Provisional Logistics 2

Hi

The Day of Mayunnaise

In the realm of personal musings, my father's voice emerges, declaring the peach as the most exquisite of all culinary delights, closely trailed by the savory allure of steak. A contemplation on the intricacies of meticulous preparation lingers, neither cast as virtuous nor vice.

Delving into the intricate dance of sexuality and symbolism, I ponder the female form, with its decentralized duality—the breast and the vulva—captivating symbols deeply woven into the fabric of human history, yet forever entangled in the complex tapestry of the sex industry.

In the sprawling theater of modern society, a question emerges, a query we've all known: Why does negativity dominate our narratives? We find ourselves navigating a landscape marked as a "country of losers," a revelation that beckons us to embrace awareness, both personal and collective, as a path to enlightenment.

In the labyrinthine corridors of personal identity, I wrestle with labels—underachiever or procrastinator—searching for the mantle that fits. Yearning to stand as a guardian of thought in our intellectual collective, I question the artificial constructs that bind us to the state, my brother's words echoing a peculiar sense of belonging.

A profound shift surfaces as I confront the guilt of dependence, both financial and emotional, upon parental pillars. A revelation unfolds: perhaps this vulnerability is a source of strength, a positive twist in the narrative of life. In the realm of decision-making, I embrace the wisdom of choosing what not to do.

Amidst the enigmatic phrases and abstract whispers—height ted dose owe, queer utter met'em, and more—a philosophical undercurrent flows, touching upon creativity's sway over cognitive traits, the organization of pain through video games, and the unraveling beauty of linear narratives.

In this intricate mosaic of thoughts, nerdy autocracy meets random assumptions, and traceable desires beckon from the shadows. These fleeting glimpses of the mind's inner workings, like a tapestry of prose poetry, offer a glimpse into the labyrinthine landscape of human contemplation.

Criteria for Fact-Finding and Opinion-Review Type Judgments
October 27, 2022

In determining whether an expression constitutes defamation, the standard of judgment used differs depending on whether the expression is a statement of fact or a commentary of opinion.

Today, we would like to introduce the Supreme Court decision of January 30, 1998 (Shumin 187-1), which sets forth the criteria for judging whether an expression is a statement of fact or a commentary of opinion.

1. The Supreme Court's decision of January 30, 1998
The Supreme Court held as follows regarding whether a certain expression is a statement of fact or a commentary of opinion.

The Supreme Court held as follows: "Even if the expression is in the form of an inference in the part of the article in question, the existence or nonexistence of the expression may be determined by evidence, etc., based on the ordinary attention and reading style of ordinary readers of the article, taking into consideration the context before and after the article and the knowledge and experience the readers had at the time of publication of the article. If the article is understood to assert, as a result of a right inference, a specific matter concerning another person whose existence or non-existence can be determined by evidence, etc., it is reasonable to regard the said part as revealing a fact.

The way in which an expression is contested in court differs greatly depending on whether it is a statement of fact or a commentary of opinion.

However, there are many cases in which there is a dispute as to whether or not the matter falls under "a specific matter concerning another person whose existence or non-existence can be determined by evidence, etc.," so although the judgment standard has been clarified, the reality is that in actual disputes, it cannot be said that the distinction is unequivocally made.

2 When you are involved in a trouble related to defamation
Recently, the number of Internet troubles in various situations, such as troubles between individuals and slander against companies, has been on the increase.

There are various types of Internet troubles, ranging from intentional troubles to troubles where the victim did not intend to commit an illegal act, but as a result committed an act that constitutes an illegal act.

In Internet troubles, whether you are a victim or a perpetrator, it is important to carefully consider how to proceed from both the civil and criminal aspects of the case.

We recommend that you first consult with a lawyer who is familiar with Internet problems to determine what action you need to take.

To shift the graph of \(y = \sin(x)\) symmetrically about the y-axis and further shift \(-\frac{\pi}{2}\) units parallel in the x-direction, you apply two transformations:

1. **Reflection about the y-axis**: To reflect a function about the y-axis, replace \(x\) with \(-x\). So, \(y = \sin(x)\) becomes \(y = \sin(-x)\).

2. **Horizontal shift**: To shift the graph horizontally, replace \(x\) with \(x + c\), where \(c\) is the amount of shift. So, \(y = \sin(-x)\) becomes \(y = \sin(-(x + \frac{\pi}{2}))\).

Combining these transformations, the expression for the transformed function is:

\[ y = \sin(-(x + \frac{\pi}{2})) \]

This expression represents a graph that is a reflection about the y-axis and is further shifted \(-\frac{\pi}{2}\) units parallel to the x-direction compared to the graph of \(y = \sin(x)\).

To calculate \(\cos\left(\frac{17}{3}\pi\), you can use the periodicity property of the cosine function. The cosine function has a period of \(2\pi\), meaning that \(\cos(x + 2\pi) = \cos(x)\) for any value of \(x\).

