The Laws of Form

This article, originating from an article posted in 1994 to sci.math, is an explication of Spencer Browns Laws of Form.
Few people recognized the true significance of Spencer-Browns work until I fully brought out its most salient features
at that time. Indeed, as is replete throughout the original Laws of Form book, the system is meant to be thought of as a
categorical logic with the distinguishing feature that its arrows are all reversible. Such a structure is otherwise known as
a groupoid. It also has the structure of what is known as a Cartesian category.
However, the categorical logic underlying the Spencer Brown system goes beyond merely a categorification of the
proof theory of Boolean logic. It generalizes to a categorical proof theory for ortholattices; thus, also to Quantum logic.
This serves to complete the analogy (Curry-Howard:Intuitionistic logic) = (???: Ortho-logic).
Hence, the Spencer-Brown system is none other than the extension of the Curry-Howard isomorphism beyond the
realm of Heyting lattices & Intuitionistic logic to ortho-lattices. Moreover, when combined with the extension to
sequential logic outlined in part 3 of Spencer-Brown (which, in commentary on Spencer-Brown, had been almost
universally ignored), the result is a general system applicable to sequential logics based on ortho-lattices. This includes,
as an application, Quantum computation. Also lurking as a potential application is the extension of CAML and the
functional/categorical programming paradigm to ortho-lattices.

1. Introduction

Spencer-Browns calculi are given in parts 1, 2 and 3 of his book, reflecting the 3 stages of evolution of the system
described in Spencer-Brown; all an outgrowth of the philosophical underpinnings laid out in his introduction. The
stages are:
(1) An O(n) reduction calculus for Boolean Arithmetic.
(2) A calculus for Boolean Logic, including a generalization to Quantum Logic.
(3) An infinitary calculus for sequential Boolean Logic: which is equivalent in power to a representation of finite state
machines (FSM).
Commentary and literature on Spencer-Brown seem to completely ignore the final part. Ironically, this includes the
well-known comment made by Conway (beautiful, but content-free) one of the progenitors of an algebraic approach
to regular expressions and finite state machines who completely missed the import of the final part in relation to his
own interests. Since computers are finite state machines, the system in part 3 provides an algebraic system for
representing microprocessors and any other kind of digital system. This, in fact, was the original intent behind the Laws
of Form.
Also missed is the fact that the system is not only a categorical logic but that the system is not specific to Boolean
Algebra at all. Not only are there the extensions provided in part (3) to sequential Boolean logic, but the notation itself
is generic to all lattices with an orthocomplement. In particular, the orthomodular lattices of Quantum Logic can be
represented by relaxing the axiom set used in part 2.
Coupled with the extensions provided in part (3), this also provides the basis for an algebraic representation of abstract
Quantum Machines, corresponding to the Classical Machines: FSM, PDT and TT.
Note 1: Throughout this presentation, Im using a system that is dual to the one given in my earlier explications of
Spencer-Brown. Thus, concatenation denotes conjunction, not disjunction, and the empty word denotes the Boolean 1,
not the 0. This makes the algebra consistent with its interpretation as a monoid.
Note 2: Spencer-Brown mentions in his book a proof of the 4 Color Theorem, achieved by the Laws of Form. By my
best reading of the text, what I assume hes referring to is having found an efficient method for coloring any map
with 4 or fewer colors, using the notation presented in the Laws of Form.
The Map Coloring problem is a special case of the Graph Coloring problem for Planar graphs. Coloring a graph with a
minimum number of colors corresponds to finding the smallest solution set to a system of inequations. This, in turn,
involves heavy use of Boolean Algebra, which is efficiently represented in the Laws of Form notation.

Therefore a method does exist. Whether it is efficient is another issue, though, and whether it can be proven to color
all maps is actually what youre trying to show when proving the 4 Color Theorem, since we already know a method
exists if the theorem is true (namely: the Try All Combinations Until One Works method).
I have full confidence that the seemingly intractable computer-assisted proof can be rendered much more tractable and
maybe even transparent, if translated into the Laws of Form notation, in virtue of the efficiency of the notation. This is
an endeavor that I am committed to carry out, once I get access to the existing proof.

