View source for User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/100

<h2 id="section-100"><span class="mw-headline">Items 1 - 225</span> <span class="mw-editsection plainlinks"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span>[https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/100&action=edit edit]<span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>

Critical concepts and best-known countable philosophies<noinclude><br /> Final live version of this section: [[Philosophical Research:Items 1 to 1,000]]</noinclude>

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset">
<li value="1" data-dimension="Z" class="field_geo">[[Ontology:Q1|process of Being]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="2"  data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q2|sea of free-floating entities]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="3"  data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q3|countable entity]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="4"  data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q4|countable concept]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="5"  data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q5|countable object]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="6"  data-dimension="Z">spatially-unique object / unique object
</li><li class="field_geo" value="7"  data-dimension="Z">spacetime-unique event / unique event
</li><li class="field_geo" value="8"  data-dimension="Z">series of unique events / timeline of unique events
</li><li class="field_ML"  value="9"  data-dimension-2="S0">[S0] [[Ontology:Q9|series of non-unique events]] / repeatable historical pattern
</li><li class="field_geo" value="10" data-dimension="Z">repeating process
</li><li class="field_ML"  value="11" data-dimension="Z">material-history  ->  the series of physical events that defines what any particular object or population is; the topic historical materialism studies
</li><li class="field_geo" value="12" data-dimension="Z">set of all objects in material reality / Facticity (MDem)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="13" data-dimension="Z">countable graph of people / countable set of connected people / countable community
</li><li class="field_geo" value="14" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q14|countable body of claims]] / countable philosophy  ->  particular list of axioms or beliefs which is to be shared by some particular group of individuals; intended to be used to define the term "Social-Philosophical System" 
</li><li class="field_geo" value="15" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:countable philosophical framework|countable philosophical framework]] / philosophy not considered an ideology
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="16" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q16|countable ideology]]  -> the major difference between a countable philosophical framework and a countable ideology is that a countable ideology can be realized into a new Social-Philosophical-Material System distinguishable from other kinds of societies in a countable way; some kind of "countable Culture" or countable political system with its own individual identity and name (USSR, Spain) as well as perhaps its own repeatable but fully distinguishable category (Marxism, Liberalism) is produced
</li><li value="17" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">revolutionary event / event which creates new regime with new population structure
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="Lacanians going on and on about Christianity and eschatology" value="18" data-dimension="S0">countable religion or spirituality
</li><li value="19" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">historical account  ->  subset of: non-fictional work
</li><li class="" value="20" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q20|work]]  ->  subset of: countable object
</li><li class="field_geo" value="21" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q21|non-fictional work]]  ->  subset of: work
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="22" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q22|fictional work]]  ->  subset of: work
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="23" data-dimension="Z">mythical or legendary work  ->  subset of: work
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="24" data-dimension="Z">religious text  ->  subset of: mythical or legendary work
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="25" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q25|sign]] / signifier-signified pair
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="26" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q26|signifier]]
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="27" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q27|signified]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="28" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q27|signifier equation / sign containing signs]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="29" data-dimension="Z">ontology / graph of associations / graph made of signifier equations
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="30" data-dimension="Z">ontological model / model of concept or process / オントロジー
</li><li class="field_geo" value="31" data-dimension="S0">falsifiable model
</li><li class="field_geo" value="32" data-dimension="S0">unfalsifiable model
</li><li value="33" class="field_trotsky" data-remark="the theory of Stalinism is basically one" data-dimension="S0">[[Philosophical Research:Items/Z33|conspiracy theory]] / model unsubstantiated by all current knowledge / model proposing hidden individual or group agents with bad motivations

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="Deleuze & Guattari using Buddhism; Lacanians constantly talking about Christian eschatology" value="34" data-dimension="S0">religious cosmology
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="35" data-dimension="S0">philosophical metaphysics model
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="36" data-dimension="S0">fictional factical system / fictional world or setting rules construct / fictional physics model / video game physics equation
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="37" data-dimension="S0">non-fictional physics model
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="38" data-dimension="S0">falsified or unsubstantiated physics model
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="39" data-dimension="S0">current physics model
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="40" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q40|civilizational shape]] (model) / ideological nested-graph model / metaphysical society model (Existentialism) / Particle Theory (MDem) / Bauplan (MDem) / Philosophical System (MDem)
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="41" data-dimension-2="S">[S] nihilism
</li><li value="42" data-dimension="Z" class="field_exstruct">[[Ontology:Q42|early existentialism]] / existentialism / existence-philosophy / [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existenzphilosophie Existenzphilosophie] / existentialist tradition
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="43" data-dimension-2="S">[S] absurdism
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="44" data-dimension="S0">rationalization for the continued connection of a graph of people / rationalization with a partisan character / rationalization based on existence of in-group separate from out-group
</li><li class="field_geo" value="45" data-dimension="S0">logical proof / proof in mathematics / formal logic argument
</li><li class="field_geo" value="46" data-dimension="S0">philosophical argument or thought experiment
</li><li class="field_geo" value="47" data-dimension="S0">religious apologetic  ->  subset of: philosophical argument or thought experiment
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="48" data-dimension="S0">anecdotal argument / argument from Lived Experience
</li><li class="field_geo" value="49" data-dimension="S0">observation / original research statement with associated nickel Item or link
</li><li class="field_geo" value="50" data-dimension="S0">philosophy or science term
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="Existentialism treasures the humanities" value="51" data-dimension="S0">literary motif

</li><li class="" value="52" data-dimension="S0">historical time period
</li><li class="" value="53" data-dimension="S0">historical civilization / unique feudal order / unique dynasty / unique empire / unique republican period
</li><li class="field_geo" value="54" data-dimension="S0">unique named relationship / Group Subject (MDem) / relationship / connection / pairing
</li><li class="field_geo" value="55" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q55|graph theory]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="56" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q56|game theory]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="57" data-dimension="S0">social sciences
</li><li class="field_geo" value="58" data-dimension="S0">population science
</li><li value="59" data-dimension="Z" class="field_geo number_prime">[[Ontology:Q59|mathematics]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="60" data-dimension="S0">field of science
</li><li class="field_geo" value="61" data-dimension="S0">life sciences / ecology / biology
</li><li class="field_geo" value="62" data-dimension="S0">natural sciences
</li><li class="field_geo" value="63" data-dimension="S0">physics
</li><li class="field_geo" value="64" data-dimension="S0">astrophysics / physical cosmology
</li><li class="field_geo" value="65" data-dimension="S0">quantum physics / quantum mechanics research
</li><li class="field_geo" value="66" data-dimension="S0">general relativity
</li><li class="field_geo" value="67" data-dimension="S0">special relativity  ->  subset of: general relativity
</li><li class="field_geo" value="68" data-dimension="S0">string theory  ->  unsubstantiated but awfully neat at the time
</li><li class="field_geo" value="69" data-dimension="S0">quantum field theory  ->  substantiated
<!-- astronomy chemistry  earth sciences  life sciences  -->

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="one basic precursor to E-S trad" value="70" data-dimension="Z">analytic philosophy
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="71" data-dimension="S0">field of study diagramming signs and signifiers / semiotics (generic) / structuralist linguistics (generic) / meta-ontology (generic)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="72" data-dimension="Z">phenomenology / Husserl's phenomenology (Existentialism)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="73" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q73|Existentialist-Structuralist tradition]] / Existentialism (abbreviation)  ->  note, early-existentialism is already Q42
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="74" data-dimension="Z">structuralist linguistics / structuralism (linguistics)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="75" data-dimension="Z">poststructuralism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="76" data-dimension="Z">psychoanalysis / Freudian psychoanalysis (generic) / Lacanian psychoanalysis (generic)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="77" data-dimension="Z">schizoanalysis
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="78" data-dimension="Z">alterity theories / postcolonial theories (theories about how colonialism is a prejudice about a group of people in someone's mind)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="79" data-dimension="Z">post-Marxism

</li><li class="field_geo" value="80" data-dimension="Z">continental philosophy
</li><li class="field_geo" value="81" data-dimension="Z">Materialism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="82" data-dimension="S">mechanical Materialism / mechanical philosophy
</li><li class="field_geo" value="83" data-dimension="Z">dialectical materialism / diamat
</li><li class="field_ML" value="84" data-dimension="Z">[[E:historical materialism|historical materialism]] (specific-sense) / histmat
</li><li class="field_ML"  value="85" data-dimension="S">Marxism believing itself to be uncountable / generic Marxism
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="86" data-dimension="Z">existential materialism / exmat
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="87" data-dimension="Z">[[E:Idealism|Idealism]]

</li><li value="88" class="field_nations" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q88|named nationalism]] / named fascism / named Identitarianism / nationalism distinguished into cultural category / uniquely Spanish nationalism / uniquely Japanese nationalism / uniquely United-States nationalism
</li><li class="field_geo" value="89" data-dimension="S0">spacetime-unique ideology / named ideology  ->  an "S2" style ideology with a definite Particle Theory / Bauplan, or at least a specific series of axioms; an instance of an ideology as opposed to a pure set category having no particular beliefs; in religion, a denominational religion as opposed to an umbrella religious category
</li><li class="field_ML" value="90" data-dimension="S0">named Marxism / Marxism differentiated for country conditions / Marxist sect  ->  save the concept of named Trotskyisms for the 4000s range
</li><li value="91" data-dimension="S0">named republicanism which is not Marxism / named Liberalism  ->  Alexander Hamilton & Thomas Jefferson are examples
</li><li value="92" data-dimension="Z" class="field_mdem">[[Ontology:Q92|meta-Marxism]]

</li><li class="field_ML" value="93" data-dimension="S0">argument for general-sense historical materialism  ->  argument for the presence of semi-predictable cause and effect in history, for time itself as a physical process made of repeated physical patterns, and for basic kinds of predictable patterns within populations and societies. basic kinds of arguments which do not bring up class subpopulations but can serve as a foundation for these kinds of analyses
</li><li class="field_geo" value="94" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q94|claim X is a case of Y]] / claim something is a case of something else
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="95" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q95|claim X is an instance of Y ideology]] / claim something is an instance of an ideology / claim something is a case of an ideology
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="96" data-dimension="Z0">reactions journal / reactions file / reactions blog / media thoughts journal  ->  a file or physical page, or series of microblog posts, etc. where you write down your impressions of something either in terms of emotion or some level of analysis of how or why the thing you're looking at is the way it is. apparently this is a big novel concept to some people that they have to learn at school? for me I learned it from people posting reactions to things on Twitter. and then I just started progressively finding deeper insights on things the more of them I did until I eventually turned into a low-tier Marxist theorist. now I've put up this wiki and begun to encourage people to put these things into <b>thesis portals</b>. don't let the grandiose name turn you away, you can make one for all your reactions to cartoons, or anything. a "thesis" on some serious philosophical theory is just what the very top fraction of thesis portals turn into.

