Amine Fidah > Recent Status Updates

This strong internal framework of the transitive set (the fact that everything that it presents in the multiple that it is, it represents a second time in the form of inclusion), this equilibrium, this maximal stability, leads me to say that transitive sets are "normal", taking "normal" in the double sense of non-pathological, stable,strongly equilibriated

Membership is an ontological function of presentation, indicating that which is presented in the count-for-one of a multiple. Inclusion is the ontological function of representation, indicating multiples re-counted as parts in the framework of a representation. It is a problem of great importance (the problem of the state of a situation) that is determined by the relation between presentation and representation.

the political, art, and love, are no longer equal to such axioms,and are therefore sidelined.They cling to Presence (art and love), refusing without fail the statement "zero is the proper numeric name of being" in order to give tribute to the obsolete rights of the One.Or(the political)they manage finitude, corroding day by day the statement "the situation is infinite", in order to valorise the authority of necessity

In the poem, the obscure is born of that which, as a breaking open of the signifier,at the limits of language, disseminates the letter. In the pure axiomatic of Peano, the retreat of sense proceeds from the fact that the force of the letter is turned upon itself, and that there is nothing outside, of which it could be the thought

Peano is as one with the idea that the universe of science reaches its apex in the forgetting of being, homogenous with the reabsorption of numericality into the unthought of technical will. Number is truly machinic. This is why it can be maintained that the success of Peano’s axiomatic participates in the great movement that has given up the matheme to modern sophistry, by unbinding it from all ontology

The question, then, is as follows: is there a concept of number capable of
subsuming, in a unique type of being, answering to a uniform procedure, at least the
whole natural numbers, the rational numbers, the real numbers and the ordinal
numbers, finite or infinite? And does it make sense to speak of a number without
knowing how to specify right away to which singular assemblage, irreducible to any
other, it belongs?