In this document I will try illustrating the point with examples.
You are not likely to familiar with this concept as it's experimental.
The left side of the sentence is added as black nodes and the white side is added as .
As a thumb rule, the black nodes are more concrete things while white are more abstract.
You can also think of it as implication, where → .
This means also that → possibly .
For example:
Socrates is man
Socrates is not immortal
This version uses a name for each node.
Nodes with similar connections to other nodes are attracted while different are distracted.
When two nodes are overlapping, they form a "hypothesis".
There is no guarantee that a hypothesis will be made, but if the connections are simple enough, it's probable.
If it forms a false hypothesis, you can put in more information.
The connections keep the structure together.
It is not allowed to connect with or with .
The reason for this is something called "The Chameleon Function" which is an axiom about reality:
[ comparable, not comparable ]2 = reality
nothing is not nothing
The Chameleon Function is the denying of the knowledge of the unknown [1].
For example it does not make sense to write something like this:
I am person
person is valuable
You have to give an example of what makes a person and what makes value.
If you connect them directly, then you can not prove the connection through examples.
Havox does not has axioms that let's you always find the optimal solution.
It uses representations similar in physics (Adinkra diagrams) and physics does not have a goal.
The only underlying structure is the chameleon function, that describes that certain complexities cannot be compared,
and the following consequence that "nothing is not nothing" which violates mainstream ideas for empty sets.
Identity is not absolute, but defined as relations of similarites and differencies.
Each node needs at least one "different" line (dashed) and one "similar" line (solid) to create the lowest state of identity.
Higher order identity is formed by symmetry between structures, not as "sets" containing objects.
This concept makes it possible to rule out situations where "being wrong" is not only confirming to be, but also the absence of information.