In this case, \(\frac{17}{3}\pi\) can be expressed as \(\frac{3 \times 5}{3}\pi + \frac{2}{3}\pi\), which is equivalent to \(5 \times 2\pi + \frac{2}{3}\pi\). This means that \(\cos\left(\frac{17}{3}\pi\right) = \cos\left(\frac{2}{3}\pi\right)\) since \(5 \times 2\pi\) is a complete cycle.

Now, \(\cos\left(\frac{2}{3}\pi\right)\) corresponds to the cosine value at \(120\) degrees. In the unit circle, at \(120\) degrees, the cosine value is \(-\frac{1}{2}\).

So, \(\cos\left(\frac{17}{3}\pi\right) = -\frac{1}{2}\).

To factorize the cubic polynomial \(x^3 - 2x^2 - 5x + 6\), you can use various methods, such as synthetic division or factoring by grouping. However, in this case, it seems that the polynomial might not have rational roots.

Let's denote the given polynomial as \(f(x) = x^3 - 2x^2 - 5x + 6\). To factorize it, you can use methods like factoring by grouping or the Rational Root Theorem.

Unfortunately, I don't have a direct method to find the roots of cubic polynomials or factorize them in this conversation format. If you have access to a graphing calculator or software, you can graph the function to get an idea of the roots. Alternatively, you can use numerical methods or software like Mathematica, MATLAB, or online tools to find the roots or factorize the polynomial.

To calculate \(8^{-1/2}\), you can apply the rule that \(a^{-n}\) is equal to \(\frac{1}{a^n}\). Therefore:

\[ 8^{-1/2} = \frac{1}{8^{1/2}} \]

Now, \(8^{1/2}\) is the square root of 8. The square root of 8 is \(2\sqrt{2}\) because \(2 \times 2 \times 2 = 8\). So,

\[ \frac{1}{8^{1/2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} \]

To rationalize the denominator, you can multiply both the numerator and the denominator by \(\sqrt{2}\):

\[ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} \times \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2}} = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} \]

Therefore, \(8^{-1/2} = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}\).

In triangles ABC and A'B'C', you've mentioned that ∠A = ∠A', ∠B = ∠B' (which is a right angle, 90°), and the sides AB, BC, and A'B' are given.

Given that ∠A = ∠A', the triangles are similar by the Angle-Angle (AA) similarity criterion.

Now, let's use the given information to find the length of A'C'.

First, note that in similar triangles, the ratio of corresponding side lengths is equal. Therefore, we can set up the proportion:

\[ \frac{AB}{A'B'} = \frac{BC}{B'C'} \]

Substitute the known values:

\[ \frac{2}{3} = \frac{1}{B'C'} \]

Now, solve for B'C':

\[ B'C' = \frac{3}{2} \]

So, the length of A'C' is \(\frac{3}{2}\).

The correct answer is (1) \(a < b \Rightarrow a^2 < b^2\).

Here's the explanation:

Given that \(ab > 0\), it means that both \(a\) and \(b\) have the same sign (either both positive or both negative).

Now, let's consider the cases:

1. If \(a\) and \(b\) are both positive, then \(a < b\) implies \(a^2 < b^2\).
2. If \(a\) and \(b\) are both negative, then \(a < b\) still implies \(a^2 < b^2\) because squaring a negative number gives a positive result.

So, regardless of the sign of \(a\) and \(b\), when \(a < b\), \(a^2 < b^2\). Therefore, statement (1) is correct.

To shift the graph of \(y = \sin(x)\) symmetrically about the y-axis and further shift \(-\frac{\pi}{2}\) units parallel in the x-direction, you apply two transformations:

1. **Reflection about the y-axis**: To reflect a function about the y-axis, replace \(x\) with \(-x\). So, \(y = \sin(x)\) becomes \(y = \sin(-x)\).

2. **Horizontal shift**: To shift the graph horizontally, replace \(x\) with \(x + c\), where \(c\) is the amount of shift. So, \(y = \sin(-x)\) becomes \(y = \sin(-(x + \frac{\pi}{2}))\).

Combining these transformations, the expression for the transformed function is:

\[ y = \sin(-(x + \frac{\pi}{2})) \]

This expression represents a graph that is a reflection about the y-axis and is further shifted \(-\frac{\pi}{2}\) units parallel to the x-direction compared to the graph of \(y = \sin(x)\).

To calculate \(\cos\left(\frac{17}{3}\pi\), you can use the periodicity property of the cosine function. The cosine function has a period of \(2\pi\), meaning that \(\cos(x + 2\pi) = \cos(x)\) for any value of \(x\).

In this case, \(\frac{17}{3}\pi\) can be expressed as \(\frac{3 \times 5}{3}\pi + \frac{2}{3}\pi\), which is equivalent to \(5 \times 2\pi + \frac{2}{3}\pi\). This means that \(\cos\left(\frac{17}{3}\pi\right) = \cos\left(\frac{2}{3}\pi\right)\) since \(5 \times 2\pi\) is a complete cycle.