1.1. Background
Why would a computer scientist be interested in the Laws of Form? Well, apart from the obvious fact that it will almost
certainly have relevance (whether the author intended it to or not) because it was generated by someone who was
involved in digital circuit design, the answer is that hidden within it is a functional calculus.
The arithmetical system is a system for carrying out calculations on constant expressions. The algebraic system
presented after that is a more economical notation for boolean calculus in the precise sense that there exists a many-toone correspondence between the two. Third, the notation for infinite expressions is an extension of the language in
which terms are infinitely large. The resulting system is more powerful than Boolean Algebra in direct correspondence
to how complex the infinitary language is taken to be.
So what Im going to do is present the Laws of Form in a more modern setting, hence making it more accessible.
Reference:
Laws of Form, G. Spencer Brown, George Allen and Unwin Ltd. London, 1969, 1971. Julian Press, 1972 Computer
and Science Bookclub Edition, 1972

1.2. Notation
The discussion takes place in the context of a graphical notation, whose properties may be captured by the following
syntax for expressions ( E ):
E ( E ) | EE | 1 .
Here, the last item in the list is the empty string, which we will also denote by 1 . We are dealing with an underlying
monoid with properties x1 x 1x being tacitly assumed, and in which the following rules apply
()() (), (()) 1 .
Also, since the original notation is graphical and in two dimensions, we have the implicit rules
xy yx ,
so that the monoid is Abelian.

2. The Arithmetic System

2.1. Axioms
Reviewing the initial definitions and axioms from Spencer Brown (which we will refer to as SB from here on), we get
the following:
Definition: Distinction is perfect continence.
The underlying system, with the syntax given above, is understood to contain two distinct values, such that ( x) x .
That is, when you enclose a term within brackets it becomes distinct from the term itself.
Axiom
Axiom 1
Axiom 2

Statement
xx x
(( x)) ( x)

Description
The value of a call made again is the value of the call,
The value of a crossing made again is not the value of the crossing.

From this, and the exclusion principle stated in the definition we arrive at the axioms for the arithmetic
Consequence of Axiom 1: ()() ()
Consequence of Axiom 2: (()) () , therefore by exclusion (()) 1 .

In other words, the monoid of expressions (i.e. of objects conforming to the expression syntax given above) consisting
of two distinct values with the properties
( x) x, (( x)) ( x), xx x
is characterized by the axioms
(()) 1, ()() () .

2.2. Functional Algebra

2.2.1. The Arithmetical Initials
Next, were going to characterize this set as a calculus consisting of the following rules, called in SB Arithmetical
Initials
Condense
()() ()
I1 ()() () Number
Conform
() ()()
Cancel
(()) 1
(()) 1
Order
I2
Compensate
1 (())
Again, 1 shall be used to denote the empty space.
The formal system will contain morphisms ( F ), which will have the following syntax
F n | o | FF | F F | F | F 1 | ( F )
to denote, respectively, number, order, composition and conjoining of morphisms, negation, inverse and for
grouping subexpressions contained within the expressions describing morphisms. As a matter of notation, we will use
the following two notations interchangably
f

f : x y x y ,
but will generally denote morphisms in the latter form by labelled arrows.

The following rules will be assumed

n

1x

()() (), (()) 1, x x ,

f

x yz
fg

xz

x y
f 1

w x,

yz

f g

x y

wy xz

( x ) ( y )
yx
This adopts the convention for writing compositions that is opposite that used in Category Theory, corresponding to the
algebraic connotation of the morphisms. These operations are then subject to the algebraic identities
(a) Groupoid Axioms
f

w x y z
,
f ( gh) ( fg )h

x y
,
f 1 y f 1x f

x y
ff

1x ,

f 1y

(b) Inverse (these are derivable)

(f

1 1

f , ( f g ) 1 f

g 1 ,

(c) Composition
f

u v w x y z
x yz
x yz
,
,
,
1
1 1
( fh) ( gk ) ( f g )( h k )
( fg ) g f
fg f g
(d) Identity (these are derivable, as will be seen)
1
1 x 1 x , 1 x 1 y 1 xy , 1 x 1( x ) .
f

These rules are shown to be complete later on, in Corollary 2, in the sense that any morphism x y is uniquely
defined.

We may unambiguously write fgh for compositions and so on. Inverses will also be understood to be more tightly

bound than composition or products, e.g. fg 1 f g 1 , f g 1 f g 1 , and so on. The addition and removal of
brackets is not made explicitly part of the system, however.
Finally, we will generally abbreviate the identity morphism 1 x 1 , treating it as a single polymorphic operation (i.e., a
natural transformation 1 whose components are 1 x ).

