Who the hell names their daughter Salt!?
Sha Nagba Imuru [Omniverse SI; Currently in Naruto]
- Thread starter Endfall
- Start date
That wouldn't be surprising at all.
I now have a headache and the urge to smack my head into a wall. Thank you. Really.Also, for an example of the sort of thing Kaede was writing:
This is a system I developed for predicate logic. The key for the system is at the top left, and the bottom features some translations.
Deciphering the scriptio caelis notes in the middle is left as an exercise to the reader.This is not a math text. They read:
Now I'm wondering if I actually want to know what those symbols mean.
For curiosity sake, how hard would it be for a normal person to make sense of that universes logic/math. I mean the human mind can believe some pretty irrational things thanks to how the human mind is wired full of biases. It doesn't seem likely that its too alien, otherwise the people would have to have significant fundamental differences from humans, probably. Then again multiverse bullshit.
Endfall
A zero on the singularity.
- Location
- Somewhere else.
- Pronouns
- She/They
B-b-but logic is fun.
Except for most non-me people in existence.
If you decide you want to know,
v, w, x, y, and z are reserved variables in logic; so I made unique symbols for them. In this system, constants and variables are wholly arbitrary, otherwise: you invent a shape, and use it consistently.
Logical operators in this instance work as follows: x OPERATOR y. Depending on the truth values of x and y (mercifully, the only two values here are true, or false) the operator gives a truth value for the entire statement.
On the right, v is the logical inclusive or operator; which outputs true if at least one input is true. The dot is the logical and operator, which outputs true if both inputs are true. The arrow is the implication operator, which outputs true unless the first argument (the thing to the left of it) is true while the second argument (the right) is false. The <-> is the equivalence operator; it outputs true if both inputs are true, or if both inputs are false.
The square box just under the symbols for the variables show how each unit is laid out. Cell 1 can contain constants and variables, Cell 2 is variable-only, Cell 3 is constant-only, and cell 4 contains operators and hierarchy information. Hierarchy information lets the system express constructions like this A -> (A -> B) without needing to waste space with parentheses. Instead, the first A would have a little zero to indicate that it's at the topmost level, and the A -> B in parentheses would have a one. More deeply nested statements would have a 2, etc.
The backwards E and upside down A mean "for all" and "for some" respectively. I forget which, because I crammed predicate logic more than learned it. I plan to fix that mistake after I finish teaching myself the maths pertinent to machine learning.
Logical operators in this instance work as follows: x OPERATOR y. Depending on the truth values of x and y (mercifully, the only two values here are true, or false) the operator gives a truth value for the entire statement.
On the right, v is the logical inclusive or operator; which outputs true if at least one input is true. The dot is the logical and operator, which outputs true if both inputs are true. The arrow is the implication operator, which outputs true unless the first argument (the thing to the left of it) is true while the second argument (the right) is false. The <-> is the equivalence operator; it outputs true if both inputs are true, or if both inputs are false.
The square box just under the symbols for the variables show how each unit is laid out. Cell 1 can contain constants and variables, Cell 2 is variable-only, Cell 3 is constant-only, and cell 4 contains operators and hierarchy information. Hierarchy information lets the system express constructions like this A -> (A -> B) without needing to waste space with parentheses. Instead, the first A would have a little zero to indicate that it's at the topmost level, and the A -> B in parentheses would have a one. More deeply nested statements would have a 2, etc.
The backwards E and upside down A mean "for all" and "for some" respectively. I forget which, because I crammed predicate logic more than learned it. I plan to fix that mistake after I finish teaching myself the maths pertinent to machine learning.
but if not, I really did only intend it as an example: compare the consistency of the logic statements on the bottom against the scriptio caelis bits above them, and you'll see why Shio managed to see it for what it was.
Irrational, yes. Inconsistent to basic principles of reality, no. Please try to imagine what an n-simplex looks like. No, not some higher dimensional shape - I expect you to accurately visualize any arbitrary simplex existing, given some number n.
If I give you n <= 3, you can do it with no problems for 0-2, but not for 3. For 3, you can only do a few faces, and will not fully model the interior volume. For n >= 4, you probably can't do it, period, because first you would need to have a concept of higher-dimensional space at least as good as your concept of 3D space.
