Day thirty-nine -- PreBabel methodology I -- equivalent transformation.

      From Tienzen Gong: It is to my great surprise that this thread has lasted this long. I must say thank you to all before go on.

      Now, I would like to look back briefly in order to move forward and to give the new readers a quick history of our discussions.

      My claim that the PreBabel is a universal language was discounted with a few lines of critiques.
         1. As the PreBabel (English) is only a cipher, the claim fails.
         2. As the PreBabel root word set is flawed, the claim fails.
         3. As the (dot, stop) = "at" is not 100% intuitive on its mental image, the claim fails.
         4. As the differences among languages are too great, the claim must fail.
         5. etc..

      These are, indeed, all genuine critiques. Thus far, I tried only to make my points more clear without truly addressing these issues. Now, I would like to discuss them from a more fundamental basis, my methodology, epistemology and my metaphysics on these issues.

      "The Equivalent Transformation" is a very important concept in mathematics. For many mathematic questions, they are written as equations. The only way to solve the questions is to get answers for those equations. The general procedure is,
         1. Re-write the original equation(s) into a different and new expression with the Equivalent Transformation. That is, there is no substance change between the two equations.
         2. Place this new equation on a line below the first line (the second line).

      This a) to b) process is called "Equivalent transformation." Then, we repeat this a ---> b procedure many times, until we get the answer.

      This "Equivalent transformation" is so powerful, and it is almost the only procedure to solve all math questions. Although the PreBabel (English) can rightfully be called as a cipher, it is, indeed, an "Equivalent transformation." And, such a transformation is, in general, not done in vain. It can lead to some great consequences, the final solution. For examples:
         1. (dot, stop) = at
         2. (come, stop) = arrive
         3. (transform, stop) = this

      These are ciphers, indeed. Yet, in PreBabel (Proper), (dot, stop) can be "used" as "arrive"; (transform, stop) be used as "at", etc.. These could be seen as the negative points for the PreBabel claim. It is almost un-imaginable that "at, arrive and this" can be synonyms in English.

      Indeed, this kind of homonymy is a big problem for some languages. Yet, it is a very powerful feature in the Chinese written language. In fact, it is the result of a constructed language, especially based on a very small set of root words. As we are going to talk more about the features of the Lii set, the first constructed language, we will understand the dynamics of homonymy soon.

      One major issue in our discussion is about how to determine that a statement is true. This is the subject of epistemology. The statement of "I believe that ..." or "I am quoting from the book, ..." is not a statement of truth. I will describe the epistemology which I know and use in some future posts and am looking forward to read yours. In this way, we can, then, discuss issues on the same platform.

Signature --
PreBabel is the true universal language, it is available at