Tom Etter on alternative notions of equality & starting points for math (contd.)

0:00 Then they find, they define what it means for a fluid to pair up, and then they've got about a second of all the time for a fluid to pair up. That's the last one. I mean, you said a little bit about generalization, but is it really? Because a project consists of sort of two things. And, I understand, it consists of a globalized... And you're taking some of the, in this process of forms, in some ways, you are taking something out of the form of verbalized semantics and calling it in, putting it in a certain sense, in a similar sense, and, you know, that could be, could provide a real description. So, in other words, I could make the final in my mind, but it's always available to me since I'm talking ideally about formal systems. The formal system is itself a collection of elements which are being combined to produce certain qualities. Therefore, everything I've said has to coincide with something conceptual. There's no getting away from the collection. But then, that takes us down to the bottom again, because if these are some elements in the formal system, then what do I mean by one of them being equal? How do I know that epsilon one is not equal to epsilon two?

2:30 It's outside of the fantasy. It has to do with our compacts and agreements, which is the same remark I was making about diagrams. At some point, everything gets outside of organization, which is the criteria for distinction as operators in this region. So, like, you might agree that there were people running for the post for the computer checks, or you might view it in terms of the blackboard that has the same name between the individuals. So formal systems don't actually exist outside of it. It just completely upsets all arguments of the form. I'm not a formal system, but I'm a word. I must agree that somehow I want to help, but then I'm not going to be a person who does that. What is this quality related to what question is my question to you, and how do you know it? I have infinite rules that I have to talk to each one of you about. Question number one, who are my identities? How do I know this A is really this A, and I didn't follow it? Thank you for your attention. If it occurs all over the place, like if you're thinking about some form I say that this is equal to 9, right, because of the rule that you can answer these two symbols, that doesn't mean that the two symbols on the left are not the same, but on the other hand, with this notion of equality, which is not the notion of equality, so that notion of equality is... Right, and of course the lab created that quite briefly by making up this sort of notation here, right, for a certain operator, where it was given that mathematical product is 1, right, and then t squared is equal to minutes plus pure formalism.

5:00 We operate this algebra on the level of both pure formalism and what it means, and that double-level makes it easy to break down from this passive-portal, the passive-portal operators, this little way of facing things is different, but, again, it's active-medialist. Active-medialist. Medialist. Medialist. Medialist. Medialist. Medialist. Medialist. Medialist. Medialist. Medialist. Medialist. It might be like annihilation operators. What about the creation operators? Creation operators aren't really logical. No, they're activatable. But we have something like algebra that has an attitude like that. Oh yeah. Or in logic, instead of talking about A equals B, like that was in the book, it's like the sentence was in the book. Translating the notion of equality into something else. Well, in black and white, Well, sometimes it makes life easy, right? But if I'm interested in investigating the NP problem for human functions, then I'm not going to worry about whether it's stated in terms of functions or something else. I'm just going to worry about whether or not human functions are still going on in some institutions. That's a much better conversation.

7:30 As long as they do take less space with my calculations, if I want to go through them, we might have to do it differently. Sometimes. Sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. Like, if I were worried about a team of officers, I don't know how to combine them in one math and worry about whether that one is true. I remember when I was a little girl, I remember being black for a few years in China. I was a scientist, but I didn't want to be a scientist. We didn't like running with friends, but this is a possibility for second class. Thank you for your attention. I'm glad to be here. Set up, set up. There's two of you in the audience. I mean, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. And there's no question that this is not a loss. I just want to make it a little more complicated. This is still not. If I were giving a long, if I were giving an hour talk on a math theory, I might prove you this one. And then I make it a little more complicated. And that happens to me whenever I try to talk about it.

10:00 It's not easy to tell whether the Bill's technical diligence models were not relevant. And I, in fact, when I did the last thing, I ended up actually unthreading, although it's not obvious that I unthreaded it. And I surely don't know, in general, given or not. Given or not, you could ask. It's a genuine mathematical question. Here's the bottom line. I'm going to drop the end line through a lot of the holes in the knot somewhere, and under what conditions will that unknot the knot? And sometimes it does. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not And what that was citing was there aren't any dots that can be compared to that on the field surface. Oh, of course there are not. That's going to translate into... No, I mean in that construction. Well, here's a, let's be clear, here's a knot, right? And, oh, yeah, no, you're right. I'm sorry. Logically, you're right. I mean, if I have another knot, it couldn't be translated into this knot because it's distinct, right? But what I often have in practice is somebody who looks suspiciously different. For example, this glance just looks not, I mean, it looks not, but it is distinct. And I might have two knots that look suspiciously different than the fact that it's... And that's a mathematical problem. It's presented to you as a rope in a given configuration, and how you tell if there's some way to get from one to the other. In general, it's a tricky problem to solve. It's a puzzle-solving thing.

12:30 Another comment about topology is very good for solving the problem of turning a light bulb on and off by a series of switches on different floors. Because if you take a bunch of these like this, and say, I put them around like that, and so the light is off. I think that's how we're going to have as many switches as you like, and that's the best way to switch all of our houses. But this is the difference between mobiosity and non-mobiosity of people in the United States. So the other things, there's a great deal of gotten by jumping the track between different domains, but that's not, there's no way we're ever going to perform that. We just should be aware of the possibility of jumping the track. So, in terms of that set of symmetry things, I think half of those would have wanted to have something they can add, that x1 is equal to x2, so long as there is an x3 there, but if there isn't an x3 there, then it's a bit more something, and I think invading that one out would be a bad idea. I was depending on the presence of some other.

15:00 Yes, now look back. I don't think I had it right again. It occurs all the time, like I become a feature of a different kind of class. Yeah, so it's actually just your bending time. Yeah, so the Z-axis could be a function of the other things. Good, that's good. I was about to go to have a little vacation time, but we just stopped it here, and here we are again, and... Not when you're supposed to.