Venn, Boole & les diagrammes entre logique et algebra (contd.)

0:00 But it's not a calculus, it's a coefficient in fact. It's a coefficient that is schematized in this form. And once again, 1 over 1, 1 over 0, 1 over 0, I don't know what's going on. Because every coefficient, every class, which is 1 over 0, it explains why logically it's not there. It doesn't matter. So it doesn't show that she's not there. And then the 0 on 1, it gives... Yes, it is. So, it is the same thing. It is the same thing. But not by the time of the calculation, but by the time of the reasoning of the symbol. It is what we do. So, I'm not sure... I'm not sure. Well, the symbol V, which is also 0 over 0, it's like 0 over 0, It's a place quelconque, in fact, because we need, in fact, to do that, of xy and then of any part of x bar y bar. And this part is indeterminée. It's a part indeterminée quelconque de x bar y bar. So, for him, the v is a symbol of the termination. It's a constant of integration. It's like a group, like a group. Sauf que, if you want a class of a group, it's not possible. And then, this v, it marks... In fact, we take any part of x bar y bar, and it's going to work. and this part can be fixed. It could be the first part, it doesn't matter. But we can take n'importe what. There is a problem in which we look at the biggest expansion possible. So, when we take v equal vx bar g bar equal v bar g bar, and then we take the small expansion possible, which is equal. Vx bar g bar n'existe pas. It's situating. This is when we try to play with it. When we try to play vx equals positive. It says that it's going to be located between the largest expansion and the largest expansion. So we look at what happens when V is for the largest value possible, and when V is for the largest value possible. So for him, it's a symbol of indetermination total, like the coefficient of integral. So the stymograph is not the stymograph that gives the sense, it gives the sense a value to the stymograph. because at a certain moment, I think it's the same thing.

2:30 There he goes a couple of pages further. There he does x, y, equal. It's a bit like the same thing. And he tries to find the sense of an expression of the type z-x on x bar and whatever. He plays with these symbols. He says, if we want to do something like that, because the x on y, it will arrive. If we have a symbol of the type z-x, what do we want to do, finally ? Because z-x, yes, but it's also possible to remove the x of z. So if the x and z are not in the same position, we can't do z-x. Then z-x, what is it ? So he says, what is he doing? Well... The lecturer... The lecturer... is invited to reply to him, especially if he doesn't reply to him. He doesn't reply to him. So that means that he doesn't ask too many questions on his system the syntax of the system, once he showed that it works, once he has a diagram, he has a diagram and he has no problem. And then he has no details. But it works. And then he does it even better. He does x plus x bar y sur z plus w. Carrément. And then he does it work. And then he has no problem. So this is the diagram that serves as an intermediary. The diagram is a calculation that is made by the diagram. So it serves as an intermediary between the form symbol, which is here z mod x on x bar, and the place, that is to the resolution of the problem, and the place we obtain between the form x bar z plus any part of xz. So the solution is here. x bar c plus n'importe quelle partie d'une seconde. Voilà, donc le diagramme, en fait, ce n'est pas simplement un garde-fou,

5:00 ce n'est pas une illustration, ça fait partie du système CEL, le système NUM, d'une certaine manière. Voilà, alors, bon, un petit bilan, un petit bilan, on comprend ce qui s'est passé. Alors le système calculateur de Venn, en fait, est entièrement sous-tendu par la possibilité de donner une projection à Géry de progression, en tout cas. because it's the function of the same system. And if he does make a decision at the moment of the future, it's finally always in the logical sense that he does. In the beginning, he said that when he comes from a class Y, he has to be very clear for him and for the others what he is in X and what he is in X. He will always be able to say if an object is X or if an object is in X. I'll go back to the definition of an ensemble. So it's very clear on what he does. There's no probability in what he does. In fact, when he groupes the classes together, when he does the reunion, he asks, like you said before, the place of the intersection. Do you have to count two times the intersection of the community? When you take two classes, you have to count two times. So he says that it doesn't matter, but in certain questions, there is a big discussion, of course, about the violers and... I don't know, it's just an example. There is an amnesty for the violers and... I think it's... Yes, I think that's it. Yes, but it's always the same thing. And then what would you like to do for those who are two times coupable? Are they amnesty one single time or are they not amnesty, etc. And then there are all sorts of things like that, it's pretty funny. No, it's the raconier. Ah yes, there's a thing with the raconier. And so, he says that in any way, when he doesn't have a number, because that's not his problem, he doesn't have a number, he doesn't have a number, so the things are... If we need to hear two, we need to hear two xy. But he doesn't have a number. Yes, and it's in particular for that, I think it's not very clear, he said that in the first edition, he had been on his edition exclusive, but he said that it's not a good thing, and that he prefers the disjonction that it's not exclusive.