</li><li value="97" class="field_internal" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q97|data Entity]] / Wikibase Entity
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="98" data-dimension="S0">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphilosophy meta-philosophy] (field)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="99" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q99|meta-ontology]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ontology meta-ontology]

</li><li class="field_geo" value="100" data-dimension="Z0">source  ->  work functioning as ontology example or ontology description for larger work or later work relative to earlier work; ontology graph taking the form of work
</li><li value="101" data-dimension="Z">printed source / text archived online
</li><li class="" value="102" data-dimension="Z">audiovisual source
</li><li class="" value="103" data-dimension="Z">interactive source
</li><li class="" value="104" data-dimension="Z">non-interactive recording of interactive source
</li><li class="" value="105" data-dimension="Z">commentary on interactive source
</li><li class="" value="106" data-dimension="Z">false interactive source  ->  Petscop, 3D workers' island, Homestuck
</li><li class="" value="107" data-dimension="Z">book / book which exists in print form  ->  book - conveyed through construction having parts - volume
</li><li class="" value="108" data-dimension="Z">book compilation
</li><li class="" value="109" data-dimension="Z">multi-volume book / multi-volume reference text
</li><li class="" value="110" data-dimension="Z">book in book compilation
</li><li class="" value="111" data-dimension="Z">course textbook / college textbook / grade school textbook
</li><li class="" value="112" data-dimension="Z">book chapter / article compiled in book
</li><li class="" value="113" data-dimension="Z">foreword, preface, or introduction
</li><li class="" value="114" data-dimension="Z">article / short story
</li><li class="" value="115" data-dimension="Z">article serialized in magazine or newspaper
</li><li class="" value="116" data-dimension="Z">article serialized in theoretical journal
</li><li class="" value="117" data-dimension="Z">article serialized on blog or substack
</li><li class="" value="118" data-dimension="Z">article serialized in online archive
</li><li class="" value="119" data-dimension="Z">article on miscellaneous personal homepage
</li><li class="" value="120" data-dimension="Z">article serialized in unknown printed source
</li><li class="" value="121" data-dimension="Z">article or chapter in book compilation
</li><li class="" value="122" data-dimension="Z">article, poem, or story compiled in anthology
</li><li class="" value="123" data-dimension="Z">transcribed speech
</li><li class="" value="124" data-dimension="Z">transcribed interview
</li><li class="" value="125" data-dimension="Z">court transcript
</li><li class="" value="126" data-dimension="Z">bop entry
</li><li class="" value="127" data-dimension="Z">bop scrap
</li><li class="" value="128" data-dimension="Z">bop revision entry
</li><li class="" value="129" data-dimension="Z">unfinished book chapter serialized as bop scrap
</li><li class="" value="130" data-dimension="Z">book chapter serialized as bop scrap
</li><li class="" value="131" data-dimension="Z">nameless publisher / independently published
</li><li class="" value="132" data-dimension="Z">general publishing entity
</li><li class="" value="133" data-dimension="Z">publishing organization / propaganda group
</li><li class="" value="134" data-dimension="Z">academic or theoretical journal
</li><li class="" value="135" data-dimension="Z">online book or article archive / not magazine or journal
</li><li class="" value="136" data-dimension="Z">master's thesis
</li><li class="" value="137" data-dimension="Z">non-serialized comic / graphic novel
</li><li class="" value="138" data-dimension="Z">serialized comic
</li><li class="" value="139" data-dimension="Z">multimedia serialized comic
</li><li class="" value="140" data-dimension="Z">animated series / anime / cartoon
</li><li class="number_done" value="141" data-dimension="Z">song with lyrics
</li><li class="" value="142" data-dimension="Z">poem
</li><li class="" value="143" data-dimension="Z">computer or console game
</li><li class="" value="144" data-dimension="Z">short story
</li><li class="" value="145" data-dimension="Z">novel
</li><li class="" value="146" data-dimension="Z">novel in multi-volume series
</li><li class="" value="147" data-dimension="Z">novel in multi-volume series adapted into comic / Scholastic graphic novel
</li><li class="" value="148" data-dimension="Z">online video
</li><li class="" value="149" data-dimension="Z">YouTube video
</li><li class="" value="150" data-dimension="Z">PeerTube video
</li><li class="field_geo" value="151" data-dimension="Z0">thing part of finite numbered series of things / thing part of collectors' index  ->  collectors' indices have serialized parts, similar to episodes or chapters; technically, a wikibase Item is an instance of this

</li><li class="" value="152" data-dimension="Z">citation in local Item / work described in Item  ->  source - conveyed through model having parts - local Item
</li><li class="" value="153" data-dimension="Z">citation in qualifiers / work described in qualifiers  ->  source - conveyed through model having parts - set of qualifiers
</li><li class="" value="154" data-dimension="Z">citation in external Item / citation in external wikibase / work described at external data item / work described in wikidata Item
</li><li class="" value="155" data-dimension="Z">citation in external wiki / work described or anchored in external wiki article
</li><li class="" value="156" data-dimension="Z">citation buried in other work / work unknown or unconfirmed but referenced in work  ->  source - conveyed through model having parts - citation
</li><li class="" value="157" data-dimension="Z">video described in qualifiers  ->  online video - conveyed through model having parts - work described in qualifiers
</li><li class="number_empty" value="158">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="159" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q159|numbered series of things]] / finite numbered collectors' index of things / spatial map of things where all the things have numbers  ->  equally applies to an index of TV show episodes, a list of wikidata Items, a list of Pokémon, and the periodic table of elements.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="160" data-dimension="Z0">text / written work (book; story; article; web page) / visual work (comic; animated series) / aural work (audiobook; podcast)  ->  I think the major thing that this entry excludes is compilations of things. like, a magazine with many articles is not a text, although it is a periodical issue and by other definitions a work.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="161" data-dimension="Z0">part (book division)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="162">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="163" data-dimension="Z0">serialized part  ->  numbered part which is syndicated or expected to release periodically
</li><li class="field_geo" value="164" data-dimension="Z0">non-serialized part  ->  discrete part which may be released in an all-at-once or timeless manner
</li><li class="field_geo" value="165" data-dimension="Z0">volume  ->  physical printed book, or book-sized division. I'll say this doesn't refer to science periodical volumes unless they're physically collected into a self-contained book you can browse or something vaguely resembling one.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="166" data-dimension="Z0">chapter (non-serialized part)  ->  in reference to novels.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="167" data-dimension="Z0">episode / chapter (serialized part)  ->  in reference to works that are entirely planned for serialization, like manga, or some prose stories submitted to magazines which were not treated as standard novels when published later. personally I'd take the bold stance that there's no serious difference between serialized chapters of printed things and episodes of voiced things. but, this Item will have both sense-labels to minimize confusion.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="168" data-dimension="S">serialized video game chapter
</li><li class="field_geo" value="169">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="170">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="171">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="172">??
</li><li value="173" data-remark="SCP" class="field_geo">unit for constructing works / unit for constructing texts / unit of work or series construction / serialization unit or unit of work construction  ->  note that this one is so general that "text" can be a unit for constructing texts, although "volume" or "episode" could also be.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="174" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q174|atom-like entity]]  ->  an atom-like entity is a mostly-indivisible unit which contains the capacity for particular patterns when combined with particular other atom-like entities. a chemical element is the prototypical example: two hydrogens and one oxygen form water. but one hypothesis I am trying to investigate is the possibility that individuals of particular ideologies are atom-like entities, and when put together in various "compounds" they form specific ideologies. I feel like there is some remote possibility that one day there could just be a periodic table of ideologies that is as prosaic and numerical as the study of chemical elements and chemical compounds.<br /> an atom-like entity is <em>not</em> an entity that can be considered in total isolation from all others akin to a helium atom. I really don't like models like [[E:Q1980|Rothenberg's]] that imply that, because not even chemistry works that way. chemistry may be reductionist, but the predictable emergences from the elements are the whole study of chemistry.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="175" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="176" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="177" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="178">wiki page  ->  non-serialized part; text not in the form of volume. move these two to later number?
</li><li class="field_geo" value="179">MediaWiki category  ->  non-serialized part which clusters wiki pages

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="180" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q180|analyzing a text for motifs]]  ->  there are different connotations to this. Freudians do this because they think motifs reveal the rules of psychohistory. schizoanalysts do this because they think motifs reveal the rules of finding Freedom. Marxists do this because they think many motifs come from the rules of populations and material-history.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="181" data-dimension="Z0">solid phase
</li><li class="field_geo" value="182" data-dimension="Z0">liquid phase
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="183" data-dimension="Z0">gas phase  ->  may be shown as either STM swatch or ES swatch, due to how I like to use "behaving like a room of helium atoms" as a metaphor for Existentialism.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="184" data-dimension="Z0">plasma phase  ->  a form of matter where atoms do not remain neutrally-charged and can create <i>electric arcs</i> passing on electrons from atom to atom.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="185" data-dimension="Z0">quark-gluon plasma  ->  exotic phase which usually doesn't exist under the current conditions of the universe, which push these particles to stick together.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="186" data-dimension="Z0">supersolid / Bose-Einstein Condensate
</li><li class="field_geo" value="187" data-dimension="Z0">phase change
</li><li class="field_geo" value="188" data-dimension="Z0">phase of matter / non-classical state of matter  ->  practically, phases of matter are just a continuous way of describing states of matter. they can capture the edge cases like hot ice, liquid crystal, etc.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="189" data-dimension="Z0">state of matter / classical state or phase of matter

