Dear At,
I forgot one question regarding "=":
You use two kind of equations to illustrate your reasoning:
1.) 1 + 1 = 3 and
2.) (X * Y) * Z = X * (Y * Z)
In the first case, you note that the meaning of "=" is "becoming", thus
write " "=" " instead. In the latter case, I could think, that the "="
means just mathematical equalty, as usual. But knowing you, I assume you
would reject this as reversible mathematics. So how does becoming or
irreversibility come into associativity?
For example, 1 + 1 "=" 3 is a formular for emergence, but 3 "=" 1 + 1
could be read as immergence. What about X * (Y * Z) = (X * Y) * Z? I would
say, in a mathematical sense, this is still associativity. But you are
always good for a surprise.
And why do you use the mathematical sign for equalty "=" and explain it
with " "=" " as a sign for becoming, instead of using another sign for
becoming, for instance "->" which more clearly depicts the direction of
irreversibilty?
(I am still trying to "escape from the groove of reversible thinking".)
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>