It's about that difficult to actually understand the nature of a foreign multiverse. I do not understand it. I can say "there's something wrong with Kaede's chakra" but I will never actually be able to write a quantitative description of *what*. Only a qualitative one. That's the limit of this story, although I will do everything in my power to push it.
An earlier draft dealt with this a bit more, but I couldn't find a way to keep the material and preserve narrative flow as the same time. The general concept is that decision theory happens to resolve almost identically from SR Axioms as it does from Terra Res' Axioms. Kaede noted that it had to, otherwise humans would not exist.
All that actually means though, is that the mathematics that govern how to decide are nearly identical. What's at the bottom of reality in the Shinobi Rikugou is not particles, or wave functions, or strings.
There are of course incredibly alien multiverses out there, but generally speaking, most fanfic readers don't want to read the Gostak, and specifically speaking, I'm absolutely sure I have no interest in writing it; so I'm constraining the narrative to this particular, peculiar slice.
Last edited:
DarkSideBard
Flying, without moving on
I took SL and PL last semester. Pretty certain upside down A is 'for everything in the specified universe of discourse', while backwards E is 'for at least one thing in the specified universe of discourse'. I'd have to check though, because I'm already a little rusty. Stuff' s hard to get through without constant practice. Also, you left out the negation operator (~) from your explanation (obviously being 'NEGATION OPERATOR x', where the whole sentence's truth value is just the truth value of x reversed). I also always think that the conditional is a bit wierd. I mean, if both statements are totally disconnected from reality, then the whole sentence is still true, which seems like the opposite of clarity.
I also really like these bits of story building theory. Though decision theory resolving the same with different mathematics seems a bit arbitrary on the surface, its arbitraryness is resolved by fun multiverse theory! And I guess internal logic, which is kinda secondary when math isn't consistent.
Thanks for writing something that's more challenging to read.
I also really like these bits of story building theory. Though decision theory resolving the same with different mathematics seems a bit arbitrary on the surface, its arbitraryness is resolved by fun multiverse theory! And I guess internal logic, which is kinda secondary when math isn't consistent.
Thanks for writing something that's more challenging to read.
Endfall
A zero on the singularity.
- Location
- Somewhere else.
- Pronouns
- She/They
@DarkSideBard
You're right about the PL symbols. And thanks for pointing out I forgot ~.
The conditional seemed a bit strange when I first learned it, but it made sense on further thinking. The way I see it, in A -> B, A is a causal claim about B, asserting by its truth that B is true (as a consequence thereof). When A is false, it asserts nothing about B, hence why B can be true or false in that circumstance.
The thing that insulted my common sense (and still does, occasionally) is actually OR. I've always used the exclusive or internally, so it was a bit of a change of pace (though, that said, A v C works much better than (A xor C) xor (A & C), in terms of representation of information per symbol used).
I'm glad you're enjoying the style of the story. I'll try to keep things interesting in the future.
You're right about the PL symbols. And thanks for pointing out I forgot ~.
The conditional seemed a bit strange when I first learned it, but it made sense on further thinking. The way I see it, in A -> B, A is a causal claim about B, asserting by its truth that B is true (as a consequence thereof). When A is false, it asserts nothing about B, hence why B can be true or false in that circumstance.
The thing that insulted my common sense (and still does, occasionally) is actually OR. I've always used the exclusive or internally, so it was a bit of a change of pace (though, that said, A v C works much better than (A xor C) xor (A & C), in terms of representation of information per symbol used).
I'm glad you're enjoying the style of the story. I'll try to keep things interesting in the future.
The Pain that Binds
Endfall
A zero on the singularity.
- Location
- Somewhere else.
- Pronouns
- She/They
I'd say right now, my time writing this story is split between revising old chapters and writing new ones. I have about 20k words of future material banked, although 80% of it is for the third Arc.
I finished reading Kill Six Billion Demons earlier. I see what you mean, a bit, but I can also say with absolute confidence that the similarities are going to break down in the long term.
What's KSBD about? I've never heard of it, but if it's like this story I might check it out.
Endfall
A zero on the singularity.
- Location
- Somewhere else.
- Pronouns
- She/They
@flashburn
By all means!