</li><li class="field_geo" value="190" data-dimension="S0">software package
</li><li class="field_geo" value="191" data-dimension="S0">UNIX-style package / UNIX-style program
</li><li class="field_geo" value="192" data-dimension="S0">Free Software package
</li><li class="field_geo" value="193" data-dimension="S0">nonfree software package
</li><li class="field_geo" value="194" data-dimension="S0">Debian package
</li><li class="field_geo" value="195" data-dimension="S0">Arch package
</li><li value="196" data-remark="Tux" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">Linux package / Linux program
</li><li class="field_geo" value="197" data-dimension="S0">Lisp module / asdf system / .asd system
</li><li class="field_geo" value="198" data-dimension="S0">emacs package
</li><li class="field_geo" value="199" data-dimension="S0">MediaWiki extension

</li><li class="field_geo" value="200" data-dimension="S0">phase diagram (chemistry)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="signifier" value="201" data-dimension="Z">reading list / unique reading list / unique list of thematically-related works  ->  "unique reading list" sounds beyond weird as natural language, but it sounds perfectly logical to me after thinking in the language of linked concepts
</li><li class="field_geo" value="202" data-dimension="Z">chemistry
</li><li class="field_geo" value="203" data-dimension="Z">organic chemistry
</li><li class="field_geo" value="204" data-dimension="Z0">chemical substance
</li><li class="field_geo" value="205" data-dimension="Z0">chemical element
</li><li class="field_geo" value="206" data-dimension="Z0">chemical compound
</li><li class="number_empty" value="207">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="208" data-dimension="S0">quantum number
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="209" data-dimension="S0">metaphysical slider / hot-cold slider (alchemy) / wet-dry slider (alchemy) / virtue (purported middle of purported slider) / vice (purported end of purported slider)  ->  a metaphysical slider is a quality presented as having a middle and two extremes.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="210" data-dimension="S">four elements (alchemy)  ->  these oddly mirror the four states of matter, especially if you count fire as a partial plasma. it's like, a long time ago people thought chemical substances were made out of hot, cold, wet, and dry, and the next level up was solid, liquid, gas, and bright burning things (fire, lightning, plasma). then Newton arrived and we renamed those the states of matter. then science kept going and we realized phases of matter were more complicated than we thought they were and there were a lot of in-between phases like hot ice, supercritical liquid, and so forth, although the four "major" phases of matter were still the most common and important within the bounds of either Earth or the sun.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="211" data-dimension="Z0">emergence / ergodicity (sic - movement of free-floating entities toward particular patterns which may become consistent structures; <cite>MDem</cite> 4.3)  ->  the real-world phenomenon or non-fictional motif of smaller objects functioning against each other to produce larger objects or processes.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="212" data-dimension="S0">alchemy / hermeticism / Historical study of chemical qualities and quality-based cosmology  ->  "Alchemy, the great secret"
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="213" data-dimension="S0">alchemical symbol / alchemical motif
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="214" data-dimension="S0">European alchemy / alchemical concepts in Christianity
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="215" data-dimension="S0">Buddhist alchemy / alchemical concepts in Buddhism
</li><li class="field_geo" value="216" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q216|consistent repetition or replicability]]  ->  component of predictability, used to define "repeating process" and events that are easy to empirically verify
</li><li class="field_ML"  value="217" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q217|Marxist text]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="218" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q218|defined reality]]  ->  a specific collection of material objects united by physics, which may be a whole reality or part of a reality. similar definition to a "system", but intertwined with the concepts of relativity theories
</li><li class="field_geo field_horror element_empty" data-remark="fix css & remove field_horror later" value="219" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q219|no real-world defined reality]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="220" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q220|hypothetical object]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="221" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q221|hypothetical interaction]] / hypothetical process
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="222" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q222|hypothetical series of events]]

</li><li value="223" data-remark="prime" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">prime number
</li><li class="number_empty" value="224">??

</li><li value="225" class="field_internal" data-dimension="Z0">"nickel" Item - video or page used 3-5 times in stacks of examples which has thus passed minimum notability. credit author with "author name string" or "external data item"; if already recorded on Signifier Item which is linked instead of its sources, no need for new item
</li></ol>

=== 226 - 900 ===

<ol start="226" class="hue clean">
<li class="field_fantasy" value="226" data-dimension="S0">fictional reality / fictional universe / fictional cosmos
</li><li value="227" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S0">fictional object / non-unique fictional object
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="228" data-dimension="S0">unique fictional object  ->  do not make Items for every single kind of fictional object, just also tag it as the real thing
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="229" data-dimension="S0">fictional process / non-unique fictional process / fictional physics process
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="230" data-dimension="S0">unique fictional event / unique fictional process
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="231" data-dimension="S0">fictional historical event / canonical event / confirmed theory
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="232" data-dimension="S0">unconfirmed fictional process / unconfirmed fan theory
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="233" data-dimension="S0">unconfirmed fictional event / unconfirmed fan theory
</li><li class="number_empty" value="234">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="235">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="236">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="237" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q237|fictional population]]

</li><li class="number_empty" value="238">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="239">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="240" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q240|earth as relative to fictional world]]  ->  wasn't totally sure whether this should be an S Item or a Z Item. mostly, it is quite literally just the real world with all its real-world characteristics, only looked at from the angle of a fictional universe. it's a very literal thing. it's technically used as a motif because everything in a work is a signifier, but... everything in a work is referenced through a signifier. I think this is a Z Item.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="241" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q241|audience as relative to fictional world]]

</li><li class="number_empty" value="242">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="243">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="244">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="245">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="246">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="247">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="248">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="249">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="250">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="251">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="252">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="253">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="254">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="255">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="256">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="257">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="258">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="259">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="260">source with particular rarity / source at some particular level of abundance
</li><li class="field_geo" value="261">source found at library
</li><li class="field_geo" value="262">source found at distant library  ->  sub-case of: source found at library
</li><li class="field_geo" value="263">[[E:LocalUsedBook|source found at used book sale]] / used book found locally (comic, video, etc)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="264">source found at free bookshelf  ->  sub-case of: source found at used book sale
</li><li class="field_geo" value="265">source found used online
</li><li class="field_geo" value="266">source found new locally
</li><li class="field_geo" value="267">source found new online  ->  this is for physical texts that are purchasable through the internet
</li><li class="field_geo" value="268">source found new as eBook / source found new as digital audiobook  ->  this is for non-physical texts that are purchasable through the internet
</li><li class="field_geo" value="269">source reprinted online  ->  this is for texts that are free online, in any format

</li><li class="number_empty" value="270">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="271">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="272">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="273">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="274">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="275">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="276">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="277">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="278">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="279">??

</li><li class="field_nations" value="280" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q280|statement with no possible backing claims]]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="281">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="282">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="283">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="284">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="285">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="286">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="287">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="288" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q288|misinformation or disinformation]]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="289">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="290">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="291">[[Ontology:Q291|'pataphysics]]

</li><li value="292" class="number_empty" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q292|relativistic gap]]  ->  gap between physical objects made of something bigger than quarks. when there are no fundamental interactions such as photons crossing the gap between objects, there is no serious causality going on between objects. great separation between objects in terms of how easy it is for them to interact is relativistic separation: two planets several light-years apart have a difficulty in interacting with each other measured by the fact interactions through physical signals take years. in this, there is a certain inherent connection between relativity and quantum physics. relativity talks about gaps that photons travel across. quantum mechanics talks about gaps photons travel across. this means something for gravity, but nobody knows what that statement actually will be.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="293">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="294">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="295">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="296">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="297">??
</li><li value="298" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q298|transfer of packet between objects]] / transfer of free-floating packet from one free-floating object to another
</li><li value="299" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q299|physical interaction]]  ->  critical concept for relativity, and Heidegger's book, because it is arguably the sheer definition of physics existing
</li><li value="300" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">particle physics
</li><li value="301" class="field_geo">fundamental particle / fundamental force quantum / fundamental force packet
</li><li value="302" class="field_geo">fundamental particle interaction / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram Feynman diagram reaction]
</li><li value="303" class="field_geo">hadron / composite subatomic particle  ->  nucleons, mesons
</li><li value="304" class="field_geo">interaction that assembles composite particles / force that holds composite particle together  ->  strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetism; may be totally synonymous with "fundamental force" except that we don't know what interactions gravity is composed of
</li><li value="305" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">fundamental force  ->  strong interaction, weak, electromagnetism, gravity
</li><li value="306" class="field_geo">quantum (amount) / quanta
</li><li value="307" class="field_geo">??
</li><li value="308" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">quantized gravity (hypothetical theory) / quantum gravity model / theory of quantum gravity
</li><li value="309" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">paraparticle  ->  [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KdYYEMclYk]

</li><li value="310" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">boson physics
</li><li value="311" class="field_geo">boson
</li><li value="312" class="field_geo">boson field
</li><li value="313" class="field_geo">double-slit experiment
</li><li value="314" class="field_geo">gauge boson
</li><li value="315" class="field_geo">scalar boson
</li><li value="316" class="field_geo">higgs boson

