[Fredrick]

That is both an awfully good joke, and an interesting comment on the position some take in and others give up.

I think you are beginning to see it, Pat. I propose that there is a difference between the system and the actual members. If we follow the octagonal system, we end up with seven basic positions with a value, and one without. Yet of the seven positions, one of them is the overall position. So we actually only have six parts to the octagonal system. This is easy to see, except when we count beyond the set numbers.

For instance, if we take 30 numbers (in the decimal system), then I have thirty positions of value, but the system is still just the decimal system. So there is a difference between the actual parts, and the actual system. The system allows us to count the parts, and nothing but the parts. Yet, the system (but not the parts) will always provide the overall position as well.

If I have only a system of 6 (such as in the pentaist system), then I end up with one empty position, four parts, and one overall position: together they form the pyramid.

Whether a system of 6, a system of 8, or a system of 10, we can count beyond the matrix of the system. And each has one position without value (zero), and each has one position representing the whole. To complicate this just one step further, it is not 5, 7, or 9 that we normally associate with the whole. Somehow we pronounce the whole in reverse, immediately after we use 0, we use 1, and we say that the whole is 1.

And that is one source for our confusion. Where 5 in the hexagonal system, 7 in the octagonal system, and 9 in the decimal system should be considered the whole, we simply continue counting, and ignore this aspect. Then, after establishing the system, we come back and then say Wait a Minute, where is the whole, and appoint that function to 1.

The other source of confusion is when we have eight actual members to the decimal system, and we also have an octagonal system, we may say one (8 parts) is the other (system of 8 positions) when they are not.

The binary system is great, but it is also limited, and it is much harder to see that the parts and the whole are separately delivered. I do like how you use it in the 000 and 1000 example, and I find it not confusing at all. It looks like you are getting the difference, Pat.

Congratulations.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

...
If I have only a system of 6 (such as in the pentaist system), then I end up with one empty position, four parts, and one overall position: together they form the pyramid.
...

The other source of confusion is when we have eight actual members to the decimal system, and we also have an octagonal system, we may say one (8 parts) is the other (system of 8 positions) when they are not.

The binary system is great, but it is also limited, and it is much harder to see that the parts and the whole are separately delivered. I do like how you use it in the 000 and 1000 example, and I find it not confusing at all. It looks like you are getting the difference, Pat.

Congratulations.

Okay, Fredrick, let me catch up with you guys. So you're saying that no matter what numbering system you use, you must reserve "1" to represent the whole, "0" to represent the "null" set (empty position), and the remaining numbers are available for subcomponents of the whole. Is that right?

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick and JAK:

I see what you mean JAK, but if Fredrick is right than my whole numbering system on my Venn Diagream would be wrong, and I would lose all my complimentary opposites. I have to have the 1st circle being #1 etc. for it all to agree.



Best to both of you,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

I see what you mean JAK, but if Fredrick is right than my whole numbering system on my Venn Diagream would be wrong, and I would lose all my complimentary opposites. I have to have the 1st circle being #1 etc. for it all to agree.

Yes, JAK, that is what I am proposing, but it is rather easy to confuse the system with the actual members. My old example is that of family, mother, father, son, daughter. Though consisting of only four members, there are five entities (f, m, f, s, d). The T-ching of Fisks tells us that the additional entity is known as synergy. Naturally, synergy is not part and parcel of the four parts, and only comes out when the four parts are indeed members of the same club. Just two guys and two gals, with some age differences between them does not automatically make a family.

Allow me to repeat myself here, while rewriting the text to make the delivery a bit better:

Whether using a system of 6, a system of 8, or a system of 10, we can count beyond the matrix of each of these systems. To complicate this just one step further, it is not 5, 7, or 9 that we associate with the whole. Rather, we associate 1 as the number that represents the whole.

You know by now that I do not believe in singularity, so 1 is not the number representing the whole. The whole number is that number that contains all parts. So, 5 in the hexagonal system, 7 in the octagonal system, and 9 in the decimal system should be considered the whole, yet we simply continue counting after reaching that number, and ignore this important aspect. Then, after using/establishing the system, we look at all we have wrought and then say: Wait a minute; where is the whole? And we then appoint that function to 1. In reality that 1 is just a part of the system (let's leave the binary system out of this, even though that 1 is also just a part and does not represent the whole - even though it does! You see, the binary system is too easy to get confused and not get the accurate picture).