Now, \(\cos\left(\frac{2}{3}\pi\right)\) corresponds to the cosine value at \(120\) degrees. In the unit circle, at \(120\) degrees, the cosine value is \(-\frac{1}{2}\).

So, \(\cos\left(\frac{17}{3}\pi\right) = -\frac{1}{2}\).

To find the coefficient of \(x^3\) in the expansion of \((x + 2)^4\), you can use the binomial theorem or Pascal's triangle.

The binomial theorem states that the \(k\)-th term in the expansion of \((a + b)^n\) is given by \(\binom{n}{k} \cdot a^{n-k} \cdot b^k\), where \(\binom{n}{k}\) is the binomial coefficient.

In the case of \((x + 2)^4\), for the term with \(x^3\), \(k = 1\), and the coefficient is given by \(\binom{4}{1} \cdot x^{4-1} \cdot 2^1\):

\[ \binom{4}{1} \cdot x^3 \cdot 2 = 4 \cdot x^3 \cdot 2 = 8x^3 \]

So, the coefficient of \(x^3\) in the expansion of \((x + 2)^4\) is \(8\).

To find the inverse function of \(y = x + 3\), you can follow these steps:

1. **Replace \(y\) with \(x\):**
\[ x = y + 3 \]

2. **Solve for \(y\):**
\[ y = x - 3 \]

So, the inverse function of \(y = x + 3\) is \(y = x - 3\). This means that if you have a value of \(x\), you can substitute it into the inverse function to get the corresponding \(y\) value, and vice versa.

To find the composite function \(g \circ f(x)\), you first find \(f(x)\) and then substitute it into \(g(x)\). The notation \(g \circ f(x)\) means "first do \(f(x)\), then do \(g(x)\) with the result."

Given \(f(x) = 2x + 1\) and \(g(x) = x^2\), let's find \(g \circ f(x)\):

\[ g \circ f(x) = g(f(x)) \]

\[ g \circ f(x) = g(2x + 1) \]

Now substitute \(2x + 1\) into \(g(x) = x^2\):

\[ g \circ f(x) = (2x + 1)^2 \]

\[ g \circ f(x) = (2x + 1)(2x + 1) \]

\[ g \circ f(x) = 4x^2 + 4x + 1 \]

So, the expression for the composite function \(g \circ f(x)\) is \(4x^2 + 4x + 1\).

To translate the graph of \(y = 2x + 3\) by 2 units in the positive x-direction, you replace \(x\) with \(x - 2\) in the function. The general formula for a horizontal translation is \(y = f(x - h)\), where \(h\) is the amount of translation.

So, for the given function \(y = 2x + 3\), the expression for the graph after translating 2 units in the positive x-direction is:

\[y = 2(x - 2) + 3\]

Now, simplify the expression:

\[y = 2x - 4 + 3\]

Combine like terms:

\[y = 2x - 1\]

Therefore, the expression for the graph of the function \(y = 2x + 3\) after translating 2 units in the positive x-direction is \(y = 2x - 1\).

To find the length of a line segment between two points \((x_1, y_1)\) and \((x_2, y_2)\), you can use the distance formula:

\[ d = \sqrt{(x_2 - x_1)^2 + (y_2 - y_1)^2} \]

For the points \(P(1, 2)\) and \(Q(3, 5)\):

\[ d = \sqrt{(3 - 1)^2 + (5 - 2)^2} \]

\[ d = \sqrt{2^2 + 3^2} \]

\[ d = \sqrt{4 + 9} \]

\[ d = \sqrt{13} \]

Therefore, the length of the line segment PQ is \(\sqrt{13}\).

To find the slope (\(m\)) of the line passing through two points \((x_1, y_1)\) and \((x_2, y_2)\), you can use the formula:

\[ m = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_2 - x_1} \]

For the points \(P(1, 2)\) and \(Q(3, 8)\):

\[ m = \frac{8 - 2}{3 - 1} \]

\[ m = \frac{6}{2} \]

\[ m = 3 \]

So, the slope (\(m\)) of the line is \(3\).

The equation of a line in slope-intercept form (\(y = mx + b\)) has the slope \(m\) and y-intercept \(b\). Now, to find the y-intercept (\(b\)), you can use one of the points, let's say \(P(1, 2)\):

\[ 2 = 3(1) + b \]

\[ 2 = 3 + b \]

\[ b = -1 \]

So, the y-intercept (\(b\)) is \(-1\).

Therefore, the equation of the line passing through the points (1, 2) and (3, 8) is \(y = 3x - 1\), and the slope is \(3\) with a y-intercept of \(-1\).

