"Tim Rhodes" <proftim@speakeasy.org> wrote:
> Memetic Vector Modeling
> The quest for the mathematics of memes
I am impressed -- but this can be extended some much, Tim!
You ask:
>What then, will our intuitions tell us about the nature
>of our new, and as of yet undefined, term RX?
It's clear, after your discussion, exactly what a "meme" is -- a meme is an
entity that increases it's own VX and RX values, thus increasing it's
likely hood of being propagated. The term RX is thus the entire focus of
a study of memes.
But there are oh so many mathematical properties which I think we can use
here -- you've defined sets in a space, but not used the concept of a
BASIS, which I think would amount to "operating axioms".
Additionally, the concept of a "subspace" I think would finally give us a
handle on what a meme-complex is -- a certain subset of I{m} or A{m} which
is *closed*, meaning that the values VX and RX for that set are not
functions of other, external memes; and that any combination of the memes
in the subspace will result in more memes still *inside* that subspace
(combining the ideas of "sin" and "redemption" in Christianity results in
"grace", an idea still in the meme-complex).
Additionally, is it possible to define the functions from these subspaces?
Can we decide whether these functions should/can be linear?
(for instance, is two repetitions of a meme *twice* as good as only one, or
is the scale more logarithmic? Do ideas become more effective if they are
accompanied by the others in their meme-complex such that
fi(meme1) + fi(meme2) not= fi(meme1+meme2)
because the combination is more (or less) effective than the memes by
themselves?
Let me remind you that if we decide meme functions are *not* linear (as I
think we must) the mathematics becomes much uglier...
ERiC