2.2.2. The Canons

Now SB lists a series of Canons, which are general principles that define the setting under which the work is being
presented. To understand in what sense the system above is meant to apply, we need to read through the initial set of
canons:
Canon 1. Convention of Intention:
What is not allowed is forbidden.
This is the Canon of minimality in relation to recursively defined closures. In any of the recursive definitions of
systems in this presentation it is understood that the smallest closures of the operations presented is to be taken. The
function algebra above, for instance, may be specified recursively as
f
g
n
o
fg

1x
F ()() (), (()) x x : x E x z : x y, y z F

1
f
g
f
f
f

f g
f
wx yz : w y, x z F y x : x y F ( x ) ( y ) : x y F

The Convention of Intention says to define F as the least fixed point of this set equation and to take this solution to be
the collection of rules. Similarly, the class of expressions will be the least fixed point to the set equation
E {1} {ef : e, f E} {(e) : e E} .

Canon 2. Contraction of Reference

Let injunctions be contracted to any degree in which they can still be followed.
In the systems presented here, we will allow user-defined functions of arbitrary degree of complexity i.e. with
appropriate additions to the syntax, e.g.:
F X F, F | X : F, F
taken in their usual functional programming sense, where X is the class of bound variables. The first item is usually
represented as let x a in b for x a, b ; the second letrec x a in b for x : a, b . We could also define the
operator and extend the calculation system appropriately. The interested reader is welcome to try this.
Canon 3. Convention of Substitution
In any expression, let any arrangement be changed for an equivalent arrangement.
This is what gives us the five rules associated with 1x , fg, f g , f
understood that suitable additions will be made along those lines.

and f . In any system to be presented, it will be

Canon 4. Hypothesis of Simplification

Suppose the value of an arrangement to be the value of a simple expression to which, by taking steps, it can be changed
Canon 5. Expansion of Reference
Let any form of reference be divisible without limit
Together, these Canons state the following:
(4) A rule is understood to refer to all of its instantiations
(5) Rules are bound to instances by pattern unification

Canon 5 is particularly relevant in that 1 is taken to be polymorphic. So the actual type for 1 is determined as the
most general type which is consistent with the context 1 is occurring in. In particular, we will assume that
1

x x for all x E .

2.2.3. Meta Theorems

(Meta)theorems about the system are proven in SB.
Completeness and Consistency
Theorem 1: Form
The form of any finite cardinal number of crosses can be taken as the form of an expression.
In the context of SB this means that every x E has one of the following morphisms
x

x () or x 1 .

Proof:
In fact, we can define x inductively over the syntax
(a)

1 11 , by Canon 5

(b) ( x )

(c) xy

Thus, for instance

x o, x ()
x

x,

x 1

x y n, x () & y ()
x

x y,

x 1 y 1
x

x ()
e

, (()) 1

( x ) (())
xo

( x) 1
with derivations in the other cases that are equally elementary.

Treating () as the boolean value true, this endows ef with the interpretation of the conjunction e f and (e) with
the interpretation of negation e . Under the dual interpretation of () as false, ef becomes the disjunction e f ,
while (e) continues to be interpreted as the negation.
What this all amounts to is stating that there is an O(n) algorithm that converts any expression to normal form. In the
context of boolean algebra, all this states is that reduction of constant boolean expressions is an O(n) process. In fact,
we present this below as an automaton:
Algorithm 1: A processing automaton for Boolean Arithmetic expressions
States: N, M representing, respectively, the unmarked and marked states
Stack symbols: a, b, c
Input symbols: (, )
Start state: N
Final states: N, M
(

Transitions:

aN abN ,
(

bN bbN ,
(

cN cbN , bN M , cN M ,
(

aM acN , bM bcN , cM ccN , bM N , cM M

Example 1: (()())
(

aN abN abbN abM abcN abM aN .

Unmarked
Theorem 2: Content
If any space pervades an empty cross, the value indicated in the space is the marked state, i.e.,
x() () .
Proof:
To derive this amounts to a specification along the lines
x

x 1n, x ()
C ( x)
x
x 1,
x

with the following derivations

x

x (), () ()
x 1

, ()() ()

x() ()()

x 1n

x() ()

x 1, () ()
x 1

x() ()

C ( x)

Thus, x() () .
Theorem 3: Agreement
The simplification of an expression is unique.
In other words: there is no rule of the form () 1 or 1 () .
To prove this, one only needs to split the expression syntax into two mutually exclusive components M , N ,
respectively, for marked and unmarked expressions (mutual exclusion needs to be proven!)
M MM | MN | NM | ( N ), N NN | ( M ) | 1 ,
f

and prove by induction that x y preserves the classfication of the expression. This was the basis of the automaton
just presented.
The unmarked expressions form a submonoid N E . This is what SB is referring to in calling the class M
dominant and N recessive (also to the fact that M s dominate N s in concatenations). Thus the sixth canon and
its relevance:
Canon 6. Rule of Dominance
If an x in a space s shows a dominant value in s , then the value of x is the marked state. Otherwise, the value of x
is the unmarked state.
Theorem 4: Distinction
The value of any expression constructed by taking steps from a given simple expression is distinct from the value of
any expression constructed by taking steps from a different simple expression.
Proof:
In other words, there are no cases where the following occurs:
f

1 x () .

