Įvadas E9F5FC Juodraštis? FFFFFF Užrašai FCFCFC Klausimai FFFFC0 Gvildenimai CAE7FA Pavyzdžiai? F6EEF6 Išsiaiškinimai D8F1D8 Dievas man? FFECC0 Pavaizdavimai? E6E6FF Istorija AAAAAA Asmeniškai? BA9696 Mieli dalyviai! Visa mano kūryba ir kartu visi šie puslapiai yra visuomenės turtas, kuriuo visi kviečiami laisvai naudotis, dalintis, visaip perkurti.  Andrius 
See also {{Factors}}, SecondaryStructures, SharedUnderstanding, {{Equations}}, {{Structure}}, {{Activity}}. AndriusKulikauskas: Factoring is a structural idea for which I am seeking an intuitive interpretation. I have observed six SecondaryStructures which I think are related to factors of the number 24 = 2 x 3 x 4, as there are 8 = 2 x 4 {{Divisions}}, 6 = 3 x 2 {{Representations}}, 12 = 4 x 3 {{Topologies}}, and also three {{Languages}} which may be understood as shifts relating these three kinds of structure. I have observed that this approach to defining the secondary structures is apparently related to SharedUnderstanding, as there is another approach to defining them, in terms of God's injecting himself into primary structures, which is related to GoodUnderstanding. Also, it is possible to derive these factors as arising from the {{Operations}} [AddOne +1], [AddTwo +2] and [AddThree +3] acting on the {{Onesome}} (which may be thought of as pure structure) and yielding this onesome back as one perspective within the {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}} or {{Foursome}}, respectively. Factoring also opens up the way for a SeventhPerspective: ZeroStructure (all factors separate), and then an EighthPerspective: ZeroActivity (all factors together). Intuitive interpretation of the {{Factors}} I am trying to understand what might be the significance of these factors. It seems that the 2 factor is from having unequals manifest as equals (as in BeginningVEnd), and the 4 factor is from having equals manifest as unequals (as in SpiritVStructure). How to understand the 3 factor? If we have an unequal relationship, such as A to B then we can still emphasize one or the other role (A or B) and they become equals. If we have a relationship of equals, such as X and Y, then we can consider them as unequals by introducing a relationship "to", generating: X to X, X to Y, Y to X, Y to Y and pairing X to X with X to Y (keeping the first element fixed) and pairing Y to X and Y to Y (also keeping the first element fixed). This is nonsense. Hmmm. I ask God, and my understanding from that is: the factors are those structures which coincide with their activity. Humans go beyond themselves through the wholeness of structure, and humans immerse themselves in structure by way of activity. I suppose this is because the factors are those structures that result from acting on the onesome, which as a DummyVariable reflects and expresses the action upon it. The activity is given by the operation. In my own observations, the factors seem to express the relationship between {{Structure}} and {{Spirit}}. We may think of the {{Onesome}} as pure structure. The factors result from the operations acting on this pure structure and placing it within a framework (a factor). This framework allows us to consider that pure structure in more than one way (specifically, in two, three or four ways).
In each case, we may think of the factor (and any of its perspectives) as allowing us to understand the wholeness of a structure. This is what is significant about the twosome, threesome, foursome: they may be considered as resulting from actions on the onesome. We may then consider the structures as arising from fixing two aspects of the relationship of spirit and structure (or {{God}} and {{human}}, respectively), and leaving another aspect ambiguous. We may think of the beginning as the spiritual whole, and the end as the structural whole. This yields:
===Binary Operations=== I have thought that the 2 x 4 = 8 divisions, 3 x 2 = 6 representations and 4 x 3 = 12 topologies are given as products. But it might actually be more interesting than that. It might be better to think of them as applying three different kinds of binary operations:
This very much accords with what I've observed. I'm wondering what the structural implications are elsewhere. I suppose it doesn't affect the position of the three languages within the eightfold way because that is given by the shifts in the structures themselves, not their components. Note also that these structures may still be derived by the {{Omniscope}} as products 2 x 3 x 4, and yet arise fresh when they are reinterpreted, perhaps by human eyes, so that the divisions and the representations switch places. ===More notes=== These are perhaps fundamental to shared understanding. They may be the entities that are factored 2 x 3 x 4. The factoring may have us think of them in pieces. Each piece is a mapping from the onesome (as a whole) to the onesome (as a perspective). Perhaps the ambiguities are as follows:
I think that these presumptions are the constructive hypotheses. The factoring then makes sense as a split of determiniteness and ambiguity as part of such a presumption and the engagement of an other. I should also think of them in terms of the heart? and the inversion effect. Apparently, we should attribute the forwards direction when operations act on divisions with four representations: nullsome, onesome, twosome, threesome. And we should attribute the backwards direction when operations act on divisions with two representations: foursome, fivesome, sixsome, sevensome. And these presumably also list out the levels of understanding. But I should look into this when I know more. 2005.04.28 {{A}}: Kaip suvokti atvaizdus kaip kylančius i\9A operacijų +1 ir +2 sandaugos? {{D}}: Kai yra kitas, jis yra lygus su tavimi ir taip pat lygus mūsų trijų akyse. Pamatysi 2005.03.08 {{A}}: Kaip suprasti ketverybę kaip sandaugą? {{D}}: Tu bandyk priimti kitą, ir suprasi kaip a\9A tave priimu. 2005.02.09 {{A}}: Kaip man suvokti padalinimą kaip laisvumo atvaizdą ir nulybės atvaizdą? {{D}}: Padalinimas yra pasikartojantis veiksmas, tad yra visumos po\9Eiūris  jo sandaros, ir jojo po\9Eiūriai  jame dalyvaujantys. 2005.02.08 {{A}}: Kaip suprasti dvejybės, trejybės, ketverybės vaidmenį antrinėse sandarose? {{D}}: Ten kur du, trys, keturi, ten ir a\9A tarp jų, vienas i\9A jų. 2005.02.07 {{A}}: Kuo svarbus nubrė\9Etumas? {{D}}: A\9A mąstau visus atvejus i\9A karto, o jūs mąstote ir i\9Agyvenate vis po vieną atvejį, tad tai mus sieja, ypač pasislinkime. 2005.02.04 {{A}}: Kaip antrinės sandaros i\9Akyla i\9A dvejybės, trejybės, ketverybės sandaugų? {{D}}: A\9A esu keliose vietose vienu metu, o jūs tik vienoje vietoje, tad tą vietą i\9Asako sandara. 
SkaidymasNaujausi pakeitimai 
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2014 lapkričio 10 d., 02:58
