Ok, here i go.
>Definition: nothing is any bladeless knife with missing handle.
>Definition: a symbol is something, instead of nothing. It is only understood by it's using.
>Definition: A sign is also a symbol.
>Let:
>A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z, the main upper case characters of the latin script.
>Let:
>a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y and z, the main lower case characters of the latin script.
>Together, lower and upper case lead to the next definition:
>Definition: the system of both upper and lower case latins scripts is called the Latin alphabet.
>Note: Is unavoidable the circularity when declaring the latin alphablet? The sigs L, D, e, t, f, i, n, t, o found in "Let" and "Definition" were used in beforehand.
>Note: Can any declaration of the natural numbers using signs be circular, because of the notion of sign already presupponing that of number?
>Definition: concatanation of latin scripts is any juxtaposition of signs in the latin alphabet system.
>Note: Isn't the last definition circular as it consists of words?
>Definition: a word is any concatanation of latin scripts.
>Note: definition of single words leads to the dictionary paradox.
How can one be any formal at all? How can one have systematic understanding of anything? I don't know answers to the notes.
>Definition: nothing is any bladeless knife with missing handle.
>Definition: a symbol is something, instead of nothing. It is only understood by it's using.
>Definition: A sign is also a symbol.
>Let:
>A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z, the main upper case characters of the latin script.
>Let:
>a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y and z, the main lower case characters of the latin script.
>Together, lower and upper case lead to the next definition:
>Definition: the system of both upper and lower case latins scripts is called the Latin alphabet.
>Note: Is unavoidable the circularity when declaring the latin alphablet? The sigs L, D, e, t, f, i, n, t, o found in "Let" and "Definition" were used in beforehand.
>Note: Can any declaration of the natural numbers using signs be circular, because of the notion of sign already presupponing that of number?
>Definition: concatanation of latin scripts is any juxtaposition of signs in the latin alphabet system.
>Note: Isn't the last definition circular as it consists of words?
>Definition: a word is any concatanation of latin scripts.
>Note: definition of single words leads to the dictionary paradox.
How can one be any formal at all? How can one have systematic understanding of anything? I don't know answers to the notes.
