Signed Information Elements and Mathematics

[Olimpia]

That's essentially how I would understand it as well, and how I hypothesized it to work in Model A2 several years ago.

In Model G duals do share the same signs (both are either Process or Result), which may indicate that your dual's version is the one you seek. Unfortunately this also means that Model G excludes the semidual's version completely. This asymmetry/incompleteness is a step backwards from Model A.

How exactly is it incomplete or asymmetrical? I find it makes perfect sense that Semi-Duals do not share the same notations in regards to dual-seeking IEs. It makes sense that the Ni of an ILI would be slightly "different" from the Ni of an IEI.

Or were you hinting at something else?

[Exodus]

How exactly is it incomplete or asymmetrical? I find it makes perfect sense that Semi-Duals do not share the same notations in regards to dual-seeking IEs. It makes sense that the Ni of an ILI would be slightly "different" from the Ni of an IEI.

Or were you hinting at something else?

Think about how it works in Model A. Every type uses Ni, every type uses Ti, etc., they only differ in their relation to the element, which is defined by which function it occupies. This is what "complete" means. Then you can figure out the relations simply by rearranging the functions in a certain way (hence, symmetric).

In a true 16 element model each type has a distinct leading function (so in that sense yes, "ILI's Ni" is different from "IEI's Ni"), yet it doesn't preclude them using the "other version" of the same element. If you simply leave out half the functions you destroy the completeness and symmetry of the model. Or put another way, you haven't characterized how the types use half of their IM faculties.