7:30 And then, from there, he has the complementaire, because the universe of the disco and the negation give him the complementaire. So, he's going to do something to do with an angle. But... He's going to show a moment that he's going to differentiate an object from a single tone, by the way. And he's going to show a difference between the object and the plane of objects. Because it's an object digit, it's an object all the way. So it's not really... It's not easy to make this distinction. But then... Ah oui, il y a un mot aussi qu'il faut dire, parce que il dit que quand il travaille sur des cipés à leur cul, sur des choses comme ça, il dit que son système peut très bien fonctionner, mais il faut faire attention parce que les symboles ne signifient pas les propositions, mais la valeur de vérité des propositions. Et il insiste très hautement là-dessus. Il dit que les symboles ne sont pas mis à la place dans ce système, à ce moment-là pour les propositions. Well, for the rest, it's not the symbol of class. When you write x, y, bar, 0, it's the symbol of class. But when he writes p, q, bar, 0, he says, to be careful, that the symbols are not for the proposition, but for the value of the vérité of the proposition. And so if he had done this thing, he would immediately pass the vérité. And he doesn't do it. He doesn't do it, he doesn't do it, he doesn't do it, he doesn't do it, he doesn't do it. But it's not true, because there are two values, but there are two values. From there, it would be very good to say that we are in a division, there is a 1 and a 0, and that's exactly what they say when they say that it's a 0, it's not a gauché. It's to say that each PQ is 0 and 1? Yes, that's exactly what we mean. We are between 0 and 1. We are developing with these, apart from this, there are 0, f2, xy, f21, etc. But I don't do this thing. But I don't do this thing. I don't do this thing. But in this case, it's 0 to the right? It's just... It's true? It's true? For the classes, it's existence. For the classes, it's true. It's true. He could do it. He knows how to do it. He saw it. But...

10:00 I think there's a theory of an ensemble. There's a theory of ensemble derrière. And... the subdivision dichotomous of the term is not logical, but rather a structure of the logic. It is not logical, it is not logical, there is something that we say. But, finally, what I think is that the translation of the symbolic language which permet the calculation, it is actually the nature of the ensemble that we talk about. Well, as he is the most practicant and theorist, he has no question. Each epico-symbolic, in fact, does naissance to a representation without step intermédiaire. He solves the problems by diagrams which are, in fact, a concrétisation of the symbolization. Because if we look at what it is, it is simply that the symbols are translated into form of... concrétiser. It is really this thing that is put in place. And the extension of the term, finally, it's the plan to view the ensemble that we have in the class. In the class, the class xy, the xy, the xy, the xy, the xy, the xy, the xy, the xy. It's the ensemble of the xy. So it's like that it works now because the diagram of the net is used to be pedagogically to show the nature of the ensemble in the middle of the tunnel. So, thank you. J'ai une question pour ce problème de symétrisation que vous dites entre les sujets prédicats. Je pense qu'on peut essayer de symétriser juste à un niveau de proposition, mais si on passe au point de vue anachronique d'aujourd'hui, of the predicates, there is no symmetry. Because if you write a, there is also this distinction syntax-symantique, it is written as a from certain classes, it is to make the difference between classes and classes. There is no... No, but the problem is to solve the problem with propositions. So there are propositions that are like...