To find the derivative of the function \(y = \sin(x) \cos(x)\), you can use the product rule. The product rule states that if you have a function \(y = f(x) \cdot g(x)\), then the derivative \(y'\) is given by:

\[y' = f'(x) \cdot g(x) + f(x) \cdot g'(x)\]

Let \(f(x) = \sin(x)\) and \(g(x) = \cos(x)\). Then, find the derivatives:

\[f'(x) = \cos(x)\]

\[g'(x) = -\sin(x)\]

Now, apply the product rule:

\[y' = (\cos(x) \cdot \cos(x)) + (\sin(x) \cdot (-\sin(x)))\]

\[y' = \cos^2(x) - \sin^2(x)\]

Using the trigonometric identity \(\cos^2(x) - \sin^2(x) = \cos(2x)\), the derivative simplifies to:

\[y' = \cos(2x)\]

So, the derivative of \(y = \sin(x) \cos(x)\) is \(y' = \cos(2x)\).

In the kingdom of algorithms and code,
Where bits and bytes pave the road,
Nerdy autocracy takes its stand,
Rulers with glasses and keyboards in hand.

Lines of code, a digital decree,
In the realm of logic, where minds roam free.
Binary choices in circuits abound,
A kingdom of knowledge, where geeks are crowned.

The autocrats in hoodies and pens,
Wielding syntax like ancient weapons.
In the world of circuits and silicon,
They command with a binary lexicon.

The throne of the nerds, a server's hum,
Where data rivers gracefully run.
In the castle of screens, a pixelated crown,
Nerdy autocracy, bytes weighing down.

Algorithms dance in calculated glee,
Logic reigning with a binary key.
In the echo of keystrokes, a royal decree,
Nerdy autocracy, rulers of the IT sea.

A kingdom where the intellect prevails,
And creativity unfurls its sails.
In the quiet hum of the server's song,
Nerdy autocracy, where nerds belong.

The autocrats' scepters, stylus and mouse,
Nerdy wisdom in every byte of the house.
In the digital castle, where ideas compile,
Nerdy autocracy, where minds beguile.

So in this kingdom, where circuits decide,
Nerdy autocracy, with knowledge as its guide.
In the symphony of code, a ruler's decree,
Long live the nerds in their digital glee.

The first thing that comes to my mind from both a CG and a GE perspective is, "How many bones did you put in there?" I think it's a simple surprise.
Not only did you make sure to put bones in key parts of the hair and clothes, but as you mentioned in the main story, the collision settings and weight painting were also done at a crazy level, and to make it [run comfortably on a smartphone], you skillfully removed bones from the movie model, optimized it for the game's physics engine (a long and painstaking process that cannot be described in three words), and then you still managed to get a performance hit and look great. I was impressed both from the perspective of budget and passion, saying, "This is the kind of expression that can only be achieved with a smartphone game's revenue base.
I also thought that they must have made a lot of facial shape keys, even though I only saw the real-time CG animation during the battle. The degree of deformation of the eyelashes is bad. It reduces the vocabulary. It's bad.
The part you mentioned about facial shadows is a technology that I have read in Chinese forums and found [constant shadows using masks], which has been used in China for several years now. I actually tried to incorporate it and found it to be computationally inexpensive and performance-friendly.
Of course, they probably switch masks dynamically.
If you do this with light sources, cell-look shading is quite expensive even on a high-spec PC, not to mention on a smartphone.
If you are playing on a smartphone, you will know that Zen Zero is "relatively" less hot than other games that are hotter than other games.
I won't go into too much detail, but the load on the GPU and CPU is also distributed considerably, and I can tell from the CG part alone that the engineers are in tune with each other in this area.
A related topic is the relationship between character skills and animations prepared for the game part, which you can only understand if you are involved in game production. This is a part of the game that you really don't understand unless you are creating the game.
To do this for a smartphone game without compromising the animation while optimizing for performance, and then to release it on multiple OS and platforms, is insanity, and something you definitely don't want to do.
As I have said elsewhere, it seems that they are working on optimization from the worldview level by making the number of vertices of background objects and objects linear to begin with, and I thought it was an outrageous game that was seriously packed with [things that individuals cannot do] [things that cannot be done without individual skills] [things that cannot be done without budget] and [a lot of things that I like]. I thought it was an extraordinary game that was seriously packed with things that [cannot be done by individuals], [cannot be done without individual skills], [cannot be done without a budget], and [a lot of things I like].

https://i.imgur.com/b8F8awI.jpeg

Some of the original text have been revised for readability.

@benikariudo
The problem is that modern philosophy does not require mathematics in the first place. Greek philosophy required geometry, but modern philosophy is just rubbing the books of pre-war philosophers without requiring geometry or post-Renaissance algebra or analysis, and no philosophers are tackling new issues or issues that are unique to the modern world. All the philosophers' abstractions are old.


@user-zu6ul9lf7q
Modern philosophy is doing mathematical stuff.
I think you're mistaking poets who are just being lifted up by publishers for philosophers.
Like Markus Gabriel, for example.

@t.6685
I'm a young man studying the contemporary philosophy, but it is true that there are fewer people in contemporary philosophy (especially in the Anglo-American world) who have not studied mathematics. It is difficult to fully enter modern philosophy without at least a college-level knowledge of mathematics.