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, MX" value="317" data-dimension="S">dialectical reversal / quantity into quality process (process of many small changes adding up to a big change; dialectical materialism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism)  ->  the motif of the physical composition of a particular historical-period object changing over time and at a particular point going through a stark breaking process similar to a chemical reaction resulting in some kind of notable social change, particularly a change in the position of what Marxism would already identify as a class. this is not the same thing as "revolution", which would be the biggest possible dialectical reversal. this motif can refer to smaller events which obey a pattern of particular Bauplan elements that connect particular repeated ways all changing in similar ways at the same time that have clearly added up to a substantial, important event based on the internal "chemistry" of the movement firing off again and again yet which overall have added up to a relatively small event.<br />
dialectical reversals are a genuinely tricky concept, and yet they're still core to what Marxism is. although we've seen them happen many times in history they only happen rarely. it's easy to call them wrong and say something isn't a dialectical reversal that is, and turn against a beneficial movement. it's easy to call them wrong and say something is a dialectical reversal that isn't, and start spinning a backward-facing change as progress or at least as higher priority to defend the country than other forward-facing changes. sometimes people will correctly call a given dialectical process as high priority while it stands in contradiction to the rights of a minority demographic, such as the Soviet Union downplaying gay or trans movements over national unity, and people will get very mad. when I see people getting mad like this I know they've failed to understand some of the actual methods of Marxism and current-day problems for fixing Marxism. I hate to say that, but there really are Western-Marxists and psychoanalysts that misunderstand Marxism just badly enough they take the wrong side on real historical questions that have happened. you can't do that. Third-World countries can't afford to act like morality substitutes for a theory of history or they "understand" questions just because they have the answer at the back of the book.<br />
I think the crux of all this is that dialectical materialism has not been clarified and explained to people adequately and it's just too muddy and imprecise to describe a lot of real-world situations, while if it included concepts such as separating and joining unique country identities and trade between unique countries factoring into dialectical processes and the relationships between individuals and laws and populations and diplomacy where everything is a bunch of unique rippable tearable objects and the object borders and physical biological organisms matter, the same dialectical materialism would become useful again. like, if you could describe the dialectical reversal that would allow Trotskyism to tear out of the Soviet Union and transition into a workers' state without striving to hurt its "older brother", it wouldn't be hard to get to the level where you could describe LGBT movements and the transition out of Deng Xiaoping Thought and everything else. the hang-up is just things like individual living peasants and living Trotskyist theorists and populational borders and self-determination, and the confused arguments people get into about "democracy!!" when they're actually talking about material borders and arrangements and identity distinctions and countable Cultures and they don't know they are.<br />
meta-Marxism explicitly recognizes the possibility of dialectical reversals. it doesn't try to dance around Marxism "being about culture and ideology now" or anything of the sort. equally, it looks down on people trying to say that every single crisis is about to lead to a dialectical reversal. if you have no actual predictive power of whether it will or not you aren't doing meta-Marxism, and you also arguably aren't succeeding at Marxism.

</li><li value="318" class="field_geo">??
</li><li value="319" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">graviton (hypothetical particle)

</li><li value="320" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">fermion physics
</li><li value="321" class="field_geo">fermion
</li><li value="322" class="field_geo">fermion field
</li><li value="323" class="field_geo">exclusion principle
</li><li value="324" class="field_geo">quark   ->  color charge
</li><li value="325" class="field_geo">lepton  ->  no color charge
</li><li value="326" class="field_geo">??
</li><li value="327" class="field_geo">??
</li><li value="328" class="field_geo">??
</li><li value="329" class="field_geo">??

</li><li value="330" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">dark matter problem
</li><li value="331" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">supersymmetry / SuSy  ->  unsubstantiated; doesn't have a lot of evidence as of yet
</li><li value="332" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">neutralino  ->  unsubstantiated; a supersymmetry solution
</li><li value="333" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">weakly-interacting massive particle (WIMP) / WIMP (hypothetical particle)  ->  looks unsubstantiated, but not totally falsified
</li><li value="334" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">axion (hypothetical particle)  ->  currently being researched
</li><li value="335" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">Matter-antimatter annihilation converts dark matter to matter
</li><li value="336" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">Dark matter particles interact with visible matter through Higgs bosons / Higgs portal hypothesis
</li><li value="337" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">technicolor Higgs model
</li><li value="338" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">Gravity interactions are just one big coincidence / postquantum gravity  ->  [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfzosycRoe4]
</li><li value="339" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">dark matter / unknown solution to dark matter problem  ->  [https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/s119]

</li><li value="340" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">quantum field
</li><li value="341" class="field_geo">photon field
</li><li value="342" class="field_geo">gluon field / strong field / quantum chromodynamics field
</li><li value="343" class="field_geo">W & Z boson field / weak field / flavor swap field / stellar fusion field
</li><li value="344" class="field_geo">Higgs field  ->  scalar field not transformed by relativity
</li><li value="345" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="346" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="347" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="348" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="349" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">theta field / axion field

</li><li value="350" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">physical field
</li><li value="351" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">scalar field
</li><li value="352" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">vector field
</li><li value="353" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">spinor field
</li><li value="354" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">tensor field
</li><li value="355" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">classical field
</li><li value="356" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">electric field  ->  vector field
</li><li value="357" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">magnetic field  ->  vector field
</li><li value="358" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">gravitational field (classical physics) / gravity field (classical physics)

</li><li class="field_geo" value="359" data-dimension="S0">radian (unit)
</li><li value="360" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">degree (unit)
</li><li value="361" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q361|No individual object moves faster than a photon]] / No object moves faster than [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson gauge bosons] / Nothing moves faster than the speed of light in a vacuum
</li><li value="362" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li value="363" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="364" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="365" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="366" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="367" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="368" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="369" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="370" data-dimension="S0">linear algebra
</li><li class="field_geo" value="371" data-dimension="S0">matrix
</li><li class="field_geo" value="372" data-dimension="S">linear combination
</li><li class="field_geo" value="373" data-dimension="S">determinant
</li><li class="field_geo" value="374" data-dimension="S2">An identity matrix has a determinant of 1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="375" data-dimension="S2">A matrix with identical columns has a determinant of 0 / When a matrix has identical columns the determinant is 0 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant]  ->  I think this provides some kind of clue as to what "[[Ontology:Q5,38|star]]" is. I don't entirely know what a determinant is or why it has to make columns cancel each other out but I do know it's important.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="376" data-dimension="S2">A determinant of a linear combination is a linear combination [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinant]
</li><li value="377" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li value="378" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li value="379" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">??

</li><li value="380" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="381" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="382" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="383" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="384" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="385" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="386" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="387" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="388" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="389" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="390" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="391" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="392" data-dimension="S2">Most science is not done in reality / Most science is not done in the material world / Most science is not done in the field or in laboratories / criterion for identifying scientific revisionism, defining the failure to recognize correct models as revisionism  ->  sounds shocking at first but logically has to be true. textbooks and teachers present science to children like every scientific claim is always substantiated by testing it in the material world. but that leaves people with a really bad understanding of science by the time they have to actually go interpret complicated discusssions in string theory and quantum field theory which will take a long time to go to some kind of particle accelerator or highly indirect apparatus that was unusual in the early days of science and finally get tested. these days most claims in science actually get tested against highly accurate models of experiments instead of in actual experiments. that's what you actually do when you cross-check a new hypothesis against older equations and existing experiment teams — those equations and memories of experiments are models of experiments. and this is why I find non-Materialist interpretations of literature frustrating. the people saying that fiction is not internally consistent in a way where some claims (although not every claim) can be tested against coherent models of a fictional world's internal physics <em>may not actually understand real-world science</em>, because at the end of the day, taking your best coherent model of <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> and testing something against it and taking your best coherent model of current experiments to understand the universe and testing something against it are not actually all that different. unpopular opinion, building theories about fiction and trying to solve if everything is actually consistent shows you are building a good understanding of the real world. also, most science of historical processes and ideologies would not be done in the real world. if you understand how science truly works, then you'll understand how Marxism truly works and how meta-Marxism truly works. it's very possible I had to invent the category of meta-Marxism purely because people around the world don't understand that most Marxist "experiments" amount to thought experiments or peer review through the means of models of old experiments. I've always been confused why Marxism wasn't already meta-Marxism. why wouldn't Marxists test their models against each other for accuracy, and why would Marxists end up dividing into different competing versions of Marxism that become unfalsifiable?

</li><li value="393" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="394" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="395" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="396" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="397" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="398" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="399" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_geo"  value="400" data-dimension="S">reductionism
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="401" data-dimension="S">{{TTS|tts=up-reductionism|upreductionism}} or <i>ana</i>-reductionism / retermination ([[Term:reterminism|relativistic determination or determinism]]; framed as a new kind of reductionism) / emergence (the subset of emergence which is relatively predictable and involves one scale of things producing a larger scale of things)  ->  science communicators and anti-science people need to understand the distinction between splitting atoms to find the quarks and attempting to predict atoms from quarks, and realize that the latter is still sometimes possible even if it's a lot harder. let's think about weather models: a lot of big objects like cold fronts and warm fronts interact to produce a weather outcome. when the weather report is correct you've managed to do up-reductionism.<br />
it's taking all of me to not flip the swatch color to <code>STM</code> from <code>MX</code> and say this is already science. no, I need a science article. a credible science hypothesis in an article will do as far as marking this a motif; you'd need more to mark it Z0 but that would prove it's being discussed in science and not just in philosophy.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="402" data-dimension="S">constructor theory  ->  a weird and interesting scientific hypothesis that, the more I think about it, the more I doubt could possibly be true. I think humanity has more chance of cracking a model of up-reductionism / [[Term:reterminism|retermination]] than this being a theory that makes sense.

</li><li value="403" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z0">cube dimensionality  ->  the kind of "dimensions" that most people usually think of as dimensions: the real number line extended into a plane, and into a cube, or into a tesseract, with all the infinitesimals in between each corner of the solid.<br />
cube dimensionality exists on three known axes in real life, so... Z0. there are three of them, you at least know what a fourth one would look like in fiction even if it is not confirmed to physically exist.

</li><li value="404" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">non-spatial dimension  ->  easy to comprehend with treed dimensionality where a dimension isn't a whole plane of real numbers. more confusing as the dimension-on-paper gets continuous. I mean, just try imagining a non-spatial dimension that's not time. it took me years and years to ever think of one.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="405" data-dimension="S2">There is a probability dimension below time / We live in {{TTS|tts=three-plus-one-plus-one-dimensional|3+1+1D}} space with a dimension of probability and a dimension of history / We live in 5D space with a dimension of probability below time  ->  somebody has to have discovered this hypothesis before me. I cannot be the first one. it's too simple, it's too obvious. it's almost too obvious to be correct?? attacking this thing is where the real fun begins, I suppose.<br />
thought 1: did I rediscover hilbert spaces? I don't think so but I do not even know.