12:30 And there is a question about what can we do? So, he does a calculation, he gives a response, that, of course, it would be like this, x bar 7 plus 0, 0, 0, 0, 0. Now, as we translate it in gage courant, we can translate it in different ways, but the problem is to solve it. Logiquement, he says that, logically, the propositions that he has in front of him give as a result the end of the calculation. But it's interesting, in fact, is this idea of symmetrization, or at least a sort of relativization of differences between subject and predicates, is it possible to serve something today? Because if I understand the point of view today, it's very limited. It's limited to a degree zero, a degree zero. Yes, but that's what is dangerous. You have to conclude. You have to answer your question. Yes, but perhaps. The proposition is not the dimension. But as I see, there is still a question of the object. And it's interesting because perhaps we can do something else. So the whole x and y is the symmetry of each other, so the symmetry of each other is between the subject and the prédicates. And a thèse or the notion is valable to calculate the propositions. The propositions. Okay. But he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he... It's just a level zero of the logic, and then we'll do the calculation of the prediction. It was totally a problem. You see, the state in which they found the logic, because they found the logic at the time, they found what they found with FISA. But it was already... At my opinion, it was... That's where the beginning of things came from. so that's what we're doing. And then, petit à petit, on is arrived at a formulation of the logics which is the one we have now, with a vision a little more clear of things. But at this point, the things were very, very important. Why is it interesting today, because we can try to push this algorithm a little more than in a standard with the calculations I don't know.

15:00 I don't know. I can't remember. I can't remember that. I can't remember that. I can tell you something in pants. I talked about the stuff I had in the class. I used to use these things. I used to use these things. It's funny. It's a little bit of a thing. It's a little bit of the beginning of the XXe. It's a little bit. There you go. There you go. It's like this? Well, you see the universe of the discourse. Here you have a 64K, and every time you have a one, you can do a little thing like that, and you can do that. You can do that. You can do that. Even that Ben doesn't say that, he says that at a moment, I don't know if it's in the head that he doesn't have the destiny. But there's the realization, to my opinion. That's how it works. What do you think about it? I don't know if it's in the head that he doesn't have the destiny. I don't know if it's in the head that he doesn't have the destiny. But it was in the 20s or 30s. I thought that was great. But it was great. I think that's what it does for a little bit, right now, yeah. It's just enough, at every time, to do a little bit of money, then it should take place considerably. But it's fine. But it's fine. The development of the current, in the 1930s, is what we call the diagram of Mach-Kan-Gow, or the simplification of the percent of the Earth. It's exactly the same thing. It works well until 4, with the problem of 4, There, already with 4, we are in our own experience, and it has been used by the technologists, so it has been used by the technologists, so it has been used by the technologists, and it has been used by the European, and for having the function of the European, which is more than the European possible, since the European, it is an expert in a circuit, and the base, etc. And, for example, what I was talking about, when I was talking about Hiram Schaeffer, I was talking about Schaeffer, which is a little bit more than the point, but it is a subject that is completely new to you, and that is what I was talking about. In the superior, it should be more simple than usual. In the superior, it should be more simple than usual. No, it's always a problem with the question. First of all, we have to engage in the representation of the spatial. Because with 4, we already have a problem with proximity.

17:30 If it's X and X, but in 4, we have to have a diagram of the forest. And with 4, it's already a problem with 4. You know why? You know why? It's a bit more than that. It's a bit more than that. It's a bit more than that. You can tell me. Yes, what I can say is that it's on the diagram. Because at a moment in De Morgan, he talks about representing in a plane the points that they call x and the points that they call y. There are one that we call x, there are one that we call x. And he says that if we call the proposition in the form of 1², then we will represent the x. And then what remains is the union x. He says it like this, and then he doesn't do anything. Well, to my opinion, it's because there's no system. He's putting in place, finally, the news, he's putting in place the universe of discourse, but there's no system around which would allow him to use this kind of terrain because he's in place. And to my opinion, it's all that, because he could have a representation I think it's about 60, it's about 60, I think it's about 50, I think it's about 50. And so they could, at this point, let's go on a representation, x, y, etc. They don't do anything like that. I just read it at a moment. If we take the point of the plane, it could be x, it could be y, it could be y. If we take the universe of the proposition, we make a square. If it's a square, then when we take the point x, it's going to be the part of the universe. And that's what we call the universe of the discourse. So he has this vision, so mental, he has the vision of a diagram. It's a separation geological. What is it about Morgan? I would like to comment on this question. I don't know what it is, but I'm not sure what it is. At some point, Venn has been indisible and unsuccessful. It's been propagandized. You've been born for a long time,

