Differential Logic • Discussion 11

Re: Differential Logic • Discussion 9

Let’s look more closely at the “functor” from \mathbb{R} to \mathbb{B} and the connection it makes between real and boolean hierarchies of types.  There’s a detailed discussion of this analogy in the article and section linked below.

Assorted types of mathematical objects which turn up in practice often enough to earn themselves common names, along with their common isomorphisms, are shown in the following Table.

\text{Table 3.} ~~ \text{Analogy Between Real and Boolean Types}

Analogy Between Real and Boolean Types

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Differential LogicLaws of Form

This entry was posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Category Theory, Change, Cybernetics, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Calculus, Differential Logic, Discrete Dynamics, Equational Inference, Frankl Conjecture, Functional Logic, Gradient Descent, Graph Theory, Hologrammautomaton, Indicator Functions, Inquiry Driven Systems, Leibniz, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Propositional Calculus, Surveys, Time, Topology, Visualization, Zeroth Order Logic and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Differential Logic • Discussion 11

  1. Pingback: Survey of Differential Logic • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.