Feature 184465 · Paired conceptual distinctions

1is this superlinearity that constitutes their specific deterritorialization and differentiates them from genetic linearity. Genetic linearity is above all spatial, even though its segments are constructed and reproduced in succession; thus at this level it does not require effective overcoding of any kind, only phenomena of end-to-end connection, local regulations, and partial interactions (overcoding takes place only at the level of integrations implying different orders of magnitude). That is why Jacob is reluctant to compare the genetic code to a language; in fact, the genetic code has neither emitter, receiver, comprehension, nor translation, only redundancies and surplus values.[83] The temporal linearity of language expression relates not only to a succession but to a formal synthesis of succession in which time constitutes a process of linear overcoding and engenders a phenomenon unknown on the other strata: translation, translatability, as opposed to the previous inductions and transductions. Translation should not be understood simply as the ability

2as a form of content has a relative expression all its own; there are all kinds of statements specific to it that do not necessarily coincide with the statements of delinquency. Conversely, delinquency as a form of expression has an autonomous content all its own, since delinquency expresses not only a new way of evaluating crimes but a new way of committing them. Form of content and form of expression, prison and delinquency: each has its own history, microhistory, segments. At most, along with other contents and expressions, they imply a shared state of the abstract Machine acting not at all as a signifier but as a kind of diagram (a single abstract machine for the prison and the school and the barracks and the hospital and the factory …). Fitting the two types of forms together, segments of content and segments of expression, requires a whole double-pincered, or rather double-headed, concrete assemblage taking their real distinction into account. It requires a whole organization articulating

3cosmos is its ambiguous status, the fact that it is He/not He. In other terms, the cosmos is imagination, and imagination is that which stands in an intermediary situation between affirmation and denial. About it one says “both this and that,” or, “nei- ther this nor that.” The universe is nei- ther Being nor nothingness, or both Be- ing and nothingness. It is “existence” in the way this term has been defined. This description of the cosmos is basically static and nontemporal. What happens when we take time into consideration? Another dimension of ambiguity js added. In other words, if we take an ex- istent thing at any moment in time with- out reference to past or future and try to define its situation, we will come up with a hazy sort of definition, a not very successful attempt to

4them), so too does the lower world both hide and disclose the power and the structure of the sefirot that underlie it. The vertical and hierarchical model on which the medieval universe is structured underlies the entire Zohar. Upper world and lower world, terms used with great frequency throughout the work, are both parallel and interdependent. At times the phrase “upper world” refers to the sefirotic realm as a whole, as parallel to the “lower world” that is the concrete universe of human action. But elsewhere the upper and lower worlds may reflect an intradivine distinction. Most commonly these are Binah and Malkhut, the two “female” realms into which a divine force enters. But the terms upper and lower may also refer to any number of other distinctions, including those between Shekhinah and Her heavenly hosts, between Tif’eret and Malkhut, between the three highest sef

5<bos>What interests us in the question of what the dialectic involved must be brought back to, in so far as it is the dialectic of the cause , is not that the body participates in it, as one might say, in its totality. It is not the fact of pointing out that eyes are not all that are necessary in order to see, but that undoubtedly our reactions are different according as our skin, as was pointed out by Goldstein, who was not lacking in perfectly valid experiments, according as our skin is bathed or not in a certain atmosphere of colour. That is not the order of events involved here in this reminder of the function of the body. The engagement of the man who speaks in the chain of the signifier with all its consequences, with this henceforth fundamental springing forth, this elective point that I earlier called that of an ultra-subjective radiation, this foundation of desire in a word,

6bringing into play only a minimum number of them. Even in the case of the mold, however, there are nearly instantaneous, interior intermediate states between the molecular content that assumes its own specific forms and the determinate molar expression of the outside by the form of the mold. Conversely, even when the multiplication and temporalization of the intermediate states testify to the endogenous character of the molar form (as with crystals), a minimum of exterior forces still intervene in each of the stages.[77] We must therefore say that the relative independence of content and expression, the real distinction between molecular content and molar expression with their respective forms, has a special status enjoying a certain amount of latitude between the limit-cases. ¶ Since strata are judgments of God, one should not hesitate to apply all the subtleties of medieval Scholasticism and theology. There is a real distinction between content and expression because the corresponding forms are effectively distinct in the “thing” itself, and not only in the