20:00 I've been born for a long time, but Venn is recognized in Venn. Ah yes, he was born for a long time. And then there's a passage that I have cité, which is the same, which is the démarche of Venn, which is a part of the Venn avancée, which is one of the chapters in which he studied the synogistics of the statistician to demonstrate that this synogistics is interested in some calculus and it is a particular case of calculus. It is very important to explain that. And then the demand for you who replace the calculus, the demand for you who replace the synogistics of the statistician in the case of some old calculus, and then there is a result of Newton who has placed the ancient considerations on the floor in a more general case, which is the reality of the legalization of the legalization. So, just after the publication of the book of French, there was a criticism of the Jetson, which is the Jetson-Boole, which is the ombre of the phantom of the logic. And no one can understand what he said because it's a substance, it's a problem for the magicians, or even the magicians. The scientists are not d'accord with the 0.0 and the 0.0 and the 0.0 and the 0.0. And Vell a very large enough defense of Boole against the 0.0, in saying that it's him who has a reason. But, like he did not have to follow his calculations, he did not have to explain it, particularly on the bibliology, because the bibliology did not work. The 0.0 and the 0.0 did not work, but he did not have to follow. and he gave me an explanation of the diagram of x, because z is equal to x and y, and x, on x, and that's done in a few months. So, he did that. The only point on which he does not follow you, is on the sum of disonties. Ah yes, that's not true. And he said, if we need a sum disonties, at the same time, x plus y, on writes x plus y. Well, I don't know. But if we don't know, it's simple, it's not true. But I prefer to use Y because it's not true. Well, I think that's a very interesting thing for James, because James has practically written in Gaulle. He has improved it, but he has always recognized in Gaulle that the new logic was always considered that he was the person who was incarnated

22:30 and that he was second to Aristotle in the history of the magic. It's just that Jovens reprochait the fact that his logic was too mathematical, and we will find that even Ben himself considered that his logic was too mathematical, and that the logicians used the same formalism, but by the way, Ben himself said that he had to distinguish the logic from one side and the mathematics. German was opposed to Boole on a certain number of points, but he was still in continuity. I cite German, it's a problem with Boole. And by this interpretation, he transfert the signification and the force of the conclusion pure logic to obscure forms of which, if they have no sense, with certainly no force demonstrative by him, the system of you is like the euro, the phantom, the image réfléchie to the logic. It's true that it was opposed to the corresponding correspondence, it's actually very violent, etc. It's just on the place of formalism, on the fact that it's too much of the mathematics. It's a critique. It's a critique. It's a critique. It's a critique. It's a critique. It's a critique. rather only, back then . And Vén, the system of anthropology, after the education and all, and it's 20 years after that Ben is constituted like the premier duty. I'm not necessarily agree with you on the position of the anti, I don't think I've seen Djibovic as a supporter of you. No, we don't even know that Ben, I think... It's the way he goes, it's the way he goes, just in saying that, well, he's going to get the chance to do it. When Givens says that when Givens says that it's good, it's good, and the rest it's not good. In general, it's nothing. If we look at all the notes in the back of the page, or in the books where he talks about Givens, if I say it's just a little bit. And he didn't agree with it. In particular, he was very strong with Givens for his notation, the contrary, because he kept the notation of Morgan. When he notes an object A, he notes the contrary, and he says that.

25:00 He says that, he says that, he says that, he says that, he says that, he says that, he says that. It's not symbolical, it's not operative, it's simply notation. He says that he says that he doesn't do anything. Boone, it's not that, it's not that. It's not that. Yes, but it's not that. It's not that, but it's not that. It's not that. But if we had to calculate it, it would be 1-x. It's not that. I was wondering if the implication of the class... No, no, no, no. Because that was an important point. For Boone, the implication is not So, inégalité des classes n'est pas un facteur structurant. Nous, dans un système, je construis autour de la résolution de l'équation. Et les premiers, les deux premiers qui ont une implication en technologie, l'inégalité en termes mathématiques à base du système, c'est pire, c'est chemin. Là, on fait que 0 soit plus petit que 1. It's not fair, it's not like that. There are different levels, there are parts of it. Yes, yes, there is not that. By the way, it's not fair. Yes, but it's not fair. I have a question for the last book on the empiric logic. I don't know, I don't know. What I want to say is that it's a critique of Keynes. Because I think it's the father of the economist who was a musician in English at the end of the 19th century. And there is a critique, he does a critique of the logic of science, of the first book of Bell, in saying that it's good because it's on statistics and all that. The symbolic logic, it's very, very good because it's really an adjudication. But in his empirical logic, Keynes says that there is nothing new. I don't know if there's a language in general. I don't know if there's a language in general. Do you see a relationship between the English language and the other English language? I don't know if you can look at it. I don't think it's because you can say something about it. I think it's a volume for the logic inductive. Because, like all the logicists of the time, it's a volume for the logic inductive.

