RE: academic freedom (The Mentifex Manifesto)

["George A. Stathis" <hyperlex@xxxxxx>]

At 02:11 μμ 1/12/1996 -0800, M. Edward Borasky wrote:
>One thing puzzles me, though.  I'm not sure how Brown's Laws of Form
differs in >any fundamental way from more conventional Boolean logic.  In
the end, don't >all forms of 'logic' reduce to Boolean matrix operations
(which the P21/F21 >ought to be blindingly fast on!)?


You could be right. In fact the greatest contribution of this "alternative"
way of looking at logic is to lead to matrix-logic operations, more clearly
understood using Brownian "philosophy", as a device of conceptualisation...

I still am of the opinion that Brownian logic is more "fundamental" than
the traditional Calculi, and tried (in vain) some years ago to prove that
NP-complete problems can be reduced to lower-complexity problems, using
Brown, but did not succeed. There may be an algorithm as yet undiscovered
( As regards Boolean Satisfiability, in particular), but nowadays I am more
concerned to implement "brute force matrix-logic operations", where Expert
Systems map on nicely...

Dr. Nick Vainos showed me a paper where somebody devised a "liquid-crystal
array technique" for theorem proving. It was neat (and illustrated) but what
dissatisfied us was the absence of any "unifications", thereby making the
system limited to propositional calculus proofs only. The example used in
the paper was the traditional "animal expert system", and arrays of liquid
crystals (with closed or open "slots") were used for the variables, so that
in a few "rounds" answers could be obtained.


Anyway...
If there is a processor enabling matrix-logical operations to be carried-out
in parallel, this is almost _all_ we need. So I will look into the info
you mentioned (about the F21 etc)...

With Thanks
George Stathis