</li><li value="406" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="407" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="408" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">Spacetime can be broken down into a probabilistic process / To find quantum gravity, create a probabilistic version of general relativity [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v-d7CDvcok]  ->  a tall claim, but one I think is plausible. quantum mechanics is inherently similar to relativity thanks to things like wave functions and fundamental interactions. this all begins at a contradiction of whether and when we can assume that things happen or measure each other independent of our observations (hidden variable theories)
</li><li value="409" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q409|Quantum mechanics is secretly a science of ordinary stochastic processes]] / Quantum systems can be modeled as non-Markovian stochastic processes  ->  Jacob Barandes; I don't understand the mathematics but it already makes so much sense. technically a hidden-variable theory, but claimed to be much simpler and bring in a smaller area of non-classical behavior [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oWip00iXbo] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sshJyD0aWXg]

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="410" data-dimension="S">time travel
</li><li class="field_geo" value="411" data-dimension="S">world line / correlation shown on Penrose diagram
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="412" data-dimension="S">predetermined future  ->  this concept is so general it could apply to real-life historical theology debates, but I'm coding it as a fictional trope for science fiction reasons.
</li><li value="413" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">time paradox
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="414" data-dimension="S">original timeline
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="415" data-dimension="S">desirable future
</li><li class="field_horror" value="416" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q416|undesirable future]]
</li><li value="417" class="field_horror element_empty" data-remark="W.D. Gaster and the three save file superposition" data-dimension="S0">future as mathematical superposition

</li><li class="field_geo" value="418" data-dimension="S">treed dimensionality  ->  the mathematical definition of "dimensions" as how many levels deep you are in a choice tree, or how many columns deep you are in a table. this is not the only definition of "dimensions" nor the most common one. it's generally preferred to define "dimensions" as things that can create whole fields of numbers like a whole real number line that can be expanded out into a plane and a cube of coordinates. I have no issue with that, of course. but, this is the kind of dimensionality that "Item dimension" or "Item dimensionality" refers to in the context of all these numbered Items. the simple [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(abstract_data_type)#Terminology depth] of a rooted tree that we are referring to as dimensionality.<br />
the first place I saw treed dimensionality was either in statistics — "n-dimensional analysis" — or in reference to quantum numbers, where once again you have multiple degrees of freedom where things can slide along axes, and it seems possible though not certain that some people are literally confusing them with cube dimensionality and turning them into spatial dimensions.

</li><li value="419" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">The Hat Man
</li><li value="420" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">Was this made on drugs?? / How could anybody have made this sober / I want what they were smoking
</li><li value="421" class="field_horror" data-dimension="S">Actual drug trip artwork / Ambien post
</li><li class="field_horror" data-remark="equally horror or STM" value="422" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Flatland</cite> (1884) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland]  ->  I watched the animated movie recently. I have to say, when the commenters labeled it cosmic horror, that's perfectly fair. my first thought is that it was a "look how advanced the aliens are" plot, especially when the Spacelanders want to wipe out the Flatlanders. I think this is exactly the right number range for it.

</li><li value="423" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="424" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="425" data-dimension="S">theory of spacetime with more than 3+1 dimensions
</li><li class="field_geo" value="426" data-dimension="S">Kaluza-Klein theory [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza–Klein_theory]  ->  a model that proposes a 5th spatial dimension to explain gravity. the 5th dimension is a tiny cylinder with a radius only 23 times the Planck length. a proton is on the order of 1×10<sup>19</sup> Planck lengths.<br />
some people try to use this to argue many-worlds, when, do you really need many-worlds if you have more dimensions? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ2vlFNarjU]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="427" data-dimension="S0">reference frame (relativity)  ->  mostly mentioned in special relativity. but I did have a weird thought of, what if there were reference frames in general relativity, and you basically just squash them really small? they may or may not be infinitely small. the assumption they actually are infinitely small might be leading us to singularities while they are actually a little bigger than "infinitely".
</li><li class="field_geo" value="428" data-dimension="S2">Entanglement is four-dimensional [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvqXshyuvOg]  ->  okay, but the entanglement of what?<br />
let's take quarks. quarks actually exchange something between them, distributing a particular quantity or directionality around so it sums to zero. that's fairly easy to understand in three dimensions, if you take an oversimplified analogy of a ring of three things bending one direction and bending the other direction to not tip over. this object would be conserving downward forces. quarks, for some reason, are always sending strong interactions to each other, and "giving them back" somewhere else because it's far easier to do that than break a color-confined object apart. it's a little like part of water moving and pulling the rest of the water along with it. that is already a whole object. we can already see the whole object, at least in the form of a proton. where are you putting the color charge?<br />
this is the kind of thing that made me weirdly suspect string theory was confusing treed dimensionality in the form of quantum numbers adding variables with real spatial dimensions that exist near the Planck length


</li><li value="429" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="430" class="field_trotsky" data-remark="Unzicker" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q430|fringe science]] / pseudoscience
</li><li value="431" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q431|fringe history]] / pseudohistory  ->  I don't even know what swatch to use for this.
</li><li value="432" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="433" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="434" class="field_nations" data-dimension="S">[[E:TimeCube|time cube theory]]
</li><li value="435" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="436" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="437" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="438" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="439" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q439|galactic bible]]  ->  the motif of a pseudohistory detailing large events between multiple civilizations, where it may be that not a single one of the civilizations or events is verifiable. Atlanteans vs snake people, Mormon bible almost equally fall under this motif.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="440" data-dimension="S">zero game [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_game]  ->  a game which essentially is over. neither player has a legal move, and the board may as well be empty.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="441" data-dimension="Z">player score point  ->  a player-specific score tracker in a board game or similar.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="442" data-dimension="Z">team score point
</li><li class="field_geo" value="443" data-dimension="S">move in N direction / move in negative direction (game theory)  ->  these are the more technical definitions of scoreboard points. you can choose to define scoreboards or game spaces in terms of positive and negative numbers, although it results in the strange artifact of star numbers that act oddly like a new version of zero you can multiply. all of this rests on the assumption of a zero-sum game, akin to tic tac toe or checkers.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="444" data-dimension="S">move in P direction / move in positive direction (game theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="445" data-dimension="S">space in neutral direction / playable game space in direction which is neither player N nor player P  ->  while moves in a zero-sum game must go a particular direction, game spaces don't have to. this is part of the definition of "star", although I still don't understand what the full definition is.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="446">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="447">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="448">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="449">game rules manual / card game rules sheet / board game rules sheet  ->  to be used for reference statements, or entries preserving official rules sheet links

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="450">board game piece / board game card / board game token / card game token / unspecified game card / unspecified game piece
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="451">playing card / unspecified game card
</li><li value="452" class="field_fantasy">playing card deck  ->  has three uses. explaining card game mechanics; references; explaining Deltarune / Homestuck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="453">trump deck / poker deck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="454">pinochle deck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="455">tarot deck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="456">mahjong set / mahjong deck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="457">creature deck / medieval kingdom deck / Arcmage-style deck / Magic-style deck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="458">named trading-card-game deck / named deck
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="459">trading-card-game set
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="460">chess piece
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="461">pawn (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="462">knight (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="463">bishop (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="464">rook (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="465">queen (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="466">king (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="467">promoted pawn (chess piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="468">checker (board game piece)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="469">8 by 8 checkerboard / checker board / chess board  ->  they are not strictly the same, as apparently one is smaller, but they sure are awfully similar

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="470">draw deck  ->  board field, either central or player-specific
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="471">card suit  ->  the concept of something that goes in a card suit
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="472">object-based card suit / playing card suit / season-based card suit / plant or animal card suit
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="473">elemental card suit / card color
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="474">numbered card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="475">face card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="476">resource card / Resident card (Aurora) / mana card / land card / energy card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="477">character card which may act as figurehead / character card / creature card / monster card / Theorist card (Aurora)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="478">event card / Action card (Aurora) / instant event card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="479">continuing event card / Condition card (Aurora) / enchantment card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="480">card area / board field  ->  in general
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="481">main draw deck / deck / central draw deck / market deck (Tea Dragon Society)  ->  board field
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="482">player draw deck / deck / library / character deck  ->  board field
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="483">hand / player hand / hand cards / hold (Tea Dragon Society)  ->  board field
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="484">character area / creature area / Army (Arcmage) / Member Zone (Aurora)  ->  implied to be player-specific but not stated to be
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="485">condition area / permanents area / Condition Zone (Aurora) / terrain area / supporter area  ->  could be plural
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="486">figurehead area / commander area / Guide Space (Aurora) / main character area
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="487" data-dimension="Z">removed from the game / exile zone  ->  board field
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="488" data-dimension="Z">prize card area  ->  central or player, either can exist
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="489" data-dimension="Z">discard pile / graveyard / GY / Devastation Zone (Aurora)  ->  implied to be player-specific
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="490">in-play card area  ->  superset of: character area, etc
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="491" data-dimension="Z0">stack of connected cards  ->  solitaire, Member Zone masses/groups (Aurora)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="492" data-dimension="Z0">modifiable card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="493" data-dimension="Z0">modifier card / equipment card / enchantment card / power-up card / card eaten by character card  ->  refers to visually representing cards more than to effects
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="494" data-dimension="Z0">face-up card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="495" data-dimension="Z0">face-down card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="496" data-dimension="Z0">generated card / token card
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="497">modifying token / modifying counter / damage counter / power-up counter / status effect counter
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="498" data-dimension="Z0">free-floating token / board game token  ->  miscellaneous token placed on some space on table for status purposes
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="499" data-dimension="Z0">transient card / effect card which does not enter play