27:30 A volume sur logique inductible. A volume sur logique inductible. A volume sur logique inductible. Par contre, il y a aussi une petite chose qui m'a suspecté. Il donne évidemment une grande bibliographie à la fin puisqu'il a lu plein de choses. Par contre, il manque dans sa bibliographie la logique de Watley, c'est-à-dire le bouquin de logique des années 1820 dans lequel Boul a appris la logique. Ça, c'est pas... And this book, I didn't even find out, in this case, because Ben, apparently, he didn't know what he knew, because as he looked at the 60s, he had read the 60s of logic from the previous century, it's still not a matter of what, and the book of Watrey was not in his bibliography, so he didn't know what he knew. So he didn't find out, he didn't know, he didn't know what he knew, and yet it's the book in which Boul has read the logic. It's not a matter of fact. In fact, for the books of logic, when he talks about 60 books, when he talks about diagrams, he says that he says that he has examined the 60 books that have been written on the logic at the beginning of this century, and he has noted that the majority of the books used the diagram of Euler, which shows the popularity of Euler, but in fact, his collection is much bigger. Yes, of course. Yes, of course. Yes, of course. Yes, of course. Yes, of course. Yes, of course. the global collection. What I want to say is that Ben is writing the majority of the books of the logics for the art of human, as you mentioned earlier, because they have access to all the logics of the logics. I would ask you a question. I have a question. Is there not a contradiction between the fact that all these representations diagrammatics develop at the end of the 19th century, in the second half, and the fact that we have to assist to the symbolical logic, which is why there is a contradiction between the two? Because, as I said earlier, the logic of Boole is a sort of expansion of the ancient logic. Evidently, it is different on the points, on the mathématization, etc. And as I said earlier, the logic of Boole is a sort of three terms, for the logistic logistic. The logic of Boole allows, as you said earlier, to have logic problems. You have a number of propositions. The objective is to find the conclusion or the relation between two terms and the conclusion can we get rid of these propositions. The goal of the logic of Boole is to solve

30:00 the problems with three terms, so 4, 5 terms, etc. au delà de la logistique habituelle on voit bien que les diagrammes c'est là où commence à être intéressant la logique boolean c'est l'élythme de la logique diagrammatique parce qu'en fait c'est logique visuelle c'est très important évidemment d'avoir des diagrammes clairs enlèver avec toutes les représentations donc de veines ou d'autres on voit qu'en fait ces diagrammes là ils sont efficaces, ils sont très intéressants pour 2, 3, 4, je ne sais pas 5 maximum mais encore termes But, after, it is not at all interesting, and none of these logicians use the diagram for solving problems. In fact, there is no contradiction between the two? The algebra which consists at surpassing the logistic, and the diagrammatics which, at least by definition, or at least by definition of visuality, can't go much further than three or four terms? No, I don't think there's a contradiction. There's simply a limitation visual of the diagram and the material of the diagram. But what I've tried to say is that, in fact, it's the translation visual of the system. It's not something else. And we have a problem of representation. But that's a critique of the problem. Because the system of Google and Google are a reflection of an effect on the system, an effect on the subconscious. The problem is that at the level of representation, we have visualizations and the system. Yes, yes, yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes. The idea is because these methods are developed at this point, because in reality, we need other methods to solve problems more complex. Or these methods allow to solve problems. Yes, what you want to say is that it's a bit of a combat of the rear guard, and it comes after all, and it's not an avenue. I'm not sure what I'm talking about. I can respond if you want. I have a question in the same time, but I'm not sure what it is. It's not a long time, what I'm saying is that Ben's directly inscrits in the spiritual and intellectuals. But there was a part of the book that was almost rejected, it was the part of the human being. And we were talking about the logical division that she had. Or, Shiboul en donne des explications qui sont convaincantes comme à la résultat. Les conclusions qu'ils tirent, en particulier sur la logique, par exemple,