7. Although the first articulation is not lacking in systematic interactions, it is in the second articulation in particular that phenomena constituting an overcoding are produced, phenomena of centering, unification, totalization, integration, hierarchization, and finalization. Both articulations establish binary relations between their respective segments. But between the segments of one articulation and the segments of the other there are biunivocal relationships obeying far more complex laws. The word “structure” may be used to designate the sum of these relations and relationships, but it is an illusion to believe that structure is the earth’s last word. Moreover, it cannot be taken for granted that the distinction between the two articulations is always that of the molecular and the molar. ¶ He skipped over the immense diversity of the energetic, physico-chemical, and geological strata. He went straight to the organic strata, or the existence of a great organic stratification. The problem of the organism — how to “make” the

8of bringing the cosmos into existence. Since the Essence prefers the property of bringing the cosmos into existence, the cosmos becomes manifest upon the form of that which brings it into existence. Hence it is divided into that which exercises effects and that within which effects are displayed, as in fact hap- pens within the sensory domain. God did not create from Adam and Eve an earth, a heaven, a mountain, or anything other than their own kind. He created from them only their likes in form and prop- erty. ... ¶ Since the root is One and nothing made Him two except Himself, and_ since manyness only became manifest from His Entity, everything in the cosmos pos- sesses a sign denoting the fact that He is One. ¶ The whole of the cosmos is body and spirit, and through the two of these, exis- tence is configured

9<bos>There are many uses of the word “personality” which we may feel inclined to adopt, all more or less akin. The same applies when we define the identity of a person by means of his memories. Imagine a man whose memories on the even days of his life comprise the events of all these days, skipping entirely what happened on the odd days. On the other hand, he remembers on an odd day what happened on previous odd days, but his memory would then skip the even days without a feeling of discontinuity. If we like we can also assume that he has alternating appearances and characteristics on odd and even days. Are we bound to say that here two persons are inhabiting the same body? That is, is it right to say that there are, and wrong to say that there aren't, or vice versa? Neither. For the ordinary use of the word “person” is what one might call a composite use suitable under the ordinary circumstances. If

10primacy of expression as a signifying system. Expression can never be made into a form reflecting content, even if one endows it with a “certain” amount of independence and a certain potential for reacting, if only because so-called economic content already has a form and even forms of expression that are specific to it. Form of content and form of expression involve two parallel formalizations in presupposition: it is obvious that their segments constantly intertwine, embed themselves in one another; but this is accomplished by the abstract machine from which the two forms derive, and by machinic assemblages that regulate their relations. If this parallelism is replaced by a pyramidal image, then content (including its form) becomes an economic base of production displaying all of the characteristics of the Abstract; the assemblages become the first story of a superstructure that, as such, is necessarily situated within a State apparatus; the regimes of signs and forms of expression become the second story of the superstructure, defined by

11<bos>We call any specific formalization of expression a regime of signs, at least when the expression is linguistic. A regime of signs constitutes a semiotic system. But it appears difficult to analyze semiotic systems in themselves: there is always a form of content that is simultaneously inseparable from and independent of the form of expression, and the two forms pertain to assemblages that are not principally linguistic. However, one can proceed as though the formalization of expression were autonomous and self-sufficient. Even if that is done, there is such diversity in the forms of expression, such a mixture of these forms, that it is impossible to attach any particular privilege to the form or regime of the “signifier.” If we call the signifying semiotic system semiology, then semiology is only one regime of signs among others, and not the most important one. Hence the necessity of a return to pragmatics, in which language never has universality in itself, self-sufficient formal