Somehow we pronounce the whole in reverse, after we have established the system. From that moment on after we use 0 for the nothing, we use 1 for the everything; we say that the whole is 1. And this creates our perspective that has a focus in the wrong spot. The largest singular number in the system is the number that represents the whole.

In case of the Venn diagram I need to to ask you, Pat, how you consider it an impossibility to not have the whole be an entity all by itself. If you have three circles then you'll automatically have four entities: the three circles and the whole of three circles. Each circle on top of another circle may deliver confusion but there is really no confusion, as long as you don't look from the inside out.

JAK, 0 and 9 show their specific characteristics in the Cabbalistic approach of adding the members to get a singular answer (example, the number 19 is 1 + 9 = 10, which is 1 + 0 = 1. 19 = a 1 number. Yet 1999999 is also a 1 number. I posted more on this a few posts back.

[Profpat]

Hi Guys:

OK Fredrick let us explore this slowly so I am able to comprehend. Here is my thoughts on the subject.


Let us start with the above image. I'm going to assign the #1 to the circle and 0 to the black area outside of the circle. Now the #1 is already used to describe that 1st circle. If I add another circle, that would be # 2. And if these circles overlap partially, as they do in a Venn Diagram that would create a 3rd area which I'll call #3. And so on.

Now when I'm all done with my 3 ring Venn Diagram, I have created 7 areas within the diagram, noted as areas number 1 to 7.

You are right, I have 1 Venn Diagram, but it's not the same 1 that was assigned to my first circle. It is a different #1. That would be the 1st Venn Diagram, of what could be many Venn Diagrams. In other words I'm making a distinction between the whole and the parts.i.e. I have 1 body and 1 nose.

Just my thoughts on this subject.

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi Guys:

OK Fredrick let us explore this slowly so I am able to comprehend. Here is my thoughts on the subject.


Let us start with the above image. I'm going to assign the #1 to the circle and 0 to the black area outside of the circle. Now the #1 is already used to describe that 1st circle. If I add another circle, that would be # 2. And if these circles overlap partially, as they do in a Venn Diagram that would create a 3rd area which I'll call #3. And so on.

Now when I'm all done with my 3 ring Venn Diagram, I have created 7 areas within the diagram, noted as areas number 1 to 7.

You are right, I have 1 Venn Diagram, but it's not the same 1 that was assigned to my first circle. It is a different #1. That would be the 1st Venn Diagram, of what could be many Venn Diagrams. In other words I'm making a distinction between the whole and the parts.i.e. I have 1 body and 1 nose.

Just my thoughts on this subject.

Best,

Pat

That is a good delivery, Pat, I can't see anything wrong with it. The trick is indeed that we can use the number 1 twice; once for part #1, and once for the whole. In the former case, we use a tag (#1) to name this an entity. We could have called it A just as easily. In the latter case, we proclaim the whole thing to be a whole thing.

Let's do it again.

I'm going to assign the letter A to the circle and the letter Z to the black area outside of the circle. A is used to describe that 1st circle. If I add another circle, that would be B. And if these circles overlap partially, as they do in a Venn Diagram that would create a 3rd area which I'll call AB. And so on.

Now when I'm all done with my 3 ring Venn Diagram, I have created 7 areas within the diagram, noted as areas A, B, C, AB, BC, AC, and ABC. On top of this, we can call all these parts together PanAlphaBetaCeta.

Whatever I draw first, I draw first, but it doesn't make it first in the finished delivery, unless (as owner of the Venn Diagram) I insist it be seen that way. A or #1 is a name tag, and its value is not dependent on when it was drawn, but on how it correlates to the other parts.

