The negative sign also reads 'is opposite to' if you did not already know.

I'm more than a little interested in the structure of human thought. I feel that the TLP is concerned with what I call "proto-logic." An equally good term might be "transcendental logic."

Two little points I'll kick off with. Consider the word "what" (as an instance among other words of this type). "What now?" "What" seems to function like a variable, like an x. This seems related to the existential quantifier in formal logic and the variable in math. Note: I see "proto-logic" as foundational to both language, formal logic, mathematics, algorithms...

Another word is "not." The thought of negation. It seems built in. "He's not here" is the negation of "he's here." A sort of minus sign on a statement. Of course we have this in formal logic, and we have the negative equals sign in math.

For me, this is the core of philosophy, this searching after the proto-logic.
Thoughts?

Computer machine language requires a 1 or a 0 to be dropped into a bucket and programming languages are translations of orders about what to drop in which bucket. But if we cannot assign a numerical quantity to such terms in a series such as good/better/best, we cannot use it in a programme.

And isn't it the case that the series is a model but the values can change according to the subject to which it is applied, can change by who applies them, and can be discarded for a more detailed series is appropriate (think of compass directions for example;NSEW is fine for some things, NNW for others)?

This is great. Don't tell me, friends, that math isn't sculpture.

Grandi's series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However one also has to think about culturally transitional grammar schemes. These things aren't universally fixed. In English, due to specific historical prescriptive language reforms, if I were to say, 'he is not not here' he would be here (double negative), but in most other languages a double negative is just the emphasis of the original negative that is why in most colloquial dialects of English one can say 'no he ain't here'. Just one little anecdotal example of why using language to get at proto-logic is so very difficult. But it is correct, I would suppose, to consider that every language as it is processed by the brain has a functional negativizer category that fuzzes out at the edges.

And your point is Ken?

Chomsky never refered to Deep Logic in his linguisitc work, he refered to deep structure which is a transformational grammar term used when linguists were still attempting to attain a system that could explain Universal Grammar. UG was considered to get at the human ability to use language, that somewhere in the brain there is a universal method of creating language it has a set of rules that explains linguisitic diversity. The issues with Chomsky's deep structure are numerous, not the least of which is its anglocentrism. This is based from the actual syntactic tranformative trees. and the rules used in deep structure transformations. The rules necessarily allow a researcher to transform the syntax from language to language, which was intitally promissing, but frustrated by the fact that transforming from language to language is a lateral move and could never really get to a real proto-logic.

However one also has to think about culturally transitional grammar schemes. These things aren't universally fixed. In English, due to specific historical prescriptive language reforms, if I were to say, 'he is not not here' he would be here (double negative), but in most other languages a double negative is just the emphasis of the original negative that is why in most colloquial dialects of English one can say 'no he ain't here'. Just one little anecdotal example of why using language to get at proto-logic is so very difficult. But it is correct, I would suppose, to consider that every language as it is processed by the brain has a functional negativizer category that fuzzes out at the edges.

Wittgenstein's use of "deep grammar" was in reference to psychological causation of the meaning of surface grammar. It was an attempt to internalize the language process and eject the standard object/referent models. It Also suffers the same problems that Chomsky does, it is a series of transformations that lead nowehere. Except in wittgenstein's case the transformation is due to external forces applied, acquired, then transformed. But it still completely skips the actual mechanism of language. It does not address the actual cognitive process underlying language.

The number i is nice little thought machine. Using just this one number we can rotate the equivalent of pi/2 or 90 degrees per self-multiplication. if positive one is forward one, and negative one is backward one, then i is lateral or better yet spinning one.

1 to the power of infinity is static. -1 to the power of infinity inverts itself. i to the power of infinity rotates between 1, -1, i, and -i.

It's off the o.p., but maybe not that far off.