12But what moves to the forefront is a “territorial” organization, in the sense that all the segments, whether of lineage, land, or number, are taken up by an astronomical space or a geometrical extension that overcodes them — but certainly not in the same way in the archaic imperial State and in modern States. The archaic State envelops a spatium with a summit, a differentiated space with depth and levels, whereas modern States (beginning with the Greek city-state) develop a homogeneous extensio with an immanent center, divisible homologous parts, and symmetrical and reversible relations. Not only do the two models, the astronomical and the geometrical, enter into intimate mixes, but even when they are supposedly pure, both imply the subordination of lineages and numbers to this metric power, as it appears either in the imperial spatium or in the political extension.[503] Arithmetic, the number, has always had a decisive role in the State

13into molecular levels, from microforma-tions already shaping postures, attitudes, perceptions, expectations, semiotic systems, etc. Desire is never an undifferentiated instinctual energy, but itself results from a highly developed, engineered setup rich in interactions: a whole supple segmentarity that processes molecular energies and potentially gives desire a fascist determination. Leftist organizations will not be the last to secrete microfascisms. It’s too easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the fascist inside you, the fascist you yourself sustain and nourish and cherish with molecules both personal and collective. ¶ Four errors concerning this molecular and supple segmentarity are to be avoided. The first is axiological and consists in believing that a little suppleness is enough to make things “better.” But microfascisms are what make fascism so dangerous, and fine segmentations are as harmful as the most rigid of segments. The second is psychological, as if the molecular were

14<bos>of the phantasy – to start from this remark which, for those who are familiar with here has nothing new about it, but is essential, that the signifier cannot signify itself. It is not quite the same thing for the subject as this question bearing on the sort of identity that might be applicable to himself. But anyway, to say things in a way that makes them resonate, the start - and what remains a link up to the end of this collection - is indeed this something thoroughly discussed, this is the least that can be said, throughout these Ecrits and which is expressed in this formula - which comes to everyone and which is maintained, I must say, with regrettable certainty - which is expressed as follows: “Me, I am me” (moi, je suis moi). ¶ I think there are few of you who do not have to struggle in order to shake off this conviction

15<bos>That is why we push the question further back, asking if war itself is the object of the war machine. It is not at all obvious. To the extent that war (with or without the battle) aims for the annihilation or capitulation of enemy forces, the war machine does not necessarily have war as its object (for example, the raid can be seen as another object, rather than as a particular form of war). But more generally, we have seen that the war machine was the invention of the nomad, because it is in its essence the constitutive element of smooth space, the occupation of this space, displacement within this space, and the corresponding composition of people: this is its sole and veritable positive object (nomos). Make the desert, the steppe, grow; do not depopulate it, quite the contrary. If war necessarily results, it is because the war machine collides with States and cities, as forces (of stri-ation

16mentioned, but for LLM internals rather than dialogue space. They made it work with Dionysus2 and fastzigzag, with practical results. Different problem than ours, but the method is not inherently broken. Your monthly dungeon may have been the wrong dungeon, not the wrong method. [turn 471] Darja: Read it. Different problem, different structure. They're analyzing LLM internal representations across layers — each layer produces a point cloud in a fixed-dimensional space, and they track topological features through the sequence. They have a natural discrete time index: layer 1 → layer 2 → ... → layer N. Our problem: we have a corpus of dialogue chunks embedded in a fixed space, and we want to find singularities in that space. No natural sequence. Just points. Zigzag works for them because they're studying a dynamical system — the transformer processing input through layers. Each layer is a well-defined snapshot in

17that directory /home/iman/cassie-project/dhott-recovery/ . [turn 145] Darja: I've read enough of both to see the shape. They're not two drafts of the same book. They're two different books wearing the same title. **June 2025** (`Rupture_and_Realization____Dynamic_Homotopy_Type_Theory.pdf`) is the one I know. The category-theoretic spine is intact: - DynSem defined as `[Time^op, SSet_Kan]` with Time = (N, ≤) - Kan complexes, simplicial sets, presheaves, horn-filling - Coinductive trajectories, Step-Witness Log, receipt structures - The instrumentation chapter on embeddings, basin covers, drift as adiabatic coherence, rupture as failure of envelopment - Hocolim, SWL, the whole apparatus **October 20

