Editing User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/100 (section)

=== 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 value="317" class="field_geo">??
</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 value="392" class="number_empty">??
</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="number_empty">??
</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="560" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="561" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="562" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="563" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="564" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="565" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="566" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="567" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="568" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="569" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="570" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="571" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="572" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="573" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="574" class="number_empty">??
</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 value="584" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="585" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="586" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="587" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="588" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="589" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="590" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="591" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="592" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="593" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="594" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="595" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="596" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="597" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="598" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="599">many

</li><li value="600" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="601" data-remark="DCI" class="field_fantasy" 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_geo" value="658">??
</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_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="number_empty" value="691">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="692">??
</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="number_empty" value="783">??
</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="field_geo" value="789" data-dimension="Z">formal logic
</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">[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">[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">[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">[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:Current proposals]]</noinclude>