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="500">card field / card stat / card metric / card attribute  ->  superset of: object suit, suit color, number
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="501">card category / card kind  ->  Condition, Action, etc. should usually be represented through "instance of" property, this is just to define what a category technically is
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="502">card suit / card element / card color
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="503">card name / card title
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="504">card cost
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="505">card worth / point value / victory points
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="506">card power / offensive power
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="507">card endurance / defensive power / stamina / hit points if same as defensive strength
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="508">card resource value / energy value / mana value / growth value (Tea Dragon Society)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="509">card rules / card basic effects
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="510">card flavor text  ->  the concept of flavor text. put especially memorable flavor text in "relevant quote"
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="511">card with in-play effect / effect permanent / enchantment creature  ->  could also be a "modifier card", but in some games may take effect in hand / graveyard / etc. a card which has an effect when in something a particular game considers an in-play area
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="512">card with draw effect
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="513">card with discard effect
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="514">card with in-hand effect  ->  Tea Dragon Society is the only game I can think of that does this, off the top of my head
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="515">card with in-discard-pile effect / card with in-graveyard effect
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="516">card with in-draw-deck effect  ->  never heard of this one but maybe it exists, who knows
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="517">card with in-deck effect / card with different rules in particular decks / card affected by figurehead card / card affected by main-character card / card affected by commander card / inherently tutorable card / fusion mechanic card / synchro card / pendulum card / card that complements other cards inherently
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="518">single-use game piece / single-use card / card which is discarded after effect
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="519">card with unique rules  ->  superset of: card with draw effect, etc.; card which is not neatly described by set theory statements

</li><li value="520" class="field_fantasy" data-remark="DXX in decimal; D + 20" data-dimension="Z">[[E:twenty-sided die|twenty-sided die]]
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="521" data-dimension="Z0">face-up card area / card area with cards face-up
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="522" data-dimension="Z0">face-down card area / card area with cards face-down
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="523" data-dimension="Z0">faced-away card area / card area with cards face-up toward one player / face-up card area specific to one player / hidden face-up card area  ->  this is for coding player hands.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="524" data-dimension="Z0">card area with cards laid out horizontally / card area with cards separated
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="525" data-dimension="Z0">card area with cards laid out vertically  ->  superset of/instance of/consists of?: bound stack of cards
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="526" data-dimension="Z0">bound stack of cards / stack of cards which is deck-shaped  ->  as opposed to informal card stacks in solitaire, equipment-card stacks, etc.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="527">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="528">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="529" data-dimension="Z0">resource card area  ->  doesn't necessarily exist in game rules but likely to exist on svg images

</li><li value="530" class="field_geo">[[Ontology:Q530|truth value]] (top level category) / non-binary truth value
</li><li value="531" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">spring (card suit)  ->  technically exists in mahjongg as well as Tea Dragon Society
</li><li value="532" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">summer (card suit)
</li><li value="533" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">autumn (card suit)
</li><li value="534" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">winter (card suit)

</li><li class="field_geo" value="535" data-dimension="S">Hackenbush [https://math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2006/PAPERS/Bartlett.pdf]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="536" data-dimension="S">tic tac toe  ->  seems like a silly thing to be talking about until you realize how complicated combinatorial game theory makes simple things, and then you absolutely won't want to use a more complex game than this.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="537" data-dimension="S">super tic tac toe / tic tac toe with a tic tac toe board on each square  ->  this thing reminds me of Communist Internationals. there's definitely something to that. like, the small boards are the countries containing the class populations. the large boards are either the global class populations or the rival Internationals. I wonder what is the simplest board game you'd need to represent mainstream Marxism-Leninism versus Trotskyism, making the unrealistic assumption they are both equally powerful.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="538" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q5,38|star]] (unreal number) / star (number-like object in game theory; number that is neither positive nor negative, cancels out itself, and yet can be multiplied)  ->  this thing is unbelievably interesting to me. it feels strangely like a non-numerical object thrown into the slot of a number. it's like the Missingno of numbers.<br />
let's see... GIGO / undefined behavior + Pokémon = glitch Pokémon. undefined behavior + numbers = abstract algebra. or something.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="539">[[Ontology:Q549|binary truth value]]  ->  sub-case of: non-binary truth value.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="540">[[Ontology:Q540|False]] / FALSE / F  ->  formal logic or boolean value
</li><li class="field_geo" value="541">[[Ontology:Q541|True]] / TRUE / T   ->  formal logic or boolean value
</li><li class="field_internal" value="542">communication rating level / work rating code
</li><li class="field_geo" value="543">[[Ontology:Q543|U / Unknown]]  ->  highly implies "probably not false" but doesn't state it
</li><li class="field_geo" value="544">[[Ontology:Q544|NG / Not Good]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="545">[[Ontology:Q545|G / Good]]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="546">(communication rating level)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="547">(communication rating level)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="548">[[Ontology:Q548|N/A / Not Applicable]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="549">[[Ontology:Q549|E / Excepted]]

</li><li class="field_geo" value="550">[[Ontology:Q550|zero or more]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="551">[[Ontology:Q551|one or more]]
</li><li value="552" class="field_fantasy">exactly 52 / deck of 52  ->  subset of: order of magnitude

</li><li value="553" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="554" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="555" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="556" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="557" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="558" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="559" data-dimension="S">operator for applying a model to analyze another model / operator for applying a conceptual ontology to analyze a physical-structure-blueprint ontology (philosophy, meta-philosophy) / operator for applying a philosophical framework to analyze a Bauplan (meta-Marxism) / ideology composition operator [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_composition#Composition_monoids] / monoid act for non-binary logic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoid] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semigroup_action] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q559|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="560" data-dimension="S0">ideology applied onto other / ideology applied onto other ideology / ideology-onto-ideology code / ([[User:RD/9k/Q559|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="561" data-dimension="S">MX onto A / meta-anarchism (generic)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="562" data-dimension="S">MX onto W / meta-Gramscianism (generic) / post-Gramscianism (old, discarded term)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="563" data-dimension="S">MX onto ML / meta-Marxism (generic)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="564" data-dimension="S">IV onto LR / Trotskyism (generic)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="565" data-dimension="S">MX onto ES / meta-Existentialism (generic) / post-Existentialism (old, discarded term)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="566" data-dimension="S">MX onto ??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="567" data-dimension="S">MX onto Fy / meta-Marxist literary analysis (generic)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="568" data-dimension="S">MX onto PT / meta-Toryism (generic)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="569" data-dimension="S">MX onto DG / meta-schizoanalysis (generic)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="570" data-dimension="S">MX onto ??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="571" data-dimension="S">MX onto LR / meta-Liberalism
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="572" data-dimension="S">MX onto MX / meta-Marxism onto meta-Marxism  ->  for when meta-Marxism does self-criticism and explodes its own models using new meta-Marxist models
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="573" data-dimension="S">MX onto ??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="574" data-dimension="S">MX onto IV / meta-Trotskyism / post-Trotskyism (old, discarded term)
</li><li value="575" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="576" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="577" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="578" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="579" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="580" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="581" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="582" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="583" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="584" data-dimension="S">ML onto ES
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="585" data-dimension="S">ES onto W / anticommunism (Existentialist-Structuralist tradition against Western Marxism; generic)  ->  there was a bunch of this in Rothenberg's book.
</li><li value="586" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="587" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="588" data-dimension="S">ES onto PT / liberalization (generic)
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="589" data-dimension="S">A onto PT / anarchist anti-fascism (generic)
</li><li value="590" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="591" data-dimension="S">ES onto ML / anticommunism (generic)

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="592" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q592|proletarian (Bolshevism)]]  ->  case of: atom-like entity, meta-Marxist "shovel" object - ideology color: crimson. this is the Item for individuals within the general body of workers that exists in Bolshevism and which often is required to be accepted at open business territories. when the Refuse layer is abolished to turn people into a general body of workers and nobody is hurting to just find an income and pay for housing and at least a small basket of food (no, workers' states rebuilding from wartime destruction are not [[E:Bolshevism is slavery|"cages"]]) then this "proletariat" exists. this Item does not refer to workers in Liberal-republican capitalism. there may also be named Marxisms where this kind of worker technically doesn't exist yet. people should call out those Marxisms.<br />
number: "92" is usually used for defining meta-Marxism but it can be for "local" Marxism sometimes, I mean finding the correct Marxisms is what it's for in the first place.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="593" data-dimension="S">method for measuring the ideal size of a workers' state / method for measuring the minimum size of a workers' state / method for measuring the maximum size of a workers' state
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="594" data-dimension="S">total spatial area
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="595" data-dimension="S">total population
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="596" data-dimension="S">population times standard population density / population adjusted by standard population density  ->  if you use this measurement, you see that New York City is a big population constrained by resources, but Russia is also a big population constrained by logistics.
</li><li class="number_empty" data-tradition="STM" value="597" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" data-tradition="STM" value="598" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="599" data-dimension="S">many