@LordCassius
It's one of those things where the summary is a spoiler. The good news is, it's free webcomic, so theres nothing in particular stopping you from getting the answer. Sort of mixes gnosticism, hinduism, and abrahamic-orthodox myth, and is generally something I consider interesting, if that means anything.
Apparently, it originates as a quest run on the MSPA forums. I am so unsurprised by this that my heart has transmuted itself into salt.
By all means!
@LordCassius
It's one of those things where the summary is a spoiler. The good news is, it's free webcomic, so theres nothing in particular stopping you from getting the answer. Sort of mixes gnosticism, hinduism, and abrahamic-orthodox myth, and is generally something I consider interesting, if that means anything.
Apparently, it originates as a quest run on the MSPA forums. I am so unsurprised by this that my heart has transmuted itself into salt.
Started reading it. Have no idea what's happening. It's great though. Hopefully it starts making sense.
Endfall
A zero on the singularity.
- Location
- Somewhere else.
- Pronouns
- She/They
The reason why it didn't surprise me that it originated on the MSPA forums is because it sort of doesn't. The plot does get a direction, but the causality leading to the beginning of the comic remains wholly obscure. Which is half the fun of it, I think.
Also, chapter incoming.
Fast updates. Then again, you are still rewriting existing material. So the comic isn't suppose to make any sense beyond the general plot direction? It is still rather good regardless. I just generally enjoy understanding things.
Endfall
A zero on the singularity.
- Location
- Somewhere else.
- Pronouns
- She/They
I don't think it's not supposed to make sense. I just think that the author/illustrator really adheres to third person limited and in medias res. There's some perspective hopping that occasionally sheds light on various things, but the moment are chose carefully enough that you can not put the entire picture together from what you're given.
Heterostasis
So... the SB can attack his past life. That is quite the trick. Also, will it turn out that Shio is the SB? I think not.
This seems a bit ominous.
Also a comment on the previous chapter: Shio is adorable, I really enjoy the juxtaposition of childish naivety and adult mentality, too bad it seems like the SB is going to do something horrible to her at some point.
PS remember to threadmark chapters.
This seems a bit ominous.
Also a comment on the previous chapter: Shio is adorable, I really enjoy the juxtaposition of childish naivety and adult mentality, too bad it seems like the SB is going to do something horrible to her at some point.
PS remember to threadmark chapters.
Last edited:
Endfall
A zero on the singularity.
- Location
- Somewhere else.
- Pronouns
- She/They
It is quite a trick, isn't it? But was it even possible? Doesn't Terra Res no longer exist? Isn't the Breaker known to have inhuman mastery of illusions? Don't I write stories where tiny details end up mattering?
Glad you like her. In the earliest drafts of the story, I figured that the relentless coldness of Kaede's perspective needed a foil. I'm glad I'm managing to write her properly.
As for the second part: It's not hopeless. I do not believe in the idea of a hopeless situation. I would not create a character merely to destroy them.
Thanks for reminding me.
Still my point remains.Will this story be SI perspective only? I'm rather partial to stories that blur perspectives.
Last edited:
Endfall
A zero on the singularity.
- Location
- Somewhere else.
- Pronouns
- She/They
I'm presently writing an interlude that includes Shio and Kazu's perspectives. SI-Pov will be the most common, but there will be others.
Bulshitting about what? The science-fictionish stuff? The plot? Something else? Give me specificity, and I'll just say if I am or not.
The philosophy and the science.
Endfall
A zero on the singularity.
- Location
- Somewhere else.
- Pronouns
- She/They
The science, I write from memory, and if my memory is wrong, it's wrong. Some purely speculative elements like vacuum collapse have been added.
As for the philosophy, oh, absolutely. All the time. I try to make it consistent, but I use real philosophies as inspirations. Like a philosopher, but not, in that nobody pays me to philosophise, and therefore, in a strictly objective sense, these thoughts have no value. But that's fine, because I don't believe in valuation.
Last edited:
keep on keeping on
skitter mode? You or the SI?
Also I thought the 5th axiom was about 2 line both passing through a third and if they have a combined interior angle less than 180 degrees they intersect not about parallel lines intersecting or not? or is that derived from the axiom?
Also I thought the 5th axiom was about 2 line both passing through a third and if they have a combined interior angle less than 180 degrees they intersect not about parallel lines intersecting or not? or is that derived from the axiom?
Last edited: