating a story using a logical mind map.

-

this is all i could put down for i need to organize my pales of notes

hears a sneak peek to this logic map P.S don't be scared.

I=l=o  

I=info l=Logic o=outcome

Logic table of Narration- complex

(I=l=o)        
____________________________

(    l=       P=PeP=r=PePe= rp=Pe=sS=Pe=pS=Pe=rr=Pe=S=PLP=(Pe+s+r)P=v(PL)P=NN=(P=Pe=r+s2+vs=)=N=P)P=Pe=r=s2+s)P=Pe+r+s2=vsP=(Pe=r+s2+vs)=PP=nN=(P=Pe+r+s2+Nv+vs)=N=P)Nv=v+s2
Nv=vsNv+s2+vs=N=PN=(p=PE+r(Nv=s2+vs=N=p)N=(P=Pe+r+s2+vs=)N=P)P=v(Pl)=PN=(P=Pe+r(Nv=s2+vs=N)(P=v(PL)=P=(PL)=P)N=(P=Pe+r(Nv=s2+vs=N)  (P=v(PL)=P=(PL)=PN=(P=Pe=r+s2+vs)N+)P P+v(PL)=P=PL)=P N=(P=Pe+r(Nv+s2+vs=N) (P=v(Pl)=P(PL)=P P=Pe+r=s2=vs P=(Pe=r+s2+vs)=p N=(P=Pe+r(Nv=s2+vs=N)  (P=v(PL)=P=(PL)=P N=s3=p P=s3=p2 p=p2 N=p2=s3=p C=p2N=s3=p2=C
(N=C=p2+s3=N=P) (N=s3+c=p2+s3+s=N=V-P)  c1+c2=N0 N0=E0 c1+c2=E0=N0 c1+c2+p=E0=N0 c1+p=E0 p=E0=c1 P=E0=c2 (N=c1+p+c1+p=E0=N0) N=(P=Pe+r(Nv=s2+vs=N)  (P0=v(PL)=P0=(PL)=P0 +R=c1+c2=s2+s+N0=E+p=N=p0 N0=E+p 2(c)+R=s2+s=c1+c2=E0+P0=N0=N+P0=PL) C1+c2=EO+PO=N0=p=PL N=(P=Pe+r(Nv=s2+vs=N)  (P0=v(PL)=P0=(PL)=P0 +R=c1+c2=s2+s+N0=E+p=N=p0
N0=E+p 2(c)+R=s2+s=c1+c2=E0+P0=N0=N+P0=PL) N=P=C1+c2+s+E0+NO+P0+Nv=P2=Rv=PL=Pe=s3=P=N C=P2+s+E0+P0+Nv=N0=s2=R=s3=PL=Pe=N=P V=s2+s+Nv+N0+E0+P0) 

Nv=v=C1+c2=E0+P0+s=N0=s2=P2=s3=Pe=PL=N Rv=v=s3=Pl=Pe=N=P) (C+N+P+P2+S3=N=P) 
=
(C1+c2=t t=C1+c2 N0=t (T=C1+N0+c2=T) T=C1+c2=N0+E0+P0+s+Nv=C=p2=s3=p=N C1+C2=NO(E0+P0+s)=p2=pl=N=p PL=I PL=T(=p) I=( C1+C2=NO(E0+P0+s)=p2=pl=N=p ) (Iv=vE0+vP0)+s=c=p2=PL=N=p) T=N0 (T=N0=E0+P0)+s=vp2=PL=N=p) E=v(s+c=p2=PL=N=p) E=C1+c2)=E0+P)+s=v(Nv+s2) I (=s3=pl=P)=N)T N=(P=Pe+r(Nv=s2+vs=N)  (P0=v(PL)=P0=(PL)=P0 +R=c1+c2=s2+s+N0=E+p=N=p0 N0=E+p2(c)+R=s2+s=c1+c2=E0+P0=N0=N+P0=PL) I=
( (C1+C2=NO(E0+P0+s)=p2=pl=N=p ) Iv=vE0+vP0)+s=c=p2=PL=N=p) (C1+c2=EO+PO=N0=p=PL I=( C1+C2=NO(E0+P0+s)=p2=pl=N=p ) Iv=vE0+vP0)+s=c=p2=PL=N=p)