32:30 ils tirent des conclusions qui sont correctes. Mais ces explications ne tiennent pas la liste. The diagram, which is the division of the three variables, will arrive at the system which allows us to dispense of the resolution of the equation of the unit. It s'agit de raison d'un root, z, x, y, x, y. So the function consistent with the A, and the resolution of the equation of the equation and there is no need to pass it. So you can think that there, the apport – I don't know if it's an important question – the apport of the diagrammatic to the resolution of the system of the equation, So, what do you think about the solution of the problem with the condition of consistency by the creation of the solution? That's what it is, because it's what we have to do with the solution. And then, it's not apparent. It's not apparent. What we have in the vision of the solution. And that's what we have to do with the system that we have to do with the solution. So, it's a good solution. The first schématique governs, admissible to be able to do this, that's what we have done. That's what we have done. But there is a schématique. In other words, if you want to say, you just want to know what the answer is, but we don't know what the answer is. We don't know what the answer is. When we do all these calculations, So, at all the same time, but without a calculation of a symbol of the law of the pensée, do we produce an operation on those ensembles? We have to say, is that the idea of a friend and his work has an individual ensemblist? Because when I calculate like that, with a diagram, do I produce an operation on those ensembles? and it's like the story of Stowe's. It's an article francis. Martin, it's... I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, Martin, it's a type who has written in philosophical review. He's a analogic, apparently, because he has written things of Venn,

35:00 I don't know. in the college of the league of Corses, where we found plenty of... There was an outrage for the team who was inspired by Corses, in 1883, in 1883. And Malcolm made part of the people. There was not a lot of theology, because after they were interested in the history of the art, etc. The history of the art? Yes, absolutely. You have a great idea. And in particular, you know? Well, I don't think you're going to be at a museum or Princeton, etc. But... I wanted to ask you a question about the notion more element. You said that you distinguish compartments and classes, so it's two notions, compartments and classes, and then the notion of situation. So you said at a moment that it was... In the current language, it was describing a situation. Yes, it was describing a situation... Because I interpret it as a situation of the universe. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. How do you present all this? Because a class is a living, it's a compartiment. Yes, it's a living. Yes, it's a living. They say that it's a class and that these diagrams are compartments. And the classes are in the compartiments. And when they put the classes in the compartiments, the classes that are living, they don't replace the compartiments, they don't have a H. If we take a very materialistic and ontological view, if you use objects and then you regroup them in classes, but in class, I won't take this word, in compartments, and then after you do some compartments, then why do you need a notion of class? In which moment you are obligated to have a notion of class? So if I'm not capable of being able to do this, I'll be able to take a minute to do this. Yes, yes. Here, there are four compartments. D'accord? Now, if I take a proposition logique, you can say things are susceptible to occupying these four compartments. There are four compartments that are susceptible to occupying these four compartments. There's one here, this here, this here, this here, this here, this here, and then this here. That's the class. No, it's the compartments.

37:30 in the compartments. And the classes are in the compartments. But it says that the classes are always general. If I had the classes, I would always have this diagram. Is he introduced the notion of classes? Is it a moment, he says... No, the class of X is the entire object which is the X. So the class of X is the compartments? No, it's not the compartments, it's the entire thing. It's the things. And the compartments, it's the class. and then he will make a new frame. Yes, d'accord. I think it's a new one. There is a schéma with a compartiment which is called x, x, x, x, etc. And now, when there is a composition, he has these classes. Evidently, he notes the same way. It's a problem. He has these classes when this class is mine. If this class is mine, he does that. The compartiment corresponding to h. You put the sign on the... That's right. There's a diagram in which you put the sign, the inscription. And these inscription, when the class corresponds to the compartments, it's H1. And so, here, there's a representation of all types of CY, right? Because for them, they're really intuitive. It's to say, the points, even... Yes, we don't have anything in there. And the situation, then? Well, the situation, it's the one that describes all types of CY. in this situation. Now, if I have a 3, I have a Z, then if I know that Y is Z, then I will increase my knowledge, etc. And I will translate this situation which will be given by two propositions on my diagram and I will have an état of the universe by these two propositions. So I have to do the propositions, I have to do the same thing in the diagram, but the diagram is one. And then I have three variables, I have this diagram. And then it will be different from the positions that will encastrate. But it's a general, it's not like the diagram. When I have three variables, it's always this diagram. The term situation, what is it? I don't know. It's a situation. It's a situation. I don't know what to do. I don't know what to do.