One thing to note in this context, the calculus presented here forms a groupoid with the 1 x morphisms as the identities,
and f f 1 as the inverse. Throughout the book, SB keeps using the double arrows to denote the reversibility of all
his derivations. The groupoid property is what hes getting at.
Thus, Theorem 4 is really just a corollary of Theorem 3.

2.3. Equational System

We can extend the functional algebra to an equational system with the definition
f

x y
.
x y
Note that there is no need, here, to distinguish between single-step and multiple-step reductions, as is typical of a
reduction system, since our system is already closed under both inverses and composition. Therefore, this definition
serves as an equivalence relation. This leads to the following theorems:

Theorems of Procedure
Theorem 5: Identity

xx.

Proof:
1x

This is in virtue of the identity morphisms x x . This is the reflexivity property.

Theorem 6: Value
if x y & y e {1, ()} then x e .
Proof:
f

f y

In particular, suppose x y e . Then x e .

Finally, we can prove that the equality relation is an equivalence by the following theorem
Theorem 7: Consequence

If x z y then x y .

Proof:
f

fg 1

If x z y , then x y . From this, the symmetry and transitivity properties follow, as special cases.
These theorems lead to the following results which not only establish functional completeness but provide a normal
form for every morphism.
Corollary 1:
x y

x y iff x y is defined.

Corrollary 2: Functional Completeness

f

If x y then f g .
g

Proof:
f

We only need to show that if x y then f x y

of f with the following cases:
n

Case ()() ()

, by Corollary 1. This is done inductively over the construction

We have ()() ()

1() 1() n1()

1()() n1() n .

Case (()) 1
Here, we have (()) 1

1() o1()

1() o1() o .

1x

Case x x
Here, x x

x y

1x .

y z

Case x y z .
x y

Then x

y z

x y

z , and we find that x y

y z

x 1y z

x z

Case x y .
1
x y 1

Then, y

w x

x with
1

x
y z

1 1

1 1

y x

Case w x and y z .
w x

Then, wy

y z

xz with
w x

y z

w y

w y x z

If wx, yz are both marked, we have

wy xz
w y o x z o w y oo 1 x z
Otherwise, if they are both unmarked, then
1

wy xz

In both cases, we get w x

x y

y z

wy xz

w y

x z

w y

x z

Case -- x y
x y

Here, ( x ) ( y ) , with x y

( x) ( y )

x y
1

x y

xn yn

. This time, if x, y are both marked then

x nn 1 y

x 1()() y

x y

If they are unmarked, then

( x) ( y )

Thus in both cases, x y

( x) ( y )

x y

Corollary 3: The rules for the identity morphisms:

1
1 x 1 x , 1 x 1 y 1 xy , 1 x 1( x ) .
11

It also follows from this that we need only define the identity morphism 1 1 at the outset. The others may be derived.
f

Corollary 4: If x y then f x y .

2.4. Algebraic Properties

The final two properties are important in that they also form the basis of the algebraic system. I kept the original
wording in from SB to give you a flavor of his language:

Theorems of Connexion
Theorem 8: Invariance
If successive spaces s n , s n 1 , s n 2 are distinguished by two crosses, and s n 1 pervades an expression identical with the
whole expression in s n 2 , then the value of the resultant expression in s n is the unmarked state.
Proof:
In other words, for all x E , there exists a morphism p x : (( x) x) 1 . In fact, we can define it as follows

x x o 1 () o, x ()
px
x

x x o,
x 1

with the following derivations. If x is marked, then

x : x ()
, x : x ()
o : (()) 1, 1 () : () ()
x : ( x ) (())
,
o 1 () : (())() ()
x x : ( x ) x (())()

x x o 1

leading to the derivation

()

: ( x) x ()

x x o 1 : ( x)x () , o : (()) 1
x x o 1 : (( x)x) (())
.
x x o 1 o : (( x)x) 1
()

()

()

If x is unmarked, then
x : x 1
x : ( x ) ()

x : x 1

x x : ( x ) x ()

leading to the derivation

x x : ( x ) x ()

