N defintions = N! levels of ‽

N defintions = N! levels of ‽

_Parker_ 15 Nov 2008 03:07

In a situation of 2 definitions, only 2 levels of ‽ exist. Where in a situation of 3 definitions, 6 levels of ‽ exist.

In thinking about the idea behind ‽ I think that we should lay the ground rules of how abstract and object can be from its original state. When I think of how abstract a hamburger can be. You could easily go on forever:

0‽ shows a pure hamburger
1‽ shows any object with no relation to a hamburger
2‽ would along the same lines of logic, have no relation of the second object, or the first object. Maybe a skateboard.
3‽ would have no relation to anything above it.

Does the ‽ modifier only apply to the object stated ( like the hamburger) or the framework of what allowed the hamburger, and thus the idea of the hamburger, to exist?

The second point follows more so what is said about Cuil theory on the main page. I would say that to be able to define the state of ‽, it must apply only to a certain object or situation.

Example:

I ask for a hamburger

1‽ I'm given a raccoon. (This is the limit of the ‽ of the object)
1‽ I am turned into a hamburger (Limit of the ‽ of the situation)
1‽ I am killed by a falling hamburger.
2‽ I am killed by a falling piano. (Limit of the ‽ of the scenario)

Now these are just examples, 1‽ is the state where the given object is anything except a hamburger. Along the same lines, anything concerning a hamburger could happen to the person asking @ 1‽. I think these two examples are the same level of abstractness away from the scope original scenario.

With only 1 object, and 1 action, the the limit is 2‽. Anything else that could happen is a different iteration of of the instance of 2‽ where @ 2‽ everything that began defined has been changed into an abstract (where an abstract is anything except the original object, instance, or situation).

My whole argument could be put as easily as this:
Every object, or action could be seen as a door. For a total of n doors.
To add one level of ‽, you must open that door.
The unique combos of ‽ is thus !n‽.

For anyone who enjoys higher mathematics a correlation between ‽ and the gamma function would be cuil :) indeed.
Also this has to do with how you define "something that can be made abstract", this link Combinatorics may help you understand what a struggle that is.

-Parker

Last edited on 15 Nov 2008 03:54 by _Parker_ Show more

Re: N defintions = N! levels of ‽

Anonymous (70.103.219.x) 15 Nov 2008 18:01

I think your right, otherwise how would you know what level of cuil the senario is at?

Re: N defintions = N! levels of ‽

Actaeus 15 Nov 2008 18:53

I like this!
But I think you're wrong about the limit. A scenario by default includes reality around it, in this case our world. I would also like to distinguish between unexpected changes, which each range from 0‽ (no measurable change) to 1‽ (a change to approximately the least relevant object possible), and abstractions, which have the same range. A picture is an example of an abstraction. Changes to the self are both changes and abstractions. Abstractions of the self count double.

In no particular order:

Expected action: I am given a hamburger.
0‽: I receive a hamburger. There is nothing unusual or special about it. Nothing else of importance happens.
0.2‽: I receive a sandwich. (There is a change to the expected situation in one way, and it's partial)
1‽: I receive a raccoon. (One complete change to the situation, in this case the direct object)
1‽: I receive a hamburger from a raccoon. Although it wasn't stated, I expected to receive that burger from a person.
1.2‽: I receive a sandwich from a raccoon. There is a nearly-full change to the subject (human —> raccoon) and a slight change to the object (burger —> sandwich)
1‽: I receive a picture of a hamburger. Getting a depiction instead of an object adds 1‽ for abstraction.
2‽: I receive a picture of a raccoon. The object is changed and abstracted.
1‽: A raccoon receives a hamburger. The recipient is changed.
2‽: I am turned into a raccoon, and receive a hamburger.
1‽: A nearby portrait of me receives a hamburger.
2‽: I become a picture of myself, and receive a hamburger.
3‽: I become a raccoon, and receive a picture of a hamburger.
5‽: I become a picture of a raccoon, and receive a picture of a skateboard.

Problem: levels are gained too easily.
Solution proposal: Stop counting abstractions and changes separately. A picture of a raccoon is no more random or surreal than an actual raccoon, if you expect a hamburger. Only one abstraction can be used on a part of a scenario. This fits well with changes.

1‽: A portrait of me receives a hamburger.
1‽: A picture of a picture of a song about a raccoon receives a hamburger.
2‽: A raccoon receives a picture of a hamburger.
2‽: A raccoon receives a skateboard.
2‽: A raccoon receives a picture of a skateboard.
NOTE: ^ and ^^^ have the same rating, because a pic of a hamburger has 1‽ due to abstraction and a pic of a skateboard has 1‽ due to being completely unrelated. The abstraction doesn't matter, because you aren't abstracting part of the original expectation.

Let's start over, with the new system:

Expected action: I am given a hamburger.
0‽: I receive a hamburger. There is nothing unusual or special about it. Nothing else of importance happens.
0.2‽: I receive a sandwich. (There is a change to the expected situation in one way, and it's partial)
1‽: I receive a raccoon. (One complete change to the situation, in this case the direct object)
1‽: I receive a hamburger from a raccoon. Although it wasn't stated, I expected to receive that burger from a person.
1.2‽: I receive a sandwich from a raccoon. There is a nearly-full change to the subject (human —> raccoon) and a slight change to the object (burger —> sandwich)
1‽: I receive a picture of a hamburger. Getting a depiction instead of an object adds 1‽ for abstraction.
1‽: I receive a picture of a raccoon. The object is changed and abstracted. change overrides abstraction!
1‽: A raccoon receives a hamburger. The recipient is changed.
2‽: I am turned into a raccoon, and receive a hamburger.
1‽: A nearby portrait of me receives a hamburger.
2‽: I become a picture of myself, and receive a hamburger.
3‽: I become a raccoon, and receive a picture of a hamburger.
3‽: I become a picture of a raccoon, and receive a picture of a skateboard. (2‽ due to a complete change to myself, and 1‽ due to a complete change to the burger)
4‽: I become a raccoon, and receive a skateboard from a hamburger.
5‽: I become a portrait, and a raccoon receives a skateboard from Betamax.
7‽: I become a portrait, and a clone of myself is beaten with a skateboard by a raccoon while it literally rains cats and dogs. (complete change to the weather! I didn't say so, but normal weather was expected. The action is also changed from giving to beating.)
10‽: I become a raccoon, and a clone is beaten with a skateboard by a portrait of a cow while it rains cats and dogs, but the robot landlord evicts us for huffing kittens. (previous + unexpected eviction, which itself has 2‽ for a robo-landlord and for the impossibility of kitten-huffing)

I think this works well, but I don't have any way to deal with recursion or reference to a different part of a scene.
Example:
?‽: I receive a picture of myself.
?‽: A clone of myself receives a picture of me receiving a raccoon.

Re: N defintions = N! levels of ‽

Actaeus 15 Nov 2008 18:59

Sorry, random change: I don't like how quickly it's growing.
Changes to scenery (things not explicit in the expectation) should be limited. How can we make this more rigorous?
If I were a computational linguist this would be much easier…
Also, my examples never really force me to abstract further. They just add more complicated things to the scenario.
Hmmm….