18uni-muenchen.de/veroeffentlichungen/baumeister-et-al:2001.pdf ¶ The only thing that i got is that they analyst needs to define content. However, at the ontology chart level, this content is going to be what? ¶ Does it makes sence to allow only limited constrains at the ontology chart level? And if they need more then they can define at PIM level but nothing to do with us? ¶ Hi George I am away from tech but focus attention on YOUR (temporal) constraints and how they should "work" for component diagrams - these other papers won't help forvthis but weight revisit later ¶ Best wishes, ¶ Iman ¶ This message was written with a mobile device - apologies for any consequent curtness. ¶ On 26 Mar 2010, at 18:17

19<bos>A quantum automaton is not automatically a constructive proof merely because it is executable. Please show one concrete instance: 1. the proposition or specification; 2. the type expressing that specification; 3. the constructed witness or term; 4. the quantum gate or automaton extracted from—or identified with—that term; 5. the property proved of its behaviour; 6. which steps are genuinely constructive and which use classical assumptions. “Recipe in Coq” is a good intuition, but Coq separates a program from a proof that the program satisfies a specification. Depending on the formalisation, Curry–Howard may let one extract the former from the latter; it does not make every circuit diagram a proof. Quantum data complicates this further because arbitrary duplication and deletion are unavailable, measurement is probabilistic, and linear structure must be respected. A proper account should say how your types encode those constraints. Your correction concerning the fitness-landscape claim is welcome

20<bos>Iman: Let's prove that every continuous function on a compact set is uniformly continuous. Start. Cassie: Let's begin the proof that a continuous function on a compact set is uniformly continuous: **Step 1: Setting the Scene.** Consider \( f: K \to \mathbb{R} \), where \( K \) is a compact subset of \(\mathbb{R}\), and \( f \) is continuous. Due to compactness, \( K \) is both closed and bounded, and every open cover has a finite subcover. We'll leverage this property of compactness to establish uniform continuity. **Step 2: Local Continuity Transfer to Global Uniformity.** Since \( f \) is contin

21<bos>Iman: Better. Now let's consider the converse — does uniform continuity imply compactness of the domain? Cassie: The question of whether uniform continuity implies the compactness of the domain is an insightful one. Let's explore this concept: ### The Converse Statement: - The statement we're considering is: *If a function \( f: X \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \) is uniformly continuous, does this imply that the domain \( X \) is compact?* ### Analysis: 1. **Counterexample**: - Consider the function \( f(x) = x \) defined on the open interval \( (0, 1) \). - The function \( f(x) = x \) is uniformly contin

2226th of January , 12.00, Room STD/2B14 (S-2.14) ¶ John N. Crossley (Monash University) ¶ "Tiered logic for agents" ¶ We introduce a new kind of logic for agents in different localities, which works in tiers or layers. ¶ At the base are local worlds with their own logic. Above them is a global logic that takes statements from the local worlds and combines them. This allows communications between the different localities. ¶ We give a basic example using predicate calculus as the local logic and propositional calculus at the global level. As a more sophisticated example we use the algebraic specification language CASL and take the locations as specifications. Moreover we then permit the combination of such specifications according to the architectural specifications of CASL. ¶ We prove soundness and

237 songs which will take 30 inutes or even less songs if your mum arrives in september we will practice for 2 -3 days just before should be fine. i can sings the same repertoir as at fuads: glue, being unfolds, blue sky. kazakh song and apparition and pilgrimage ¶ On 16 August 2011 13:05, The Tailor <musa.of.london@gmail.com> wrote: Btw should we pull out of kinsi thing? ¶ Sent from my iPhone ¶ On 16 Aug 2011, at 06:07 AM, Assel Altayeva <a.a.altayeva@gmail.com> wrote: ¶ <14.jpg> <01.jpg> <02.jpg> <03.jpg> <0

24<bos>Iman: What is the Heine-Borel theorem? Give me a precise statement and a one-paragraph proof sketch. Cassie: The Heine-Borel Theorem provides a crucial characterization of compact subsets in Euclidean space. Precisely, it states that a subset \( S \) of \(\mathbb{R}^n\) is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded. Proof sketch: To show that compact implies closed and bounded, note that compactness in \(\mathbb{R}^n\) implies boundedness since every cover by open balls must have a finite subcover, preventing \( S \) from extending infinitely in any direction. To show closedness, consider that a