, o : (()) 1

x x : (( x)x) (())
x x o : (( x)x) 1

Theorem 9: Variance
If successive spaces s n , s n 1 , s n 2 are arranged so that s n , s n 1 are distinguished by one cross, and s n 1 , s n 2 are
distinguished by two crosses ( s n 2 being thus in two divisions), then the whole expression z s n is equivalent to an
expression, similar in other respects to z , in which an identical expression has been taken out of each division of s n 2
and put into s n ,
i.e., (( xz )( yz )) (( x)( y )) z .
Proof:
Define t xyz : (( xz )( yz )) (( x)( y )) z in terms of x , y , z . Consider the two possible cases, depending on whether
z is marked or not. This uses the constructions presented in Theorems 1, 2, 5, 6, 7.
If z is marked, then the following derivation will apply
1 x : x x, z : z ()
1 x z : xz x()

, C ( x) : x() ()

z C ( x) : xz ()

Consequently, 1 x z C ( x)o : ( xz ) 1 . A similar derivation applies to y . Combining these, we obtain

1 z C(x)o 1
x

On the right hand side, we obtain

1 (( x )( y )) : (( x )( y )) (( x )( y )),

z C ( y)o : ( xz )( yz ) () .

z : z ()

1 (( x )( y )) z : (( x )( y )) z (( x )( y ))()

Thus,

1 z C(x)o 1
x

(( x )( y ))

, C ((( x )( y ))) : (( x )( y ))() ()

z C ((( x )( y ))) : (( x )( y )) z ()

z C ( y)o 1(( x )( y )) z C ((( x)( y )))

If z is unmarked, then the derivation is simpler,

1 x : x x,

z : z 1

1 x z : xz x

: ( xz )( yz ) (( x)( y )) z .

From this, we obtain 1 x z : ( xz ) ( x) , with a similar result for y , thus leading to

1 x z 1 y z : (( xz )( yz )) (( x)( y )) .

On the right-hand side, we obtain

1 (( x )( y )) : (( x )( y )) (( x )( y )),

z : z 1

1 (( x )( y )) z : (( x )( y )) z (( x )( y ))

Combining these results, we get

1 x z 1 y z 1(( x )( y )) z

: (( xz )( yz )) ( x)( y )) z .

As an added note, as mentioned before, since SBs notation uses circles, and crosses. Corresponding to (x ) , he
writes either of the following two forms

his notation is inherently commutative. In other words, there is the implicit property:
Theorem 10: For all x, y E , there is a morphism, c xy : xy yx .
Proof:
Here, the resolution is simple: we have

x y y x

: xy yx .

Programming Exercise 1:
Design a reduction system that:
(1) captures the rules presented above,
(2) allows users to define new morphisms, with the syntax mentioned previously.
(3) displays the rule f : x y given the morphism f , using unification to resolve all occurrences of the identity
morphism 1 x : x x .
(4) constructs a morphism, f : x y , given a valid reduction pattern x y .
(5) uses the categorical rules to prove the equality of any two morphisms from f , g : x y .

3. The Algebraic System

3.1. Axioms
This time, we start afresh. The expression syntax is extended to allow for the inclusion of free variables ( X )
E ( E ) | EE | X | .

The syntax for variables is arbitrary, subject to the constraint that there be an unlimited supply of expressions for
denoting distinct variables. In most cases below, Ill just use single letters to denote variables.
SB goes on to say to the effect, let Theorems 8,9 be taken out of context and taken to be fundamental properties, i.e.,
well abstract the previous system by taking its most important properties, including Theorems 8,9 and in light of the
discussion closing the previous section Theorem 10.
The axioms are thus taken to be the following
Axiom
Name
Position
Initial 1
Transposition
Initial 2
Initial 3 Commutativity
The last initial is my addition.

Property
(( x) x) 1
(( xz )( yz )) (( x)( y )) z
xy yx

Throughout, SB uses the double arrows, relating once again to the nature of the system as a groupoid.
The following rules are also stated:
Substitution: if x y , then for any algebraic expression e , e( x) e( y) .
Replacement: if e, f are algebraic expressions and e( x) f ( x) for a variable x , then e(t ) f (t ) for any term t .
SB links Replacement to Theorem 5, and the Theorems of connexion presented in the last section, though I dont quite
understand what hes getting at here. Its really just an adjunct to SBs Canon 3.

