Let {} represent a set.
{} is boundless or represents a definition.
By Wittgenstein, definitions are atomical facts. Conceptually, a definition can have any volume, and any shape a definition takes is a formality which seeks justification.
The argument that {} represents more than a point in space is untenable unless a formality is adopted.
{However, a point in space may contain any form of representable information}
Now consider three variables, which are NOT necessarily mathematical:
'{}, info, formality'
[{}] is the form of [formality]
[info] is the contents of the [{}]
[{}] is the observable [formality]
[{}] is the formal definition
There are infinite points in a non-typological line.
If [{}] is finite, it does not take up space, unless that space is typological.
To be an observable formality, the [{}] must be infinite or typological, or both.
However, [info] necessarily has a definition, a necessary bound.
[info] without definition would be an unbounded unbounded [{}], an empty [{}].
[info] must be bounded, while the [{}] must be unbounded.
Essentially, the [{}] must formalize the [info], or the result is an empty [{}].
The obvious answer is that the formality of a [{}] consists of typological [info].
At this point, the missing variable is mathematics.
Intention and Architecture, by Carolyn Fahey
6 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment