# Thread: NiTe grouped together works like an algorithm

1. ## NiTe grouped together works like an algorithm

OK so i kinda had a revelation of sorts in my head today that NiTe grouped together works like an algorithm. so Ni gives u patterns and connections to go by and when applied to the real world with Te it almost makes living in this world relatively easier by looking at it like an equation of sorts. does that make sense?

2. not really.

3. Originally Posted by dee
OK so i kinda had a revelation of sorts in my head today that NiTe grouped together works like an algorithm.

>i suppose

so Ne gives u patterns and connections to go by and when applied to the real world with Ti it almost makes living in this world relatively easier by looking at it like an equation of sorts. does that make sense?

>this way it does.
that makes sense. i think i just worded my thoughts wrong. idk ill clarify what i meant later but im tired. night.

4. ok so Ni is like about seeing underlying processes and be able to predict future behavior based on past behaviors rite? and Te is how the world works logically. So together you can see the world as an equation of sorts. X + Y = Z kind of thing. also, Ni Te seems as if it's very conducive to being a slacker.

5. Originally Posted by dee
equation is Ti. what you're doing here here is Ti.
i no ahhh i can't describe myself.

6. Originally Posted by dee
equation is Ti. what you're doing here here is Ti.
Not necessarily. Equations does not equal Ti, anymore than being healthy equals Si. One might associate equations with Ti...it might help one to picture what Ti is. But I think liveandletlive is using the analogy of an equation to mean something different.

7. Originally Posted by Jonathan
Not necessarily. Equations does not equal Ti, anymore than being healthy equals Si. One might associate equations with Ti...it might help one to picture what Ti is. But I think liveandletlive is using the analogy of an equation to mean something different.
yes, i mean like based on what goes on in the world, how the world works, not necessarily rules, or straight up logic.

8. Originally Posted by dee
i disagree. i think equations are very much Ti as equations are systems (or at least it's components, e.g. system of equations lol).
You don't get Jonathan's point. You are making a category mistake, because is not systems either. (or if you prefer Ti) is the label of a function, whereas systems and equations are something that especially one type with leading -- the LIIs tend to be interested in.

LIIs create and want to implement systems, and many of them are good at mathematics. And in mathematics they are members of the group of mathematicians that belong to the same tradition as Leibniz. They want to prove things formalistically. Newton belongs to another more empiricist tradition.

9. Originally Posted by dee
i disagree. i think equations are very much Ti as equations are systems
Just like every introverted function, again.

because is not systems either.
It is. It's systems that are not exclusively Ti, and Ti that is not exclusively systems, but systems are a part of Ti.

10. Originally Posted by FDG
It is. It's systems that are not exclusively Ti, and Ti that is not exclusively systems, but systems are a part of Ti.
My point was a logical one. Literally speaking Ti is not a system in itself, because it is a function. Or if we want to call Ti a system, every function is a system, strictly speaking -- and maybe that was partly your point.

11. Originally Posted by Phaedrus
My point was a logical one. Literally speaking Ti is not a system in itself, because it is a function. Or if we want to call Ti a system, every function is a system, strictly speaking -- and maybe that was partly your point.
Ah, okay I get what you mean. Systems can be the byproduct of a function but it's incorrect to call the function itself a system.

12. "It is. It's systems that are not exclusively Ti, and Ti that is not exclusively systems, but systems are a part of Ti."

I agree with FDG.

13. I'm gonna parrot what is often said to me: Remember that is dynamic in nature not static. Perhaps you do remember but just in case you don't.

14. Originally Posted by XoX
I'm gonna parrot what is often said to me: Remember that is dynamic in nature not static. Perhaps you do remember but just in case you don't.
Algorithm aren't static either, they must be run.

15. A system that is consistent in a self-contained way is a manifestation of . A simple equation, as in A = 2 x B, is and very little else. In itself, it is static. A is always equal to the double of B. That doesn't change.

Now, if you use that equation in a situation where B itself is continually changing, and you want to check what A is, and you are aware of it and that is your main concern, than it is a focus where is "merely" a tool.

Of course that is not all there is to .

16. Hmm.. back when I used to do maths at college, I remember I always liked general equations (e.g. I dunno.. x = y/z for example, obviously they're not necessarily that simple) because I could then use them to solve any problem of that nature. I wish I could think of a better example right now, but my memory doesn't work so...what was I saying again?

Anyway, is that an example of using or just alone? Or is my example too ambiguous?

EDIT: OK, I just thought up perhaps a slightly better example. One of the equations I learned back in school was calculating the gradient of a line, which is m = (y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1) (heh, I say I learned it yet I had to look it up. Oh well). I would always like having that equation presented to me in an abstract form like that, because once I understood what it meant, I could just easily approach a problem that required knowing the gradient of a line, just plug the coordinates in and voila, I have an answer. The above question remains standing, although the more I think about this I'm thinking it probably is using .. I dunno, I'll wait and see what others say.

17. What you're describing is the use of a system to make simpler. I don't think it means much in terms of functioal use, in itself.

18. Right, I see. So going by the example you posted, highlighting the static/dynamic nature of and respectively, how would that translate into a real life situation exactly? Sorry to keep asking but I seem to be going in circles trying to understand the functions.