Re: virus: SM

Brett Lane Robertson (
Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:18:14 -0500


Someone told me once that when you use words like "all" and "one" you need
to be careful because they lend themselves to certain relationships that are
not logical in the normal sense. Without the words "all" humans have "one"
common ancestor...that is humans have ancestors (and I think to say "common"
also would throw off some types of logic...can something have itself in
common with itself?)...the reversal might be true in it's original and not
in it's reversed form. Because "all", "one", and "common" are difficult
concepts, that is not to say that they cannnot be used in a statement and
understood from a perspective which is less common than a 3rd dimensional
"rational" perspective. Relativism may work, as might fractile logic,
phenomenology, objectivism (and I have a theory called "irrationalism" that
I think might speak to the example).

My guess is that words like "all" and "one" and "common" change the logic
circuit from a linear to a circular or even a 4th dimensional form. The
example "Eva has only one mother," it does not follow from that that "Eva's
mother has only one child." doesn't take into account "all", "one" and
"common". The term isosomantic *does*: It implies a relationship that I
would term 4th dimensional...two statements are one statement but are not
(ancestors are descendents but they are not).

The example I posted about the graph with all points and coordinates being
common except point zero seems to be a good example for envisioning the
relationship "has/doesn't have" in relation to "all", "one" and "common".
I'm not sure what any of this really says about common ancestors, though.
It seems to say that within certain systems of logic the idea of one common
ancestor is not helpful.



At 01:42 PM 9/29/97 -0700, you wrote:

>Brett claims that

>All humans have one common ancestor
>All ancestors have a (one) common human descendent.

>In Brett's words:
>>>Based on the accepted nature of the first statement, and on the processes of
>>>logic (this would be associative? communicative? inductive? deductive?); I
>>>would have to say that the second statement is true--at least in theory.

>David McF. responds, rightly:
>>If all D have an A, then all A have a D? I think there might be something
>>wrong with your logic.

>Brett responds:
>What I was saying was that there is a relationship between D and A so there
>is a relationship between A and D. If this relationship is "to have" (as in
>ancesters "have" descendents) then no matter which way we state variables,
>the relationship remains in a form of it's original (A has D, D has A, D
>does not have A...the relationship is a form of has/has not). If ALL
>decendents have a common ancester, then all ancesters have something in
>common with any one descendent). The stipulations given were "all" and
>"one". How does placing the "all" with the A's and "one" with D's affect
>the relationship to have/to have not? Seems if the first is true, then a
>variation of the second must be true or the relationship is not valid.

>The relationship is not reversible. If I tell you, "Eva has only one
>mother," it does not follow from that that "Eva's mother has only one

>David McF. has it right. Prof. Tim, you're trying too hard. You seem to
>have found a way for Brett's sillygism to make sense for you (I think I
>understand your interpretation as a severe demand on the meaning of
>"isosemantic", applied to Brett's statements), but, judging by Brett's
>response, it's not the same way Brett understood it.

>catching up from the weekend

Rabble Sonnet Retort
Real Programmers don't write in PL/I. PL/I is for
programmers who can't decide whether to write in COBOL or