On the other hand, I believe that what @benikariudo is saying is not completely wrong, but partially reasonable.
There is a clear difference between the level of “having knowledge of analysis and algebra” and the level of “being able to freely use such knowledge (to the extent that it can be applied to philosophy),” and unfortunately very few contemporary philosophers have reached the latter level. (In other words, the overwhelming majority of people have the ability to read papers in which mathematics is used, but are unable to construct or express their own philosophy using mathematics.)
I feel (self-reflectively) that the latter level is necessary to be able to call myself a “philosopher who can use mathematics,” and I think (also self-reflectively) that the level of mathematics possessed by most contemporary philosophers is still too low.

@user-up4mu7kx7y
Logic aside, Aristotle seems to have been critical of mathematics... (not certain as this is a secondhand knowledge)

@yamayamama
I couldn't figure out what you were referring to when you said “philosophy does not require mathematics.”
I think the work of Wittgenstein and Gödel is mathematical philosophy, mathematical logic.

What exactly do you envision the use of mathematics in philosophy?
For example, if you used statistics to survey a subject, that seems more like psychology than philosophy.

@benikariudo
@yamayamama Algebra allows us to simulate, and geometry allows us to change, expand, and increase our viewpoints, perspectives, and fields of view. Logic is indeed mathematics, but it is for context and grammar, and you still need geometry and algebra to abstract problems and deal with the concepts themselves. I studied systems thinking such as systems science and systems philosophy, and I think linear algebra is essential for viewing a problem as a system, and Venn diagram-like set concepts are useful rather than logic.

@yamayamama
@benikariudo Thank you. I learned a lot. I took it as something similar to cybernetics or design thinking.
I think it depends on the scope of the word “philosophy”.
My image of the word “philosophy” today is “the activity of logically determining the outlines of where the limits of human reason are likely to be." For example, I think that one of the challenges to the “limits of reason” was mathematical logic.
Therefore, I felt that “the activity of understanding the world” and “the activity of adding convenience to the world” would be positioned as natural science or engineering (including economics, etc.).
Well, this may be the ramblings of an uneducated person.

@abc0to1
Philosophy is formed on the basis of logic, so there is no such thing as a philosopher who does not study logic. If you want to learn logic, you have to learn mathematics.

@benikariudo
@yamayamama It may be true that each philosophy has its own definition of philosophy. However, as the Greek philosophy forbade anyone who did not know geometry from entering its doors, I believe that mathematics is essential for thinking and abstraction, which is the essence of the philosophy. Since Greece at that time did not have fields such as algebra and analysis, I think it is acceptable to incorporate algebra and analysis into philosophy after the Renaissance, when Islamic society benefited from the 0 and Arabic numerals. I think systems philosophy as its interdisciplinary. It may be in the category of engineering, but since society is also run by systems, I think it can also be connected to social philosophy. If we consider Marx as a philosopher, then the extension of Marx's philosophy would be systems philosophy.

@benikariudo
@abc0to1 I did study logic. But before that, I had acquired programming skills as a programmer. I was also exposed to the geometric field of fractal sets and the analytical field of functions, and then I learned linear algebra, which leads to college mathematics. This allowed me to learn, albeit on my own, systems thinking, which would come after structuralism. What these mean is the granularity of problems (at the individual, regional, national, international, global or human level), which are nested and correlated, or the reproduction of systemic problems. In other words, geometry, which was essential to the Greek philosophy of the time, increases, broadens, and enhances the field of vision, perspective, and viewpoint, whereas algebra, a boon in Islamic societies with its Indian zeros and Arabic numerals, allows for simulation, and analysis can be viewed as a functionalization of functions. I believe they lead to a philosophy of systems.

@yamayamama
@benikariudo That's because in Greek times, philosophy was what we would call liberal arts today, right?
It's like “How can a person who can't read, write, and do the abacus be introduced to the study (of philosophy)?
I always wonder why some people bring up the history of philosophy going back to ancient Greece.

In any area of modern studies that has been differentiated, there are areas where one is forced to consider philosophical elements as one digs deeper into the background.
Therefore, I think it would be better if we could talk about “mathematics with a philosophical element” or “economics with a philosophical element." I think it is enough to simply state that there are situations in which philosophical knowledge is required as an underlying element in all academic disciplines.
But when you use vague words like “system” and “design,” you blur the outlines and cause the general public to feel deceived. The word “system” is too unspecific.

@benikariudo
@yamayamama I believe that mathematics is essential for abstraction. Because if philosophy is a study that deals only with the concrete, there should be no need for mathematics. Let me give you an example of why I go back to ancient philosophy. If the Islamic societies of the time had not preserved the tablets of Greek literature, there would have been no subsequent Renaissance. I cite its importance in the sense that ideas that inform modern science (such as atomic theory) would have been cut off. I think the rarity of Greek philosophy is important when you consider why there was no break with mythology within non-Greek cultures of the time.

@t.6685
@benikariudo Sorry for the interruption.
I was wondering about the basis for the universal claim that “mathematics is essential for abstraction” after listening to both of you, and would like to ask you about it if I may.

