# was theory of mind now mathematical notion

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/was-theory-of-mind-now-mathematical-notion/15377>\
**Category:** CSG2011\
**Created:** [November 23, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/was-theory-of-mind-now-mathematical-notion/15377 "2011-11-23T22:02:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/was-theory-of-mind-now-mathematical-notion/15377/1 "2011-11-23T22:02:50Z")

</div>

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.24.10.50NZT)

[From Rick Marken  
(2011.11.23.1300)]

> 

> Gavin Ritz  
> (2011.11.23.9.04NZT)

> 

> GR: In  
> fact I love to learn new things, but the language you use makes no sense to me  
> mathematically. The fact that you think a variable is a function is a big  
> problem mathematically but let’s move on.

No let’s not. You are the one saying that I think a variable is a function. I  
have never said such a thing.

What  
I said was “perceptual variables are a function of input variables”.

Well  
here you are saying it,

You  
keep reading that as though all I said was “perceptual variables are a  
function…” which is kind of infuriating, especially since I wrote what I  
meant

Maybe but  
it makes no sense in its statement form. When I asked some colleagues nobody  
could make head or tail of it. Your statement is like saying verbs and nouns  
are the same and interchangeable.

in  
mathematical notation: p=f(s1,s2…sN). Here a variable, p, is some function, f(),  
of the input arguments (which are varables), s1, s2…sN.

The  
function, f(), is not the same as the variable, p.

Correct

And not  
the same as the input variables either.

I’m  
willing to bet that this still makes no sense to you mathematically –

Perfect  
sense.

or  
at least that you will say it doesn’t-- so I’m probably wasting my time.  
But if this really doesn’t make sense to you mathematically then I see no hope  
for us ever communicating in what I consider to be a rational manner.

Your  
statement it not what you are saying here. There are not consistent. A function  
transforms the variables, it’s not variables in itself.

GR

> **···**
>