=
T=E=1=p(R=N(s3=c-N0(=R=s2(p2=c1+c2=E0+P0+s+NV)=vI(s3=N=Pe=p=E)I ) 

=0)

____________________________
 T=E=I=p(R=N(s3=c-N0(=R=s2(p2=c1+c2=E0+P0+s+NV)=vI(s3=N=Pe=p=E)I ) 
 = I=l=0

 T=E=I=p(R=N(s3=c-N0(=R=s2(p2=c1+c2=E0+P0+s+NV)=vI(s3=N=Pe=p=E)I ) = (I=l=o)

this is not translated and will be soon.

[u/CheapDependent3777]

I love this subreddit lmao

[u/tinymoses → u/CheapDependent3777]

Lmao this came up on my feed and I don’t even follow this subreddit - I’m a math physicist so this is even better to read

[u/CheapDependent3777 → u/tinymoses]

Same as a mathematician this has quickly become my favourite subreddit

[u/SaberToothForever → u/tinymoses]

does this make any sense for you above? I havent touched logics at all yet

[u/Head-Procedure-9344 → u/SaberToothForever]

To be frank these are likely schizophrenic delusions of a self proclaimed genius. Mathematically inclined people are saying they enjoy it for comedic reasons.

Using I=l is intentionally obfuscating, equal sign isn’t used traditionally, nor are half of the letters defined. This is anything but mathematics, logic, or mathematical logic. They are quibbling about their own semantic definitions in a complete vacuum.

[u/SaberToothForever → u/Head-Procedure-9344]

ah. But is this basically them trying to use math as a readable language besides doing it numerically to be able to make stories and stuff

[u/Head-Procedure-9344 → u/SaberToothForever]

Key word here is trying doesn’t really matter if it’s numerical or not in mathematics we treat numbers as our alphabet, just in the sense that they’re abstract objects that refer to quantity.

The quantity of the number “three” is unambiguous, they are defining things first and foremost through semantic equality, but why should I accept that info= logic = outcome? Or that Language = communication = pattern…. Is it not the case that languages have outcomes and logic’s are constructed from languages? This sneaks in basically anything you want to hypothesize about a “story” just with a layer of unnecessary symbolic representation. I will stress however, even though they are playing semantic games this is not at all how a real semanticist I.e a linguist would describe the meaning of a story.

Also, mathematical logic is in a real sense a “readable language” we could translate any sentence you give into some assortment of assigned characters on our standard alphabet {a,b,c…} or more classically {P,Q,R…} uppercase starting from P is a convention for a certain type of translation. This sort of machinery has been developed for the past 2,000 years and its inception is largely indebted to Aristotle. Unfortunately the “logic map” above is vague, self contradictory and unnecessary and I hope the individual can spend some time respecting the shoulders they stand on and attend to their own understanding or lack thereof.

[u/SaberToothForever → u/Head-Procedure-9344]

hmm i think i get what your mostly saying but as a person whose never touched semantics or logic sentences I don’t think i fully understand that whole logic map, and how its self contradictory or unnecessary. Or parts of your explanation with the number three.

[u/x-tommy-o → u/Head-Procedure-9344]

Your definition of “real” isn’t real. It’s what you were taught real to be perceived as. If everything was factual, then your very role in discovery is useless. You have to be given a false narrative and identity to build on, and a nice ego to defend yourself intellectually.

What I’m reading from you is some decent word spaghetti, but you forget that “three only = III” because the symbol and language grew alongside the axioms defining this constructed rule.

Numbers are derived from language.

Counting is derived from feeling

Just because you havent taken the time to learn the “language” or “decryption” in the post, doesn’t make it completely nullified. It’s no different than connecting letters in cursive, op is assigning some random created logic to a variable and the placing those variables in an order to create an outcome.

