I'm just noodling around. So it's a collection of innumerable elements which can't be a mathematical set, so you can't use the mathematics founded on sets to analyze it, so what's the paper doing using set based mathematics to count the number of elements in M_t?
-- rec -- On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:57 PM Stephen Guerin <stephen.gue...@simtable.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2023, 8:29 AM Roger Critchlow <r...@elf.org> wrote: > >> >> I tried to get Bard to talk with me about the adjacent possible (AP) the >> other day. It agreed that the AP could not be represented as a >> mathematical set, but it continued to talk about the AP as if it were a >> set. So it suggested formulating the AP as a graph, or a tree, or as the >> states of a dynamical system. I pushed for a non-set formalism and it gave >> me fuzzy sets. I guess I have to try harder. >> > > Roger, Cool. Can you say more about a different formalization you're > after? > > Stu's Theory Of The Adjacent Possible is currently formalized with an > exponentially increasing set > > https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.14115# > >>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
