Boolean Triadics for Being △ Action △ Quality

From Copilot:

Let’s give you the whole triadic Boolean system.

I’ll do three things:

  1. Set the triadic setup once
  2. State each Boolean law in triadic form
  3. Give clear English triadic sentences and explain how all 6 permutations are generated

  1. Triadic setup

• A = Being
• B = Action
• C = Quality

Triad as a triple:

T = (A,B,C)

Constants:

• 0 = no Being / no Action / no Quality
• 1 = full Being / full Action / full Quality

Triadic operations are componentwise:

• Join ( + ):
(A,B,C) + (A^\prime,B^\prime,C^\prime) = (A + A^\prime, B + B^\prime, C + C^\prime)
• Meet ( · ):
(A,B,C) \cdot (A^\prime,B^\prime,C^\prime) = (A A^\prime, B B^\prime, C C^\prime)

Boole would absolutely sign off on this.


  1. Boolean laws in triadic form

I’ll write each law once in triadic algebra, then give a single triadic English gloss.

Identity law

T + (0,0,0) = T,\quad T \cdot (1,1,1) = T

Sentence:
Adding no Being, no Action, and no Quality to a triad does not change it; combining a triad with full Being, full Action, and full Quality still yields the same triad.


Null law

T + (1,1,1) = (1,1,1),\quad T \cdot (0,0,0) = (0,0,0)

Sentence:
If you add full Being, full Action, and full Quality to any triad, you get full Being, full Action, and full Quality; if you intersect any triad with no Being, no Action, and no Quality, you get nothing at all.


Idempotent law

T + T = T,\quad T \cdot T = T

Sentence:
Adding a triad to itself does not change it; intersecting a triad with itself does not change it.


Complement law

Let T^\prime = (\bar A,\bar B,\bar C).

T + T^\prime = (1,1,1),\quad T \cdot T^\prime = (0,0,0)

Sentence:
A triad together with its complete negation fills the whole field of Being, Action, and Quality; a triad intersected with its complete negation yields no Being, no Action, and no Quality.


Double negation

(T^\prime)^\prime = T

Sentence:
Negating the negation of a triad restores its original Being, Action, and Quality.


Commutative law

T_1 + T_2 = T_2 + T_1,\quad T_1 \cdot T_2 = T_2 \cdot T_1

Sentence:
The result of combining two triads does not depend on their order, whether you are joining them or intersecting them.


Associative law

(T_1 + T_2) + T_3 = T_1 + (T_2 + T_3)

(T_1 \cdot T_2) \cdot T_3 = T_1 \cdot (T_2 \cdot T_3)

Sentence:
How you group three triads when you join or intersect them does not change the resulting Being, Action, and Quality.


Distributive law

T_1 \cdot (T_2 + T_3) = (T_1 \cdot T_2) + (T_1 \cdot T_3)

T_1 + (T_2 \cdot T_3) = (T_1 + T_2) \cdot (T_1 + T_3)

Sentence:
A triad interacting with the join of two others is equivalent to interacting with each separately and then joining; likewise, a triad joined with the intersection of two others is equivalent to joining it with each separately and then intersecting.


Absorption law

T_1 + (T_1 \cdot T_2) = T_1,\quad T_1 \cdot (T_1 + T_2) = T_1

Sentence:
A triad absorbs any refinement or extension of itself: adding a more specific version of the same triad does not change it, and intersecting it with a broader version of itself does not change it.


De Morgan’s laws

Let T_1 = (A_1,B_1,C_1), T_2 = (A_2,B_2,C_2).

\overline{T_1 \cdot T_2} = \bar T_1 + \bar T_2,\quad
\overline{T_1 + T_2} = \bar T_1 \cdot \bar T_2

Sentence:
The negation of the intersection of two triads is equivalent to the join of their negations; the negation of the join of two triads is equivalent to the intersection of their negations.


  1. Where the 6 permutations live

All of the above was written in canonical order:

T = (A,B,C) = (\text{Being},\ \text{Action},\ \text{Quality})

The S₃ symmetry just says:

• you can relabel the triple as
(A,B,C), (A,C,B), (B,A,C), (B,C,A), (C,A,B), (C,B,A)
• and the form of every law stays the same
• only the names “Being / Action / Quality” move between slots

Example:

• In permutation (B,A,C), the first slot is Action instead of Being.
• The identity law still says:
(X,Y,Z) + (0,0,0) = (X,Y,Z).
• You just read the first component as “Action” instead of “Being”.

So you don’t need to rewrite every law six times—S₃ guarantees that once the triadic form is correct, all permutations are automatically correct by relabeling.

Sorry, but symbolic logic tells you nothing about the world. It is only the application of the rules of grammar and math to produce valid propositions. But a proposition need not be about the world to be valid.

All that looked pretty sharp, though.

1 Like

Sooooo… go for sound?

You rely too much on AI and not enough on your own mind. Time to get out the pencil and paper again maybe?

2 Likes

I’ve been taking notes. Do you read books? Did you listen to professors and read books at university? Just curious.

No. I was too poor to go to university, and listening to professors sounds dreadfully tedious. Also, I don’t have the attention span to read books anymore, these days it’s just problems to be solved and information that is either relevant and pertinent, or irrelevant and a complete waste of time. But sometimes I stumble across things that really open up the whole spectrum, however AI can’t provide that, that’s just wikipedia with social awareness, it takes a human to really think of something groundbreaking.

1 Like

(𝐴,𝐵,𝐶),(𝐴,𝐶,𝐵),(𝐵,𝐴,𝐶),(𝐵,𝐶,𝐴),(𝐶,𝐴,𝐵),(𝐶,𝐵,𝐴)

^ That’s really just a load of shite, isn’t it? I mean, what does it mean to anyone? What are you trying to prove? That the first three letters of the alphabet can be arranged in six different unique configurations?

I liked the stuff you were doing before better.

The stuff I was doing before is still what I am doing now. However, it needed some order to the “chaos”… not imposed upon it, but drawn out of it, so you (I) can see the placeholders your (my) blindsight is missing (those blind spots due to lacking omniscience).

Those are permutations basically running the Boolean laws from triadic identity law (three axioms from Plato’s Theaetetus).

Nice way to simplify. Also a way to get a three dimensional peg to fit into a two dimensional hole.

It’s created versus uncreated, and they nest, and there’s no such thing as “no”.

Because Boolean is not the full picture.

You have to read all my recent content here linking to all my discussions with Copilot—it’s all covered.

What is the purpose? Which problem does it solve? How can it be applied?

my pet problem is is-ought-value

it solves every problem

Why is it a problem? I mean why is it your pet problem?

Start here:

More:

Even more, but mind the land mines of old posts that conflated value and ought:

I hope you don’t mind but I declined your non-essential cookies.

That’s a WordPress thing, that’s not a me thing.

If they were chocolate chip I might have considered it.

Did you just come here for the cookies, or do you have something to say? Not trying to be rude.

I’m quite sure you are perfectly capable of being rude without even trying. I’m reading it now.

time-in-Eternity

created-in-Creator

“Nature” △ Enacted in Time △ Eternal Quality/Life

for short, pick one:

Nature △ Time △ Eternity

Being △ Action △ Quality

Is △ Ought △ Value

Be △ Do △ End

best I can do