I think it would be fair to clarify my own position as well, so I will briefly describe it below.
I am a student of philosophy, having studied both logic and mathematics. I believe that mathematics is “a discipline essential to the numerical abstraction of the real world” and logic is “a discipline essential to the linguistic abstraction of the real world.” In other words, the position is that both are useful for abstraction to the same degree, just in different areas of expertise related to abstraction. In this connection, I also have the idea that “there are real-world phenomena that cannot be well abstracted with knowledge of mathematics, and there are real-world phenomena that cannot be well abstracted with knowledge of logic,” which conflicts with the above-mentioned universal claim, which is why I raised the question.

(Incidentally, both Greek natural philosophers such as Thales and mathematics-oriented philosophers such as Plato all had their own fascination with the mythical. Perhaps it is precisely this “duality of inclination toward the mythical and emphasis on natural science and mathematics” that is the rarity of classical Greece.)

@abc0to1
@t.6685 To begin with, the work of abstraction presupposes an inclusion, and because of that, I think mathematics or logic that deals with inclusions is essential. As a common example, if you abstract people, dogs, and cats, they become mammals, but the logic that dogs ≠ cats and dogs ≠ mammals is also used at the same time.
In other words, if we try to formulate how humans perceive the world, we need symbols such as language and numbers, and the manipulation of symbols is, after all, mathematical.
Some people say that it is no good to try to formulate, that we should realize experientially, and that verbalization is a lie. That is also very important, but it is not shared because it remains a personal experience.

@t.6685
@abc0to1 I understand what you are saying and I agree with many of your assertions. However, my question to another person earlier was to the effect that (to rewrite it in line with your comment) I was wondering why you did not make the claim that “the manipulation of symbols is mathematical and/or logical” with respect to the claim that “the manipulation of symbols is mathematical”. (Of course, “logical” here means “in the style of logic as an academic discipline,” as distinguished from the common usage such as logical thinking.)
Although it is my personal experience after studying both mathematics and logic, I have the feeling that there is no superiority or inferiority between mathematics and logic in acquiring the ability to abstract and manipulate symbols, or if there is a superiority or inferiority, it is context-dependent (depending on the context, the abstraction and symbol manipulation abilities acquired from either are used in different ways).

@abc0to1
@t.6685 This may be completely unrelated, but this argument of ours is fully expressed or processed in binary numbers of 0s and 1s, right? When we make arguments in our own minds (in the form of soliloquies) or with others in some formulation, is the human brain equivalent to a Turing machine or not? If it is equivalent, I feel that we can say that (human handled) logic = mathematics. But there doesn't seem to be such a thing as illogical mathematics, so logic ⊃ mathematics, intuitively. But I don't rely on my intuition lol
In general, I feel like we have to understand how the brain works before we can come to any conclusions.

@kk-sm3ws
If the hardware is the same, you could say we are communicating in binary.

*Another thread

@yamayamama
I think, humanities knowledge is “the wisdom needed to reconcile interests”. Wisdom for people to understand each other better and work together. However, since the 1960s, the capital economy was in the process of growing, so the adjustment of interests was not so necessary. Therefore, the humanities were not so much needed, and the only thing that was utilized was psychology as a business tool (marketing).
But nowadays, economic growth is slowing down. Newly developed technologies lack diversity, and assets tend to be concentrated in the hands of a few businesses. In such a transforming world, there will be great expectations for the restoration of humanities knowledge and its active role as a return to society.

@ks1768
This is an interesting hypothesis

@user-pt7zu3ze1r
I feel like you've beautifully verbalized something I've been thinking about for a long time. I think the humanities have the power to maximize benefits for more people and prevent disadvantages, rather than the ability to produce benefits. I feel that something like the boldness to “adjust” is indispensable in a diversified society where the benefits are different for each person.

@user-nr3zq8ie8l
I think that "philosophy" was originally created to discourage a privileged group of people from doing whatever they wanted to do. So it seems to me that the only social significance of advancing the humanities is its moral and ethical role.

Here's a rough summary of the ideological positions of each participant in the discussion:

1. @benikariudo: Believes that mathematics, particularly algebra and geometry, is essential for philosophical abstraction and problem-solving. They see modern philosophy as lacking in this mathematical rigor compared to ancient Greek philosophy and argue for incorporating mathematical tools into philosophical thinking.

2. @user-zu6ul9lf7q: Argues that modern philosophy does engage with mathematics, but distinguishes between true philosophers and those who are merely elevated by publishers. They suggest that there are contemporary philosophers doing meaningful work with mathematics.

3. @t.6685: A philosophy student who agrees that mathematics is important but believes that few contemporary philosophers reach the level of truly integrating mathematics into their work. They view both mathematics and logic as essential for abstraction but emphasize that they are useful in different areas, and not all philosophical issues can be addressed by mathematics alone.

4. @user-up4mu7kx7y: Suggests, based on secondhand knowledge, that Aristotle was critical of mathematics, hinting at a historical perspective where mathematics and philosophy may not always align.