There is no other 1. There is the whole, but as we saw, we can view the whole as 7 parts, and if we wish have the overall be the 8th entity, or not. Or we can view the whole as 3 parts together (creating the overall delivery that can be considered a 4th entity, or leave that unmentioned). Please be careful not to confuse yourself here. The systems I describe are not like Venn Diagrams. The decimal system is not a Venn Diagram system. A Venn Diagram system is a binary system with complex but hopefully clarifying visual features. And I already put a warning out on the binary system.

As far as 0 (or Z) is concerned, there is nothing there. If we start out with a gray background, we change the circle to white and the non-circle to black. As the owner of the Venn Diagram, I proclaim that black is not part of the Venn Diagrams. Does it exist as background to the venn Diagram? Yes, but it has no value other than positioning that what does have value.

[Profpat]

This is good Fredrick;

I really didn't want to change my I Ching Trigrams or it's numbers on the Venn Diagram. As it is now if you add up any numbers to equal 7 it equates to white light. Such that 1 + 2 + 4 = 7 ( The primary colors added together.) Or 1+6=7, 2+5=7, and 4+3=7. ( The primary colors plus there complementary opposite).

I think the I Ching Trigrams placement really show how these areas complement each other.

BTW: If you wanted to use letters instead of numbers, and if the circle was A then the black area using set theory would be Bar A, a bar over the letter A to indicate this area is NOT A. This would be a better definition than arbitrarily assigning the letter Z.

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

I was doing a little research on triple rings and found this information:


Triskeles are one of the most common elements of Celtic art; they are found in a variety of styles in both ancient and modern Celtic art, especially in relation to depictions of the Mother Goddess. They also evoke the Celtic concept of the domains of material existence- earth, water, and sky, and their interrelations.




AND THIS:






I believe this goes back to Megalithic and Neolithic times and perhaps predates the Egyptian Pyramids

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Good suggestion about BarA, Pat, and I am glad you can see the Venn Diagram without having to invoke any number 1 for it or any of its parts (though if you wish you can).

Beautiful Celtic deliveries of the intricacies of either a relationship among three or a three-sides entity. One of the ways I look at them is that they tell the story of where a child comes from, and who the child is. So, two of the parts are each a parent, and one part being its own. Two parts are given, one part needs to be/is being filled out/in.

I do not want to repeat the discussion on the three thread, where many delivered examples of three, but my position is that three is the incompleted concept. Though one child can find parts of Mom and parts of Dad within, and one part to be developed without Mom and Dad guiding the child. Yet, the child can only be correctly identified as either girl or boy. So a completed concept is based on duality (in this case, 4 parts), and not on a trinity. Trinity exists on the individual level; it says 'me' and not 'we.'

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Profpat

(1) Now that I confused myself here is an accountants joke:Three accountants were interviewing for the same job. When the 1st one was called into the presidents’ office for an interview, he was asked “ What is 1 and 1”. Without hesitating he said 2. The 2nd accountant went in and noticed the interview with the 1st accountant was very quick, and so when asked the same question, “ What is 1 and 1 “, he stated “ The obvious answer is 2, but it could also 11 or eleven, or 1/1 and it would be 1, or 11 in binary numbers and it would be the number 3, or 1 to the 1 power and it would be 1” “ Thank you” said the president, and he called in the 3rd and last interviewee. Same question, “ What is 1 and 1” . The 3rd accountant thought for a second, and replied “ Anything you want it to be Boss.“

(2) Remember the neutron is a non stable particle and will within minutes decay into a proton and electron.

(1) Here is one more fitting for the theme:

An accountant friend of mine went for an interview for a new job and he thought it was going quite well. But when the interviewer reached the end of the session he asked him to answer the next question as quickly as possible: "what is six times nine?" My friend instantly answered "fifty two!" then followed up with "Oh blast!", knowing instantly that it was wrong.

He was very surprised, therefore to receive a call next day offering him the job. They talked for a while then my friend asked how they could want him when, as a professional accountant, he didn't even know what six nines were. The interviewer replied - "No problem - you made the best estimate!"

(2) Thanks for that Pat; it got my thought processes going again and I think that I now know how the electron fits in my model.

regards
Felix

PS - sorry for the lack of participation lately - cat flu and the vet told me to rest.