tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post6548901975508577658..comments2024-01-05T01:21:21.702-08:00Comments on <center>SPECULUM CRITICUM TRADITIONIS</center>: ɸ among the integersskholiasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-14714954872243184352016-12-31T00:56:56.048-08:002016-12-31T00:56:56.048-08:00Now get every number that is one level above the i...Now get every number that is one level above the initial number line to absorb all that are above it. (Addition by absorption is allowed in dealing with infinities, why can't we extend the notion to 'regular' integers.) Yet, allow the resulting number to retain a memory of what it absorbed (I bet Kronus remembered his children) and you get a model of what I call ML. But say no more, and most certainly don't ask about the memory mechanism and how it may be stored in a simple integer. That kind of insanity may only be communicated in person. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09400119510453809980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-43799767877467784942014-05-05T11:13:29.152-07:002014-05-05T11:13:29.152-07:00The Church Fathers, of course, warned against too-...The Church Fathers, of course, warned against too-readily making arithmetical analogies for the three-ness of the Trinitarian relations (there is no "superiority" in the Trinity in one sense). But that aside, not only does being-related-to- <i>not</i> restrict things to three, it does the opposite (in this post, anyway). Certainly within the parameters of the exercise detailed here, it generates the infinitude of the positive whole numbers. skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-70670540915824007392014-05-05T08:44:30.797-07:002014-05-05T08:44:30.797-07:00Understood. But am I wrong in thinking that the pr...Understood. But am I wrong in thinking that the predicate, being-related-to-, is not enough to give rise to three and only three relata? After all, if there were only one existent or being, (x)(Ixx) would still hold true. And, on the other hand, if "S" abbreviates "is superior to," then:<br /><br />(x)(y)(z)(w)((Sxy & Syz & Szw) --> Sxw).<br />Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12547302679904413077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-29820770510548536312014-05-04T17:25:06.961-07:002014-05-04T17:25:06.961-07:00I'd be lying if I said that something along th...I'd be lying if I said that something along the lines of a Trinitarian analogy had not occurred to me. (It didn't seem especially germane to the post, as I was in a rare mood of feeling like being succinct). But it wasn't indefinite generation of divine persons. It's just that <i>after three</i>, the expansion begins to be multiple. (Hence the "Ten Thousand Things" remark). And of course the fact that the generation here is occasioned precisely by the predicate of <i>being-related-to-</i>, has a theological undercurrent to it.skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-81247496641362410732014-05-04T15:26:45.341-07:002014-05-04T15:26:45.341-07:00Nice! Now, not to be disrespectful: it occurs to m...Nice! Now, not to be disrespectful: it occurs to me that, if Christian theologians had understood the procession of the persons of the Trinity as formally similar to the generation of which you write, they would have been led to posit a Fibonacci sequence of persons within the Godhead, though that would have considerably outrun the givens of scripture. I guess I’ll find myself pondering the similarities and the differences of the orthodox Eastern, the orthodox Western, and the Fibonaccian understandings of procession/generation.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12547302679904413077noreply@blogger.com