5. @yamayamama: Views the role of mathematics in philosophy more critically. They see modern philosophy as focused on the limits of human reason rather than on practical applications like those found in engineering or natural sciences. They question the broad and vague use of terms like "system" in philosophical discourse, arguing that it might blur the lines between philosophy and other disciplines.

6. @abc0to1: Believes that logic and mathematics are both fundamental to philosophical abstraction, seeing them as intertwined in the manipulation of symbols necessary for understanding the world. They argue that logic might even encompass mathematics and raise questions about the nature of human cognition in relation to mathematical logic.

7. @kk-sm3ws: Briefly adds that if the hardware (brain) is the same, communication could be considered binary, implicitly agreeing with the idea that logic and mathematics might be fundamentally linked.

Each participant brings a different perspective on the relationship between philosophy and mathematics, reflecting a spectrum of views from seeing mathematics as essential to viewing it as just one of many tools in philosophical inquiry.

Here’s a breakdown of the ideological and philosophical concepts relevant to each participant's statement:

1. @benikariudo:
- Mathematical Philosophy: The idea that mathematics is integral to philosophical thought, especially in abstraction and problem-solving.
- Systems Thinking: The interdisciplinary study of systems, viewing problems as interconnected and nested within larger systems.
- Historical Continuity in Philosophy: The belief in the importance of Greek philosophy's legacy, preserved through Islamic societies, for modern philosophical thought.
- Philosophy of Abstraction: The view that abstract thinking in philosophy requires mathematical tools like geometry and algebra.

2. @user-zu6ul9lf7q:
- Philosophical Authenticity: The distinction between true philosophers and those who are merely recognized by publishers.
- Modern Engagement with Mathematics: The assertion that contemporary philosophers do engage in mathematical thinking, though it may not be universally recognized.

3. @t.6685:
- Epistemology: The study of knowledge, particularly the role of mathematics and logic in abstracting knowledge about the real world.
- Philosophy of Mathematics: The belief that mathematics is crucial but not the sole means of abstraction, and its utility varies by context.
- Dualism in Greek Philosophy: The idea that classical Greek thinkers combined a fascination with mythology and a strong emphasis on natural science and mathematics.

4. @user-up4mu7kx7y:
- Historical Critique of Mathematics in Philosophy: The suggestion that some ancient philosophers, like Aristotle, were critical of mathematics, highlighting a historical tension between philosophy and mathematics.

5. @yamayamama:
- Limits of Reason: The concept that philosophy today is concerned with exploring the boundaries of human reason, often through logical analysis.
- Philosophy vs. Natural Science/Engineering: The distinction between philosophy and practical sciences like engineering, which are seen as more focused on adding convenience to the world.
- Cybernetics/Design Thinking: The application of systems theory and design thinking to philosophy, though the participant is skeptical about its relevance.
- Philosophy of Language and Logic: The idea that philosophy should focus on precise definitions and logical clarity, avoiding vague terms that blur disciplinary boundaries.

6. @abc0to1:
- Symbolic Logic: The study of symbols and their manipulation, which is seen as foundational to both mathematics and logic in philosophy.
- Formalism in Philosophy: The idea that philosophical reasoning involves formal systems of logic and mathematics.
- Cognitive Science and Philosophy: The exploration of whether human cognition, like a Turing machine, operates on logical and mathematical principles.

7. @kk-sm3ws:
- Binary Logic: The idea that human communication and reasoning could be fundamentally binary, connecting to theories in computer science and cognitive science about the brain's operations.

These concepts reflect the diverse approaches each participant takes towards the relationship between philosophy, mathematics, and logic.

@EngelsFriedrich
I am moved by the astonishing words that I have come across. He says, “We should not speak of a distinction between appearance and reality, between spirit and body, and between the intellect and the emotions, on that basis.”
Here we can clearly see the influence of J. Dewey's influence can be seen here. Dewey, a leading American pragmatist, referred to experience as the intimate relationship between the action and passivity of the organism. In other words, the continuous process of simultaneous active and passive responses of living organisms to their environment is the true nature of what we call experience. It is not an event of the past as described by the Greek philosopher Plato, but rather a creative activity of the present. So experience is essentially “trial and error” and experimental, and it is also an effort to change what has been given to us, an exploration of the unknown. The fact that our experience is future-oriented may be the true meaning of the phrase “we should not speak in the vocabulary of Greek philosophy." I think these words capture the characteristics of contemporary American thought. Thanks for uploading.

Input: I came up with the term “presence due to unimportance”, can you give an example?

Output: The term “existence due to unimportance” can be interpreted as referring to a state in which something is insignificant or unimportant and therefore has a contrary presence. A concrete example of this concept would be the following situation.

1. The Presence of a Background Character
In a movie or drama, there are people who are not main characters but simply pass by or stand in the background. They may seem “unimportant” and irrelevant to the story, but this gives reality to the scene and makes their presence essential in the background.