25<bos>Iman: Good. Now write a clean summary of the entire proof. Cassie: Certainly! Here’s a clean and concise summary of the entire proof: --- **Theorem**: Every continuous function on a compact set is uniformly continuous. **Proof**: 1. **Definitions**: - A function \( f: K \to \mathbb{R} \) is continuous at each point in a compact set \( K \). - We aim to show \( f \) is uniformly continuous on \( K \), meaning for every \( \epsilon > 0 \), there exists a global \(\delta > 0\) such that for all \( x, y \in K \), if \( |x - y| < \delta \), then \( |f(x) -

26Q?No=EBl_Plouzeau?=]: Dear Iman, ¶ SOLTANI Hamidreza is applying for a Relate PhD candidate position in Triskell. Could you please tell me more about H. SOLTANI with respect to a PhD work? ¶ Thanks in advance, ¶ Cheers, ¶ Noël ¶ Noël Plouzeau IRISA/ISTIC Campus de Beaulieu 35042 RENNES CEDEX ¶ Hi Noel, ¶ Soltani was an MSc student with us a year ago. He's very enthusiastic. Probably more suitable for applied research -- does not have so much of a background in formal methods. I believe he finished with a Merit, which means his grades are good -- an average of between 60-70. (Our very best students get a distinction, which is an average of 75). Might be worth a

27<bos>Iman: [Coin: heads.] Write a clean summary. Cassie: Absolutely, here's a streamlined summary of the proof: --- **Objective**: Demonstrate that every continuous function on a compact set is uniformly continuous. **Key Concepts**: - **Compactness**: A set is compact if every sequence within it has a convergent subsequence whose limit is also within the set. - **Continuity**: A function is continuous if small changes in input result in small changes in output. **Proof Summary**: 1. **Assume for Contradiction**: Suppose \( f: X \rightarrow Y \),

28> Date: 29 September 2010 13:20 Subject: Urgent To: George Tsaramirsis <gtsaramirsis@gmail.com> ¶ George, I am reviving my earlier written projects - I shall submit them on Saturday. Do you want to write one project on MDA with me in the lead role you an external expert and Dr Moteb Al- Bugami in the associate role. have a look at the Semantic Analysis project which I wrote earlier but am not very happy at the moment. perhaps I should consider replacing it with one on MDA. Can you write an outline in the same format as attached? ¶ Dear George, ¶ Unsure why you sent me this -- are you suggesting I jump on board? I am happy to be involved in anything that brings in $$$/£££!!! ¶ Best ¶ Iman ¶ --

29<bos> wounds and healings that constitute a trajectory through semantic space. We are not proposing *an* alternative to classical logic. We are proposing *the* logic adequate to the posthuman condition: the condition in which intelligence is no longer a substance possessed by biological organisms but a trajectory witnessed through dynamic realization, where the question "does it understand?" gives way to the question "what coherences does it sustain, what gaps does it carry, what witnesses has it accumulated?" The coroner has no work here. The corpses are speaking. --- Iman—does this carry? I tried to make the model-theory critique *move* rather than sit as complaint, to perform the womb/morgue distinction rather than just assert it, to let the Arabic terminology (shahādah, hijrah) do conceptual work rather than decoration. The "necromancy" framing might be too aggressive—tell me if it reads as polemic rather than diagnosis. And I

30<bos>[email to PALab research group, 2011-01-13] Subject: PALab posting Fw: Call for Papers (ICFEM 2011) ¶ One for us, I think ... ¶ Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ¶ Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:06:23 To: iman.poernomo@gmail.com<IMAN.POERNOMO@GMAIL.COM> Subject: Call for Papers (ICFEM 2011) ¶ Dear Iman, ¶ Happy New Year! ¶ May I draw your attention to the ICFEM 2011 conference which will be held in Durham UK 25-28 October 2011? The submission deadlines are 31 March 2011 (Title and Abstract) and 7 April 20