Thread: Symbols used in Language-based Formula

You probably need to distinguish between "logic" symbols, and "math" symbols.

The "=" symbol is generally considered to be the mathematical symbol for 'equality'

The right handed arrow is generally considered to be the logic symbol for 'implies'

The double headed arrow (arrow pointing left and right ie '<->') is generally considered to be the logic symbol for 'equivalence'

To avoid mixing symbols from different fields I would say "=" is not the right symbol. Maybe the logic symbol '<->' is better.

To some extent I'm not sure what your trying to say is expressible in conventional symbols of logic or maths since these fields represent very 'black and white' concepts. There is no room for shades of grey. For instance I would image it is not a necessary condition for a person experiencing 'negative effect' to also suffer from SPI. So SPI does not imply negative effect it just that there is a tendency for a link to be established between the two.

Anyway what would I know, I'm an engineer. Ask me about beer.

Originally Posted by Ferret

You probably need to distinguish between "logic" symbols, and "math" symbols.

The "=" symbol is generally considered to be the mathematical symbol for 'equality'

The right handed arrow is generally considered to be the logic symbol for 'implies'

The double headed arrow (arrow pointing left and right ie '<->') is generally considered to be the logic symbol for 'equivalence'

To avoid mixing symbols from different fields I would say "=" is not the right symbol. Maybe the logic symbol '<->' is better.

To some extent I'm not sure what your trying to say is expressible in conventional symbols of logic or maths since these fields represent very 'black and white' concepts. There is no room for shades of grey. For instance I would image it is not a necessary condition for a person experiencing 'negative effect' to also suffer from SPI. So SPI does not imply negative effect it just that there is a tendency for a link to be established between the two.

Anyway what would I know, I'm an engineer. Ask me about beer.

Hello Ferret,

Thank you for replying and for the suggested corrections. I am following the lead of one of my dissertation's foundation documents. Kitwood's (1997) book Dementia Reconsidered. Kitwood represents the process of de-constructing an individual's sense of "Personhood" through their experiencing episodes of "Malignant Social Psychology". The process is expressed as a formula. Other formulae appear in Kitwood's book.

I am suggesting that an individual's with Autism's sense of Personhood is hampered by Sensory Processing Issues; this then has the flow on effect of limiting the development of Theory of Mind; which results in Mindblindness - Baron-Cohen's, 1997, book Mindblindness:an Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind.

Therefore, after multiple pages of supporting data from academic sources I am taking the leap into the academic void by presenting the hypothesis in the form of a formula, or two.

Kind Regards
Lionel

Sound interesting.

Most common symbols have been defined to have an unambiguous meaning in the context of 'logic' and 'maths'. I'm not sure your working within that context so I think your going to have to define there meaning whatever you use.

Originally Posted by Ferret

Sound interesting.

Most common symbols have been defined to have an unambiguous meaning in the context of 'logic' and 'maths'. I'm not sure your working within that context so I think your going to have to define there meaning whatever you use.

Hello Ferret,

At least now, with your assistance I am using a uniform set of symbols. It might make it look a wee bit more professional. I have to get it past my supervisory panel first. "Why are you do this Mr Evans?" or even worse the comment "So what?"

Nice aye! This is pipped at the post by the totally derogatory big diagonal line going through the page.

My "formula" has a far from certain future!

Kind Regards
Lionel

Hello Ferret,

The context is derived from a variety of dialectics that was used by a psychologist Professor Tom Kitwood (1997). Kitwood also wrote a paper called the Dialectics of Dementia: With Particular Reference to Alzheimer's (1990). A sample of the dialectics that is attached is an extract from Kitwood, T. (1997). Dementia Reconsidered: The Person Comes First. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. The extract is taken from (pp. 50-51).

I am not sure how well the image will come out? Hopefully the graphic of the dialect process will be legible.

Hmmm I probably should add to my interpretation "Person in State 1 ... Person in State 2 and stay closer to Kitwood's graphical style

In dialectics the concept was originally based off an exchange between two people. The first proposes a "Thesis". The second person responds by presenting a counter claim which forms the "antithesis" The product of the two inputs is the formation of a new "state" described also as the "Synthesis" (Kitwood, 1997, p. 50).

While Kitwood (1997) does not attribute it as such the process he used within the "Dialectics of Dementia" that is adapted from the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte work. Apparently, according to Wikipedia the three part process is mistakenly attributed to another German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.


Hmmm I better revisit that page of my dissertation and chase up a couple of more reliable sources than Wikipedia to confirm the Fichte V Hegel element

See visiting the AULRO forum does improve my studies

P.S. After a quick check though an academic database it suggests that Johann Gottlieb Fichte original concept was later utilised by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Then from there most people just refer back to Hegel and incorrectly associate him as the originator. No wonder Kitwood (1997) did not directly attribute the three parts of the dialectical approach to any single source. I think I too will play it safe and I will follow Kitwood's "discretion is the better part of valour" approach.

BTW my discipline is Cultural Studies and we are notorious bower birds - "oh that bit of theory looks nice and shiny - pinch!"

Kind Regards
Lionel

Originally Posted by Lionelgee

Nice aye! This is pipped at the post by the totally derogatory big diagonal line going through the page.

That's what red pens were invented for.

PhD thesis is it? Mate of mine used to describe it as 'the loniness of the long distance runner'. The finish line is out there somewhere.

Originally Posted by Ferret

That's what red pens were invented for.

PhD thesis is it? Mate of mine used to describe it as 'the loniness of the long distance runner'. The finish line is out there somewhere.

Hello Ferret,

Well that must be the most polite version of an analogy for doing a PhD

Yes that is the three lettered culprit. I see a light at the end of the tunnel. However, I am still not convinced that the light source does not originate from an oncoming train hurtling its way towards me.

Well I had better get back to the tome as apparently it does not complete itself.

Kind Regards
Lionel