2. Trivial Events of Daily Life
For example, a stranger you see on a station platform or a passing conversation you hear on a street corner. Normally, we would not pay attention to these things, but when something special happens, their “unimportant” presence can suddenly become memorable and affect our mind. This is another example of “existence due to unimportance.

3. Unknown Artists or Works
There can be a situation where an unknown artist or his/her work, unknown to the majority, is known only to a particular community or small group of people. While the work may be “unimportant” to the majority, it may become important to certain people and take on a unique meaning there.

4. Houseplants in the Office
A houseplant in a corporate office may seem “unimportant” at first glance, but its presence can soften the overall atmosphere of the office and create a relaxing environment. They are not considered important, yet they are needed in the office.

In this way, “presence due to unimportance” can represent a case in which something may appear to be directly unimportant, but its indifference or inconsequentiality conversely creates a sense of presence.

I: It seems to me that it has to do with concepts that are important in a particular context and their complement.

O: As you say, “existence due to unimportance” is similar to the relationship between an important concept in a particular context and its complement. There is a paradoxical aspect to this, in that the value of existence itself is established by its “unimportant” character. This idea is a phenomenon found in various areas of philosophy, sociology, cognitive science, etc.

1. Complement as Duality
In the mathematical concept of complementation, there is a set and then there are elements (complements) that do not belong to that set. Similarly, if there is a concept or entity that is important in a certain context, then something that is considered “unimportant” may have a complementary presence.

For example, in a work of art, the central element of the work may be vivid and prominent, while the surrounding blurred background or margins may be considered “unimportant,” but the central element stands out because of that background. Thus, the “unimportant” elements play a complementary role in emphasizing the “important” elements as a result.

2. Figure and Ground Relationship
The “figure-ground” relationship in Gestalt psychology is also related to this duality. The figure is the visually prominent part of the image, while the ground is its background or inconspicuous part. The ground is usually unnoticeable, but its “unimportance” makes the figure stand out and take on meaning. The figure (object) is recognized more prominently because the ground (background) is unimportant. 3.

3. Center and Periphery in Society
In sociological terms, the concepts of “center” and “periphery” of society apply. People and cultures at the center are important to the majority, while those on the periphery are often treated as “unimportant. However, those on the periphery can play an important social role through their interaction with the center. For example, subcultures are like complements to popular culture, but they often influence the mainstream or later transform into the main culture.

4. De-centering and the Role of the Unconscious
A related phenomenon in postmodern philosophy involves the relativization and de-centering of the central being, whereby elements previously considered “unimportant” emerge and take on value and meaning. Here, the process by which “unimportant entities” come to have relative value may be explained as an inversion of center and complement.

5. Complementarity Effect of Cognition
Even in the cognitive processes of the brain, unconscious information or sensory data that are often ignored (e.g., background sounds or visual information) can influence conscious attention. This unconscious “unimportant” information may form an essential background for conscious choices and actions.

From this perspective, it can be said that the “unimportant presence” is always complementary to importance in context, revealing its paradoxical role. It highlights a relationship in which, while supporting the existence of an important concept, its own “unimportance” is also established by its existence.

Continuing with the phrase “to one's physical characteristics” from a philosophical perspective, we can develop content related to deeper questions about the body and self-awareness, existence, and free will. Here are some candidates

1. “Does one's awareness of one's bodily characteristics constrain the essential freedom of the self?”
- The question of how the limitations and characteristics of the body affect one's freedom and choices.

2. “It may be that my physical characteristics are the boundaries of my being.”
- A context in which one considers whether the body defines the limits of the ego or existence beyond the body. 3.

3. “Am I truly a free being if I follow my physical characteristics?”
- A philosophical question about the relationship between free will and physical limitations. 4.

4. “In becoming aware of my physical characteristics, may my existence be limited to the material dimension?”
- An inquiry into the relationship between body and spirit, or material existence and transcendent existence.

5. “To what extent does my awareness of my physical characteristics determine my sense of self?”
- Reflections on how much the body influences the formation of identity. 6.

6. “To what extent does my preoccupation with my physical characteristics set limits on my relationships with others?”
- Reflection on how the body places limitations on our interactions with and understanding of others. 7.

7. “Do the sensations and perceptions that depend on my physical characteristics truly capture the reality of the world?”
- 8. questioning how accurately our physical senses and perceptions perceive reality.

8. “While constrained by one's physical characteristics, does the psyche construct itself beyond them?”
- A contemplation of the relationship between body and spirit and the possibility of the spirit constructing itself beyond its physical limitations. 9.

9. “Accepting the limitations inherent in my physical characteristics may give meaning to my existence.”
- A consideration of how the acceptance of physical limitations may lead to the meaning of self and the fulfillment of existence.

These candidates are in-depth perspectives on how the limitations and characteristics of the body affect one's freedom, identity, and meaning of existence, or how that relationship should be viewed. The phrases are an opportunity to explore the relationship between the body and the self in advancing philosophical discussions.

Shout out to 4552974 and 4552984 by fgh5050!

Quickly pronounced "Never mind" sounds a bit like "Nandemonai"... Never mind.