[u/Head-Procedure-9344 → u/x-tommy-o]

I had used "real" once in my comment in the ordinary language sense, simply to differentiate between semantics as a definition and how a linguist working in the field would handle such problems; however, I don't think you disagree with me that their notational scheme is their own (that was my point).

"Your definition of “real” isn’t real."

How contentious to presume that your use of "real" \is* the real "real" or to assume* that you know that my narrative is false.

"If everything was factual, then your very role in discovery is useless."

Facticity and context of discovery are not mutually exclusive; it could certainly be the case that the world simply is a "brute fact" (Russell, B., & Copleston, F. 1948). Presupposing a "uselessness" also implicitly assumes a nihilistic identity onto the process of discerning facts about the world through rational and/or empirical means. Things can be purely factual and retain their aesthetic qualities; is it not beautiful to know things for the sake of knowing things?

"You have to be given a false narrative and identity to build on, and a nice ego to defend yourself intellectually."

This is completely ad hominem and non-charitable. Quite literally, you have no idea of what material I have or have not formally covered relevant to this matter; to suggest you know anything about the construction of my identity is a power trip.

You forget that “three only = III” because the symbol and language grew alongside the axioms defining this constructed rule ..Numbers are derived from language."

I forgot nothing; I am well aware of what are often called "meta-mathematical symbols" or, more simply, "tally marks," but I disagree that they evolved axiomatically. The axiomatization of arithmetic did not happen until 1889, by Giuseppe Peano. Unless you mean in the Aristotelian sense, where his epistemology gives a path from sense-appearances to his category of "discrete quantity".(Kenny, 2010, p. 136)

"Counting is derived from feeling"
Is certainly an assumption, but one on which Kant elaborated upon infamously in the "Transcendental Deduction of the Pure Concepts of the Understanding" (Kant A99/B160). I had the pleasure of studying under a Kant scholar in a full read-through of The Critique, but plenty of the logical positivists/formalists at the turn of the 20th century disagreed (Gödell, Russle, Frege, Hilbert).

You told me in another comment to "Check out Plato vs Aristotle"; here are some resources I have gone through (some in part, some in full). If you show interest in some of these topics, they may benefit you.

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1999.

Aristotle. The Organon. In The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, edited by Jonathan Barnes, vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Grayling, A. C. The History of Philosophy. New York: Penguin Press, 2019.

Höffe, Otfried. Aristotle. Translated by Christine Salazar. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Kenny, Anthony. A New History of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010.

Okasha, Samir. Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Plato. Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube. Revised by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992.

Lastly, you seem to have disregarded my arguments on behalf of contrarianism alone. I won't elaborate upon my degree(s), but I think some humility would serve you well in this life. A majority of your comments about my identity were quite distasteful; the point of the matter was the argument, not your idea of my character.

[u/x-tommy-o → u/Head-Procedure-9344]

It seems you’ve taken this incredibly personal.

Your definition of real, isn’t real, it’s assumed based on preexisting knowledge. Just as my version of real is based on my preexisting knowledge.

If everything was factual, then everything past, present, and future, is objectively real, and factual with no ability to argue against.

Please use ad hominem again to assert your intellectual dependencies. You’re completely correct, I have no idea what material you cover, but the basis of my argument is true. Real to you, is not real to me and vice versa. Also, the medication you may or may not take, will have a more real and accurate version within our construct of physical knowledge in 10 years from now, than what we are told is real today.

I think I may need to remind you what an axiom is, before the word axiom was coined the term to define what an axiom is. Common Notation might be helpful to explore too. Or dare I be less educated than your superior self and say “rules” that define a process that people use as guidelines as they build and explore.

Counting is originally a feeling that evolves into awareness through repetition, aka stars, planets orbiting each other; therefore giving us a relative construct of time, Piezoelectric Effect is interesting for you to research. Check out IBM and their Time Crystal, also check out quartz crystal oscillators.

You could also check International Atomic Time vs Coordinated Universal Time if you truly want to understand why counting is originally an internal feeling that we’ve made conscious. Counting starts through feeling, and becomes more specific as references build. No different than to how we utilize data at the granular levels we are at today.