</li><li class="number_empty" data-tradition="Fy" value="600" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="601" data-remark="DCI" class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" data-dimension="S">fictional incident, tragedy, or crime / un-true crime
</li><li class="number_empty" value="602">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="603">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="604">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="605">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="606">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="607">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="608" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q608|absence]]  ->  the lack of something that would otherwise be there, usually physically, sometimes within a logical framework
</li><li class="field_geo" value="609" data-dimension="S0">inanimate object / countable inanimate object
</li><li class="field_geo" value="610" data-dimension="S0">living thing / countable lifeform  ->  any of a number of kinds of living things, real or fictional, which is not an inanimate object but is countable
</li><li class="number_empty" value="611">??
</li><li value="612" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S">dystopian alien nation
</li><li class="field_geo" value="613" data-dimension="S0">Beast (AllDir simulation) / Beast (mathematics) / Beast field atop natural resource field  ->  vector representation of an individual animal; see scrap [[Philosophical Research:Molecular Democracy/4.4r/6952 starclan|MDem 4.4/"starclan"]]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="614" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="615" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="616" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="617" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q617|placeholder]]  ->  the concept of placeholders
</li><li class="field_internal" value="618" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q618|proposed Item]]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="619" data-dimension="S0">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="620">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="621">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="622">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="623">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="624">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="625">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="626">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="627">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="628">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="629">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="630">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="631">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="632">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="633">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="634">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="635">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="636">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="637">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="638">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="639">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="640" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q640|Pascal's wager]] / god grid (Christian philosophy)
</li><li class="field_trotsky"  value="641" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q641|ethics problem involving Trotsky]] / ethics thought experiment involving Trotsky / Trotskyite variant of existing thought experiment / Trotsky problem (philosophical dilemma which centers around Trotskyite conspirators or early Trotskyism; meta-Marxism)  ->  there are bound to be some new ones that come up but the variants of old ones can also go on this entry
</li><li class="number_empty" value="642">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="643" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q643|ethics problem involving workers' states]]
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="644" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q644|Trotsky's wager]] / Trotskyist god grid  ->  Pascal's wager except with early Trotskyism.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="645">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="646">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="647">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="648">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="649">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="650" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q650|trolley problem]]  ->  I swear the principle of these is violated by anticommunist memoirs. think about it. every anticommunist memoir sends the trolley over thousands of people to save one person.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="651">single victim (philosophy)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="652">trolley (philosophy)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="653">trolley sacrifice (philosophy) / fat person (fat man; philosophy)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="654">[[Ontology:Q654|Trotskyite trolley problem]]  ->  there are at least two possible "Trotsky problems". one is the [[E:Pascal's wager|god grid]] with Trotsky where he loses everything if Trotskyism is wrong. one is the Trotskyite trolley problem where there are 1,000 Trotskyites on one track and a million Soviet people on the other track. this entry refers to the "train tracks" Trotsky problem.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="655">five victims (philosophy)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="656">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="657">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="658" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q658|Communist trolley problem]]  ->  this is already a coherent concept but I just don't have a perfect idea of what it means. I think... a Communist trolley problem is simply a trolley problem where all the objects in the diagram are labeled as things that exist in workers' states.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="659">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="660" data-dimension="Z">morality or ethics / morality (method of distinguishing Right from Wrong; <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1-5.2)  ->  I at first wanted to put morality at number 333 but that was already filled up by quantum physics concepts. this will do
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="661" data-dimension="S">local morality  ->  localized conception of morality produced by the motions of a particular countable culture
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="662">??
</li><li class="field_ML"       value="663" data-dimension="S">class-based morality
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="664">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="665">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-remark="The Opposer" value="666" data-dimension="S">moral wrong / Wrong (morality and ethics)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="667" data-dimension="S">moral right / Right (morality and ethics)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="668">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="669" data-dimension="Z">objective morality / ethics (objective study of how groups of people construct morality and what are the best ways to construct morality)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="670">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="671">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="672">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="673">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="674">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="675">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="676">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="677">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="678">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="679">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="680">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="681">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="682">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="683">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="684">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="685">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="686">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="687">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="688">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="689">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="690">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="691" data-dimension="S">"I wish comrades existed" / wishing comrades or solidarity existed in real life (motif) / "the love of humanity" is usually not reciprocated (motif) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q691|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="692" data-dimension="S">comrade (mathematics) / mathematical description of which individuals or localized graphs remain part of a Lattice model / ([[User:RD/9k/Q691|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="693">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="694">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="695">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="696">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="697">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="698">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="699">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="700">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="701">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="702">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="703">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="704">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="705">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="706">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="707">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="708">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="709">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="710">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="711">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="712">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="713">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="714">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="715">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="716">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="717">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="718">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="719">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="720">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="721">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="722">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="723">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="724">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="725">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="726">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="727">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="728">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="729">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="730">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="731">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="732">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="733">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="734">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="735">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="736">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="737">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="738">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="739">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="740" data-dimension="M3">What are numbers? / What are integers? / What are real numbers?  ->  has several different technical definitions within mathematics.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="741" data-dimension="S2">Integers are multiples of <b class="caps">True</b> / using <b class="caps">True</b> to construct numbers  ->  common in programming languages. was not used in the lambda calculus video I watched, which was closer to using sets.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="742" data-dimension="S2">Integers are actually functions / using function to construct numbers / using succession function to construct numbers (iterator function; lambda calculus) / Church numbers  ->  a method used in [[E:lambda calculus|lambda calculus]].
</li><li class="field_geo" value="743" data-dimension="S2">Integers are actually sets / using sets to construct numbers  ->  Peano arithmetic. in a way, using sets to construct numbers is not very different from using an iterator function. it's pretty easy to argue that putting a set around a number is its own kind of function, in the computer programming sense or maybe in a lambda calculus sense.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="744" data-dimension="S2">Integers are actually graphs / Integers are actually undirected graphs  ->  I haven't found a solid application of this aside from <em>the most preliminary descriptions</em> of graph economics and the Lattice model; right now I don't have a single small, obvious demo, so this is currently more of just a "weird thought". this is the concept that depending on what kind of objects you're counting, any particular collection of people or snowflakes or water molecules is better modeled as an undirected graph than a Peano-style set. in the real world, quantities of things are largely important because they either are grouped together or are not grouped together, thus creating separate physical objects that can interact.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="745" data-dimension="S2">Numbers are whatever is between two sets / Numbers are whatever is in the middle of a Dedekind cut / Game theory can make a number system / Game theory can be used to create a number system / surreal numbers proposition / Hackenbush numbers proposition  ->  very interesting. looks like some version of complex numbers with more axes?? or maybe some form of superpositional numbers. I'm surprised I haven't heard of that before. I mean, how can it be that there are all these quantum physics equations and no superpositional numbers regarded as their own objects instead of just error bars? the wikipedia article says it's a weird new form of infinitesimals.<br />
[edit:] wow, that was not correct. I think the explanations I watched just had a lot of trouble explaining it in a way that made sense. surreal numbers mostly get complicated because the sets get infinite and they're having to number countable infinities.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="746" data-dimension="S2">Numbers are secretly error bars  ->  I had to go over the definition of surreal numbers several times to properly understand that this wasn't what those were.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="747" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="748" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="749" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="750">fuzzy logic  ->  proposition-based logic which uses real numbers from 0 to 1. I don't think this is the only way to do non-binary logic, but it may be one of the easiest ones to explain and demonstrate.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="751">fuzzy set  ->  a fuzzy set is a lot like any set, but its membership uses a [[:Category:Non-binary truth values ontology|non-binary truth value]] in the form of a rational number from 0 to 1. it's like one big circle with a bunch of numbers or Algebras around it where every object is a particular distance from the center to the outside. and of course, where the exact position around the circle doesn't matter, the circle is for flavor.<br />
I'm thinking. I think if you threw these into a Dedekind cut, you'd have to define what each number in the set <em>is</em> first. one intuitive way to do it is to draw a real number line, with a ramp of numbers rising off it so you start at zero membership and go all the way up to one or higher if you want. and I think that would be complex numbers; I think one way to define a fuzzy set is to say basically each integer in a fuzzy set is a complex number that only goes up to n+i.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="752">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="753">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="754">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="755">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="756">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="757">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="758">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="759">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="760">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="761">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="762">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="763">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="764">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="765">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="766">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="767">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="768">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="769">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="770" data-remark="slot machine miss" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q770|people-gambling]]  ->  the usually non-fictional motif of sorting through a lot of people to hit the jackpot and find the right people. this motif is inherent in most "job interview advice", as well as some "relationship advice", "product marketing advice", and rants against "social media". however, it also comes up in other unexpected places, like looking through a lot of books on a particular topic to find a book which is considered good or useful for some purpose. most people consider people-gambling perfectly normal. (as much as that totally baffles me.) this is often missed in critiques of "social media" as uniquely bad — if everything in life involves gambling on groups of people like some kind of poker deck, why wouldn't it be obvious for videos or microblog posts to work that way? people-gambling + ?? = Carl Sagan's professors. people-gambling + kaiju = Pokémon. people-gambling + Difference makes you useful = Wackytown fallacy.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="771" data-dimension="S">Dedekind cut / <code>{...|...}</code>  ->  an operator used for defining numbers, whether the real numbers or the surreal numbers. a number or set can be put on each side, and the result of the operation goes in the middle of the cut.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="772" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="773" data-dimension="Z">surreal numbers  ->  a grouping of numbers defined in a different way than the real numbers are typically defined. reading books about these things you'll quickly come to the realization that fractions and decimals are a social construct and there are actually any number of different ways to define what number comes before or after a different number or how to divide a range of numbers.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="774" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Surreal Numbers</cite> (Knuth 1974)  ->  in dialogue format.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="775" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Winning ways for your mathematical plays</cite> (Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy 1982)

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="776" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q776|social event horizon]] / Vegeta effect / Entei effect  ->  the non-fictional motif of people having a horizon around themselves which other people cannot pierce through to control, with only a few exceptions for such things as people forming a social structure that makes a decision of how to use all its people. this motif doesn't directly include those exceptions. this motif combines with other propositions to form particular historical or contemporary conceptions of "free will", but it doesn't really have to be used that way if you instead wish to study people through existential materialism.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="777" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q777|Free Will]]  ->  a motif I have never liked because of the fact nobody can actually define it. whenever you try to discuss Free Will the discussion becomes confusing, because what process are we even debating the existence <em>of</em>? worse yet, people who think they can disprove it typically try to counter it with concepts that are difficult to substantiate or falsify. even Sabine Hossenfelder, who is convinced she knows exactly what hypotheses are so up-in-the-air they aren't science, tossed out an unfalsifiable hypothesis to counter Free Will. this entry.... will be a messy one. there will be about 10+ different models associated with what is supposedly the same thing.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="778" data-dimension="S">freedom (top-level category)  ->  one of the only terms worse than free will in terms of how many definitions it has. genuinely don't use this except to list the category on category pages