3.2. Calculation System

So in light of the discussion above, we can define the following algebraic system with similar syntax as presented in the
last section.
F p | t | c | 1 | FF | F F | F | F 1 | ( F ) ,
respectively, for position, transposition, commutativity, composition, conjunction, negation, inverse and for grouping.
The following rules then define the groupoid:
p

(( x) x) 1, (( xz )( yz )) (( x)( y )) z, xy yx, x x ,
f

x yz
fg

xz

x y
f 1

w x,
f g

yz

x y
f

wy xz
( x ) ( y )
yx
Its here that Canons 4, 5 become most relevant. The discussion from the previous section is restated here for
convenience:

Canon 4. Hypothesis of Simplification

Suppose the value of an arrangement to be the value of a simple expression to which, by taking steps, it can be changed
Canon 5. Expansion of Reference
Let any form of reference be divisible without limit
This time all the primary morphisms are polymorphic and are bound by pattern unification. With the indexing, they
become:
p x : (( x) x) 1, t xyz : (( xz )( yz )) (( x)( y)) z, c zy : xy yx, 1 x : x x .
Note also that we could directly incorporate c into the system by replacing the f x g rule by
f : w x, g : y z
f * g : wy zx
and we would have:
f * g c f g , f g f * g 1 z *1 x , c xy 1 x *1 y .

We impose the same set of categorical identities as before: (a) Groupoid Axioms, (b) Inverse, (c) Composition and (d)
Identity. Again, they will turn out to be complete in the sense that any morphism from x y is uniquely defined. This
is done when we get to the Conjunctive Normal Form Theorem.

3.3. Consequences
Again, a set of (meta)theorems, called Consequences by SB, are proven.
Consequence 1: Reflexion
There exists an o x : (( x)) x . (Spencer-Brown uses the name RX for this morphism).
The proof presented in SB (rendered in notation) was
(( x )) v (( u )u )v (( u )( x ))v
p 1
(( vu )( vx )) ((( u )u )w) t 1 , c
( w)
p
( w(( x ) x )) (( vx )( ux )) p 1
(( v )( u )) x (( v )v ) x
t
x
p
where
u ( x), v (u ) (( x)), w (vx ) ((u ) x) ((( x)) x) .
Note the implicit use of commutativity here. In more detail this proof can be presented as follows
p11

t 1 cc

p1

1p

p1

v ((u )u )v ((u )( x))v (( vu )( vx )) ((( u )u )w) ( w) ( w(( x) x)) (( vx )(ux)) (( v)(u )) x (( v)v) x x

Thus, we can write

o p 1 t 1 c cp 11 p tp 1 tp 1 c c p 11 p tp 1 ,
1

which is a similarity transformation of c c p 11 p .

1

We may prove that the most general unifier for this polymorphic operation is as indicated in the Reflexion property.
First, we have the following as the most general unifier of tp 1 :
p : (( x ) x ) 1, 1 : y y
t : (( xy )( zy )) (( x )( z )) y,
, x ( z )
p 1 : (( x ) x ) y y
.
t p 1 : ((( z ) y )( zy )) y

For the operation c c p 11 p , we obtain the following as the most general unifier
c : xy yx
c : vu uv
1 : z z, p : ( w( w)) 1
,
u (v )
p : (( v )v ) 1, 1 : z z
c : (vu ) (uv ) c : ( xy ) ( yx )
1 p : z(( w)w) z
,
,
,

1
p 1 : (( v )v ) z z
1 p : z z(( w)w)
c c : (vu )( xy ) (uv )( yx )
z ( yx )
1
c c p 11 p : (v(v ))( xy ) ( yx )(( w)w)
Combining these results, we obtain the following as the most general unifier for the polymorphic operator o :
1

cc p11p 1

t p1

((( x ) y )( xy )) y
t p1

((( x ) y )( xy ))

(v(v ))( xy )

( yx )(( w)w)

cc p11p

(( v(v ))( xy ))

(( yx )(( w)w))

t p1
v ( x ),
, (( z ) x )( zx)) x,
w x,

tp 11 c cp 11 p 1 tp 1 : (( x)) x

Consequence 2: Generation GN : ( xy ) y ( x) y
This is given by the following sequence

y (v ) (( x )),

z ( w) ( x )

oo 1

xy (( x ))(( y ))
oo

t 1

, (( v )( w)) z (( vz )( wz )),

1p

u(( z ) z ) u
1p

(u(( z ) z )) (u )

( xy ) z ((( x ))(( y ))) z

u (vz ) (( x ) y ), z y,
,

v ( x ),
w ( y )

o o 1 t 1 1 p : ( xy ) y ((( x ) y ))

Note how, following SBs suggestion to the letter, were using a piece of the first derivation here. Going on, we have
o o 1 1 t 1 1 p : ( xy ) y ((( x ) y )), o : (( z )) z, z ( x ) y