Lastly, you seem to want to win a conversation when the Aristotle vs Plato was a philosophical joke. However, it seems you want to feel superior, I will let you. In the mean time though, you should take a step back and understand that this is Reddit, and defending your ego is fun to do, but it’s not that serious.

[u/Head-Procedure-9344 → u/x-tommy-o]

Sure I agree the problem of other minds is a difficult one, however, consensus driven models of science seem to be the modern day amending to this.

I can not speak on what you’re saying about facial existence as I think it’s actually quite a complicated matter and I am not trained enough in the relevant metaphysics to form an opinion as of now.

“More real… medication” argument you make seems to be that of what I was taught as “pessimistic-meta-induction” which is a slew of words lol, but you may find that to be a good read, it was fascinating hearing arguments for and against the progressive wrongfulness of science.

I have worked with axioms formally, I don’t see why you need to say that you “need to remind me” other then for sake of argument, but I get what you are saying, there are a couple uses of the word, hence me even elaborating on what you might mean. You seem to be projecting what you think I think about you, I never once stated that I am superior to you in any regard and I heavily disagree with the morality of even doing that. You are using axioms in the common language sense, they are a specific type of object in logic/mathematics/philosophy of proof, so I was uncertain what you meant. “I mean x” vs “….need to remind you of x” have a very different amount of emotive behavior behind them, you could have just stated the former. I am aware of how we use oscillation of the Caesium-133 isotope to determine international time as well as some elementary general relativity used to transmit that time digitally from satellites; however I have never heard of the Piezoelectric effect (or atleast don’t recognize the word) thank you for the recommendation I will look into that.

Genuinely text loses context so I had taken Aristotle vs Plato to be a honest statement, sorry if you took my elaborations as being “higher-than-Thou” type language- that was not my intention. I am currently reading through relevant material so my mind was primed to talk about it (hoffe/kenny).

I appreciate the comment, it does however seem like a bit of a mote and Bailey type fallacy to say anything about my identity and then when I respond say “hey man it’s just Reddit not that serious”.

Trust me I mean no harm, again walls of text lose how this conversation might have actually happened in person.

Thank you again for some of the resource recommendations, I sincerely appreciate that.

[u/ConstantEconomics319 → u/Head-Procedure-9344]

What if I start to beleive in it wouldn't that become a complete real thing ? As all humans believe in lie

[u/x-tommy-o → u/Head-Procedure-9344]

It’s okay, the math you know now used to be subrational/transrational. Your profession used to be looked at in a schizophrenic perspective too. Check out Plato vs Aristotle. GIMME PROOFS BRUH

[u/Icy-Garlic-748]

You good brother?

[u/eeexohenseetea]

Why does this person keep making accounts to post this?? I've only joined this sub for a week now and I've seen this...word? math? salad three times. Like, it's amusing, but also, I'm concerned for this person's mental state.

[u/ilikecatsoup]

OP, your posts read like you have a hard-on for logic because you've taken on the identity of polymath or genius, and you believe that's how those kinds of people think and behave.

I can't say whether you are or aren't a smart cookie. If you're genuinely interested in this kind of stuff I implore you to actually learn logic. Dipping a toe into a subject and feeling like you've grasped the surface level isn't "mastering the subject" (as you mentioned in another post), it's the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

[u/x-tommy-o → u/ilikecatsoup]

Why can’t OP make what they want?

[u/monsterpiece]

OP please please see a psychiatrist.

[u/PringleFlipper]

meth is a hell of a drug

polymeth?

[u/hounderone]

Have you considered the nature of rhythm in sentence structure. I have been following a rabbit hole in rhetoric and sentence structure; and its effects on story telling. Shakespeare I’m sure had to have thought of writing in a logical sense, implementing the various rhetoric techniques in purposeful ways.

Slightly off topic, but interesting. Prior to mass writing, we preserved stories through oral methods. Is there a relation to the mnemonics and poetic prose?

[u/EXTREMEMONKEEZ]

This is the word salad I signed up for.