</li><li class="number_empty" value="779">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="780">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="781">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="782">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="782" data-dimension="Z">formal logic
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="783" data-dimension="S">non-binary logic  ->  the concept of a system of proposition-based logic which doesn't combine propositions based on [[E:binary truth value|binary True or False answers]] and yet does have propositions and logical operators. propositions are given "truthy", "falsy", or "unknown" [[E:non-binary truth value|answers]] simply to summarize whether they should be taken as accurate and not specifically to operate on mathematically. the combination of any particular two propositions is actually the material or concrete models inside the propositions combined together. if you "And" two models they produce a model containing both processes only if both processes were given a "truthy" label of being accurate to reality or whatever is being modeled. if you "Or" two models you are putting them in superposition and saying you think either model could happen as far as you know but you're not sure whether one or both of them could happen. for instance, you could "And" together classical physics and quantum physics to represent both of them happening and one stacking up to the other, or you could "Or" specific results of a chemical reaction into a superposition of most probable and least probable results before the reaction happens and is measured. for another example, you could "And" together a model with a truth value of "some occurrence", like "Cats have white fur" and a model that is "true" like "Cats can have partially-expressed patterns" to produce a piecewise statement that all-white cats can produce kittens with spots but the possibilities for other colors of cat are different.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="784">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="785">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="786">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="787">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="788">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="789" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="790" data-dimension="S0">formal logic operator / logical operator / logic gate
</li><li class="field_geo" value="791" data-dimension="S">NOT (logical operator) / NOT (logic gate)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="792" data-dimension="S">IMPLY (logical operator) / material conditional / → / P → Q  ->  silly question: do these arrows go the text direction in RTL and vertical scripts? I'd think they would but I have no idea
</li><li class="field_geo" value="793" data-dimension="S">converse (logical operator) / ← / P ← Q  ->  not always equal to IMPLY operation
</li><li class="field_geo" value="794" data-dimension="S">NAND (logical operator) / NAND (logic gate)  ->  absolutely everything except an overlap
</li><li class="field_geo" value="795" data-dimension="S">XNOR (logical operator) / XNOR (logic gate)  ->  there was some reason I needed this in the past. I think it was for tearing apart Rothenberg's set theory chapter.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="796" data-dimension="S">OR  (logical operator) / OR (logic gate)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="797" data-dimension="S">AND (logical operator) / AND (logic gate)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="798" data-dimension="S">XOR (logical operator) / XOR (logic gate)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="799" data-dimension="S">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_NOR NOR] (logical operator) / NOR (logic gate)

</li><li class="field_geo" value="800" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q800|set theory]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="801" data-dimension="S0">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics) set] (set theory)  ->  collection of elements modeled by mathematical structures; mathematical structure
</li><li class="field_geo" value="802" data-dimension="S">empty set (set theory) / ∅ / {<nowiki/>} / void set / size-zero set  ->  my nemesis ever since Rothenberg bizarrely abused it to explain The Subject
</li><li class="field_geo" value="803" data-dimension="S0">non-empty set (set theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="804" data-dimension="S0">multiset (set theory)  ->  set that behaves like a programming language array, with non-unique members allowed
</li><li class="field_geo" value="805" data-dimension="S0">subset  ->  set contained in another set; empty set is a subset of most non-empty sets
</li><li class="field_geo" value="806" data-dimension="S">union (set operation) / OR (set operation)  ->  combination of two sets; empty set causes no change
</li><li class="field_geo" value="807" data-dimension="S">intersection (set operation) / AND (set operation)  ->  overlap of two sets only; use the empty set, get the empty set
</li><li class="field_geo" value="808" data-dimension="S">symmetric difference (set operation) / ∆ / A ∆ B / XOR (set operation)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="809" data-dimension="S">absolute complement (set operation) / NOR (set operation)

</li><li class="field_geo" value="810" data-dimension="S0">set theory axiom
</li><li class="field_geo" value="811" data-dimension="S0">set property / set characteristic / set indicator function result
</li><li class="field_geo" value="812" data-dimension="S2">Sets are equal if they contain the same members / axiom of extensionality (ZFC set theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="813" data-dimension="S2">No set can be a member of itself  ->  true in ZFC set theory, but not all set theories
</li><li class="field_geo" value="814" data-dimension="S2">Defining sets based on properties that cannot be true creates a set that cannot exist / There is no set of all sets that do not contain themselves / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox Russel's paradox] / Sets must be defined following the rules of sets in order to be sets (ZFC set theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="815" data-dimension="S2">A set definition will never outrun the biggest possible set / Sets cannot be defined based on the biggest possible sets / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_paradox Cantor's paradox]  ->  this one is easy to escape if you want to number countable infinities, because mathematicians simply use other structures than sets
</li><li class="field_geo" value="816" data-dimension="S">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisimulation bisimulation] / bisimilarity  ->  when two mathematical ontologies have equivalent behavior; when two mathematical objects are functionally indistinguishable regardless of whether they are the same spacetime-unique object; suitable mathematical equality test for Particle Theories / Bauplans
</li><li class="field_geo" value="817" data-dimension="S">hyperset  ->  a set which definitionally contains itself in a bisimilarity relation
</li><li class="field_geo" value="818" data-dimension="S0">hyperset theory
</li><li class="field_geo" value="819" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q819|ZFC set theory]] / Zermelo-Fraenkel Choice-axiom set theory (ZFC)  ->  set theory where sets are "computational" and pointers into the set cause a kind of infinite loop bug in the logic
</li><li class="field_geo" value="820" data-dimension="Z0">[[Ontology:Q820|non-well-formed set theory]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="821" data-dimension="S0">anti-foundation axiom (set theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="822" data-dimension="S2">Sets are actually just [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessible_pointed_graph directed graphs] containing the same arrows (AFA) / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aczel%27s_anti-foundation_axiom Aczel's anti-foundation axiom] (AFA)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="823" data-dimension="S2">Sets are actually just tree graphs that cannot be rearranged (SAFA) / Sets are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(graph_theory) trees] connecting Quine atoms with no interesting automorphisms (SAFA) / Scott's anti-foundation axiom (SAFA)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="824" data-dimension="S2">Sets are actually just directed graphs with no exact symmetries / [https://users.math.cas.cz/~jerabek/papers/dghj.pdf Finsler's anti-foundation axiom] (FAFA)  ->  this one sounds pretty similar to the popular AFA if you don't look closely, but it's based on rotating the graph around and renumbering it
</li><li class="field_geo" value="825" data-dimension="S2">Sets are nothing more than baskets of tiny sets / Sets are a proper class based on collections of Quine atoms / Boffa's anti-foundation axiom (BAFA)  ->  some mathematicians really don't like this one but I don't know enough to say why it would be objectively bad. I'm not even sure I've found a good/correct definition of BAFA yet
</li><li class="field_geo" value="826" data-dimension="S2">atom (set theory) / set element that cannot have set-structured members / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement urelement]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="827" data-dimension="S0">set-based atom (set theory) / Quine atom (set theory) / singleton / graph node serving as one-element set / graph node mapped to ur-element in binary relation  ->  Quine atom is one of the most arcane terms I've ever seen and I refuse to use it just yet
</li><li class="field_geo" value="828" data-dimension="S">univocality  ->  [https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/philosophy/logic/free-logic-generalization mapping] from one unique name or object to another unique name or object. signifier equations sometimes do this, in cases such as technical jargon
</li><li class="field_geo" value="829" data-dimension="S">biunivocality  ->  a really fancy word for counting. no, I'm serious. a biunivocal mapping exists when one set of unique names maps onto a set of unique elements, as if counting things with natural numbers. [https://thedewdrop.org/2020/05/08/deleuze-and-guattari-rhizome/ Deleuze and Guattari] once abused this concept to try to forbid counting and grouping individuals and try to turn them into a non-local beam of photon-people

</li><li class="field_geo" value="830">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="831" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="832" data-dimension="S">two [https://academic.oup.com/philmat/article/32/1/115/7603508 indistinguishable iron spheres] called Castor and Pollux  ->  I love when mathematicians actually think of entertaining thought experiments
</li><li class="field_geo" value="833" data-dimension="S0">proper class (set theory) / class (set theory)  ->  the repeated pattern of having a given characteristic or returning a given indicator function result, which is not a set. similar to "class" or "interface" in object oriented programming
</li><li class="field_geo" value="834" data-dimension="S0">graph-to-set mapping / exact picture of set  ->  a concept that comes up quite a bit in defining non-well-founded set theories
</li><li class="field_geo" value="835" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="836" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="837" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="838" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="839" data-dimension="S0">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="840">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="841">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="842">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="843">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="844">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="845">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="846">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="847">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="848">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="849">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="850">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="851">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="852">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="853">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="854">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="855">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="856">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="857">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="858">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="859">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="860">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="861">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="862">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="863">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="864">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="865">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="866">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="867">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="868">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="869">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="870" data-dimension="S0">graph node
</li><li class="field_geo" value="871" data-dimension="S0">disjoint union  ->  logical combination of internally unconnected graphs/sets. seems like I might have to use it to describe populations some day
</li><li class="field_geo" value="872" data-dimension="S0">hypergraph  ->  a mathematical graph that could theoretically store a 3D model composed of a bunch of triangles, or the collection of all subpopulations in a population including overlapping subpopulations
</li><li class="field_geo" value="873" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="874" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="875" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="876" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="877" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="878" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="879" data-dimension="S0">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="880" data-dimension="S0">graph (graph theory)  ->  a collection of nodes and node pairs, typically visualized as a path
</li><li class="field_geo" value="881" data-dimension="S0">undirected graph (graph theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="882" data-dimension="S0">directed graph   (graph theory) / 𝒢 (variable)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="883" data-dimension="S0">cyclic graph     (graph theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="884" data-dimension="S0">acyclic graph    (graph theory)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="885" data-dimension="S0">tree (graph theory) / tree graph  ->  acyclic graph, one path between any two nodes, every vertex a particular point in space on a map essentially
</li><li class="field_geo" value="886" data-dimension="S0">rooted graph (graph theory) / pointed graph / arborescence / anti-arborescence  ->  an arborescent graph points away from the root. also: according to Deleuze and Guattari it's [https://thedewdrop.org/2020/05/08/deleuze-and-guattari-rhizome/ basically the devil]. you didn't know there was a Good and Evil to graph theory did you, but now you know
</li><li class="field_geo" value="887" data-dimension="S0">star graph (graph theory)  ->  graph with everything connected to a central node. how I often visualize what non-well-founded sets are supposed to be, you just put the empty set in the center
</li><li class="field_geo" value="888" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="889" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="890" data-dimension="S2">Gödel's incompleteness theorem / Gödel gap (barrier beyond which an individual entity cannot reason without interacting with another object)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="891">??
</li><li value="892" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">metamathematics  ->  this is it. Marxism : meta-Marxism :: ontology : meta-ontology :: mathematics : metamathematics
</li><li class="number_empty" value="893">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="894">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="895">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="896">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="897">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="898">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="899" data-dimension="S">casual steganography for fun  ->  how Spore creatures are stored in an image [https://www.reddit.com/r/Spore/comments/wcr9eh/has_anyone_cracked_how_the_creation_imagesave/]
</li></ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>