.
o o 1 1 t 1 1 po : ( xy ) y ( x ) y

Thus
1
1
GN o o 1t 1 1 po t o o 1 1 po ,

where the last step employs some of the algebraic identities postulated at the outset.
1

The following are other Consequences listed be Spencer-Brown. Their derivations are left to the reader.
IN : () x ()
Consequence 3 Integration
OC: (( x) y ) x x
Consequence 4 Occultation
Consequence 5 Iteration
n x : xx x (Called IT by Spencer-Brown)
EX : (( x)( y))(( x) y) x
Consequence 6 Extension
EC : ((( x) y) z ) ( xz )(( y) z )
Consequence 7 Echelon
Consequence 8 Modified Transposition
t 1 : (( w)( xz )( yz )) (( w)( x)( y))(( w)( z ))
Consequence 9 Crosstransposition
t 2 : ((( w)( z ))(( v)( z ))(( x) z )(( y ) z )) (( z )vw)( zxy )
Later on, SB goes on to explain that In classifying these consequences, there is no need to confine them rigidly to the
forms above. The name of a consequence may indicate part of the consequence as in
( x) x () : Integration.
... what we are doing is indicating a larger and larger number of steps in a single derivation ... we shed the labour of
calculation by taking a number of steps as one step.
What hes getting at here (and the ultimate reason I adopted the approach of the last two sections) is that each
consequence is really standing for the entire derivation string and each of its components, and that they are userdefinable. The equation ( x) x () appears in a derivation to Consequence 3. SB also gets into a discussion of the
groupoid property in relation to the steps carried out in derivations, though he doesnt use the idea of groupoids
explicitly.

3.4. Second Order Theorems

These theorems relate to families of derivations, rather than just single ones, so that they are effectively parametrized
Theorem 10:
Theorem 11:
Theorem 12:
Theorem 13:

t(n) : (( x1 ) ( x n )) y (( x1 y) ( x n y )) , for all n 0

t 1 (n) : (( x)( y1 z ) ( y n z )) (( x)( y1 ) ( y n ))(( x)( z )) , for all n 0
t 2 (m, n) : ((( x m )( z )) (( x1 )( z ))(( y1 ) z ) (( y n ) z )) (( z ) x1 x m )( zy1 y n ) , for all m, n 0
GN(n) : ((( x n ) x 2 ) x1 ) y ((( x n y) x 2 ) x1 ) y , for all n 0

Again, the derivations of these will be left to the reader.

The next two theorems relate to canonical forms
Theorem 14: Canon with respect to the constant
For any x E , there exists a canonical form morphism x : x x such that x is no more 2 crosses deep. For
instance, ( x( y( z ))) is 2 crosses deep at y , and 3 crosses deep at z , so can be reduced. Consequence 7 is applied

repeatedly to effect the transformation. This is the Conjunctive Normal Form Theorem of Boolean Algebra. In fact, the
boolean conjunctive normal form (CNF) expression:
a1 a m b1 bn z1 z p
when translated into the Laws of Form notation will become
(( a1 ) (a m ))(( b1 ) (bn )) (( z1 ) ( z p ))

where each of the a s, b s, ..., z s is either x or (x ) for some variable x X .

Therefore, I will provide my own inductive proof to this theorem.
Proof:
We only need to show that CNFs are closed under negation, since the only two operations are concatenation (which
CNFs are trivially closed under) and negation. Suppose the expression is (( a) ( z ))( A) ( Z ) . Then its negation is
given by
((( a) ( z ))( A) ( Z ))
((( a( A) ( Z )) ( z( A) ( Z )))) , by Theorem10
(a( A) ( Z )) ( z( A) ( Z )) , by Consequence 1
A similar reduction is then performed on ( A) , and so on through (Z ) . In the simplest (non-trivial) case, where there is
only one conjunct, we have
((( a) ( z ))) (a) ( z ) , by Consequence 1
so that reduction is immediate, and the inductive proof is thereby completed.
The task of converting the negation of a conjunctive normal form to conjunctive normal form is the paragon of the
entire NP-complete paradigm. If there is an efficient transformation, then P = NP; otherwise P < NP.
Theorem 15: Canon with respect to the variable
From any given expression, an equivalent expression can be derived so as to contain not more than two appearances of
any given variable.
This involves a repeated use of Theorem 14, and the morphisms o, t . The proofs of these theorems will also be left to
the reader.