40:00 But if you know what to do, it's that for me, there's one case. If I have three variables, there's one case. If I have four variables, there's one. And now, if I can give you all sorts of... I can give you all three variables and I'll always have the same case, but it's just that it's going to change. We're doing the photocopy of a case and we're going to start each time. That's it. you know. Hecodesky, you know. At least. There is also an Create Coronavirus. it is a between the distance and the relationship. At the same time.. It's similar. On voit bien que Chetvin, quand Chetvin, commence à s'inscrire dans des problèmes complètement plus oubliés de puissance. Oui, c'est du plus oublié de puissance. Mais compte tenu de l'endroit où il venait finalement ? Bien sûr ! Non, non, non ! Moi je trouve que c'est déjà Thomas ! Non, non ! Il manque clairement Chetvin qui est un publicateur existentiel. It's important, it's important. It's important, because of the law of the French. Because of the law of the French, it's not true. It's kind of ambitious, the mode of avancer. How do you think about it if you don't know what to say? It's really ambitious. But you have to put it between 0 and 1, that's it. It's between 0 and 1, it's not the problem. I've never understood if you really worked on 0 and 1, but if it was between 0 and 1. It's not clear. But it's between 0 and 1, because if it's positive, it's clear. It's a reality. It's a reality. It's the reality. The reality is that it's a reality. It's the reality. It's the reality. I think you should understand that the second part is the second part is the probability. And it's not innocent that the two are in the same time. I think... And so... The second part is...

42:30 Is it just to say that the diagram of O'Learn has a general value compared to the particular or singular of this model? Is it the general value of the model? I don't know if I can say that, but what I say is that the diagram of O'Learn they don't allow the problem, but they allow to represent, in a certain way, a situation given when it arrives. When we have a situation given, we make a diagram that looks, like we said earlier, we look at the situation of a predicate for a subject. Now, if we try to use a diagram of the air on three elements or four, it becomes impossible, so we don't know what's going on. And it's not opérationnel, it's to say that it will never solve any problems, There's even a very simple, aristotélician, you can't even say anything about it in Bavara, the diagram of Lerb, it permet, at least, of the reason. You can take into account of the conclusion, so that we represent the conclusion. We can represent the two principles, we can represent the conclusion, but it doesn't represent the state of the thought which consists of the fact that we have to go to the conclusion. Well, the diagram of Lerb, the diagram of Lerb, is simply, why? Because every time you add a proposition, you have always the same part. Well, it's time to add some cases. That's what they say. And then, of course, it doesn't change the case. There was always something else. And then we added the instructions that come from the new direction and the diagram is dynamic. And so we can solve the problem. So there's a difference between a diagram which is in fact a static representation of a situation, and a diagram which allows, by its dynamics and by its instructions, to solve the problem. It's a problem with the diagram. It's a problem with the diagram. It's very complicated to think about the resolution of the problem in the diagram. There is a problem with the diagram. The diagram is in the same time, with the color, with the point of view. It's a problem with the diagram. and in fact, they're not familiar with all that, but I don't understand what they're saying completely. They're trying to have a representation of the diagram diagram of the pensée,

45:00 which allows us to really make the reasoning. Contrairement to the diagram of the diagram. And that, it works. It works. Because of the problem of the element of the diagram diagram, it works. It works. with a diagram ofbows and the distance complicated in both directions is used since , is different, you can be much used as a multi-subjective. I don't know if it works, but with a diagram, it works immediately. With a diagram, it works immediately. With a diagram, it works immediately.