3.5. Relation to the Arithmetic System

SB goes on to state two more Canons and a couple more, fairly powerful, theorems:
Canon 7. Principle of Relevance
If a property is common to every indication it need not be indicated.
In the context of these deliberations this means that if we have an algebraic system which includes a monoid, we can
define a notation and syntax under which the monoid identity is represented as the empty string, without losing logical
consistency. This also has the effect of converting the algebraic system into the notation for a class of formal
languages.
More generally, the principle is this:
Principle Of Harmless Ambiguity:
Ambiguity in the language underlying a theory may be used to directly incorporate some of the theorys axioms so as to
eliminate the need to explicitly state or use the axioms, themselves.
This stands at the complete antithesis of the principle of unique readibility which requires terms in the underlying
formal language to be unambiguous. But unique readibility is not an essential requirement of mathematical logic or
model theory. One can extend model theory to ambiguous languages by simply interpreting the ambiguous readings of
a term as implicit equations stated by the theory in an axiom-free manner.

Theorem 16: The Bridge

Given two expressions e( x), f ( x) , depending possibly on a variable, x , if there are morphisms
p1 : e(1) f (1), p() : e(()) f (())
then a morphism,
x ? p1 : p() : e( x) f ( x)
can be defined. Related to this is
Canon 8. Principle of Transmission
With regard to an oscillation in the value of a variable, the space outside the variable is either transparent or opaque.
In other words, given an expression e(x) , depending on variable x , either e will be constant with respect to x or it
will not. The extra stuff about oscillation is related to something well get into in the next section.

3.6. Completeness and Independence

The following are stated without proof. You might want to consult SB for details.
Theorem 17: Completeness
Any theorem in the Arithmetic system can be derived as an instantiation of a rule in the Algebraic system.
Theorem 18: Independence
The initial morphisms p, t (and c ) are independent. SB proves independence for p, t . This should also hold for c , as
well.
Consistency with respect to the Arithmetic system does not need to be proven since this system was built on the
premise of Consistency, by taking Theorems 8, 9, 10 of the previous section as the postulates here.

3.7. Relation to Boolean Algebra

Given the following syntax for boolean expressions ( B ):
B B | B B | B B | ( B) | X | 0 | 1
we can define the following map, B : B E :
B a (Ba ), Ba b Ba B(b), Ba b ((B a )(B b)), B(a) Ba , Bx x, B0 (), B1 1 ,
~
and the dual map B : B E
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
B a (Ba ), Ba b ((Ba )(B(b))), Ba b Ba Bb, B(a) Ba , Bx x, B0 1, B1 () ,
where x X is a variable.

f
~
~
Theorem: Let a, b B . Then a b iff there exists morphisms B(a) B(b) and B(a) B(b) .

The translations are many-to-one. For instance,

~
~ ~
~
~
~
B(a 0) B(a)B(0) B(a), B a b (B a B b ) ((Ba )(Bb)) Ba b .

In this sense, the Laws of Form provides a superior notation for Boolean Algebra: part of the semantics of Boolean
algebra (that is: a subset of its identities) are now pulled back to the syntatic level.

3.8. Relation to Orthocomplemented Lattices and Quantum Logic

An issue that I thought of is whether a similar axiom set can be derived for orthomodular lattices in virtue of direct
incorporation of the orthocomplement in the Laws of Form notation. The distributivity property, (( xz )( yz )) (( x)( y )) z
would have to go, unfortunately. These axioms, in fact, should suffice to handle orthocomplemented lattices
Number xx x ,
Commutativity xy yx ,
Order (( x)) x ,

Position (( x) x) 1 ,
Ortho ( xy )( y ) ( y ) .
Though they are not all necessary independent. To handle orthomodular lattices requires a similar representation of the
modularity property.
Theorem: With the axioms just cited above, the set of expressions in the current syntax form an orthocomplemented
lattice with
x y xy x ,
() x 1 ,
as
(x )
x s complement.
Proof:
The associativity property with respect to concatenation and the identity property are built directly into the syntax,
since expressions form a free monoid there under word concatenation. Therefore, the only remaining semi-lattice
properties to prove are pp p and pq qp , both of which were imposed as axioms. Thus, we have a lower semilattice with top element 1 and with concatenation as the lattice meet.
To show that x (x) is the lattice orthocomplement, we need to verify the properties
x y ( y ) ( x), (( x)) x, ( x) x () .
For the first property, assume that x y . Then xy x and
( y)( x) ( y)( xy ) ( xy )( y) ( y) , by the Ortho axiom.
The second property is just the Order axiom, and the third property comes from the Position axiom since
( x) x (( ( x) x )) ( (( x) x) ) () .
A similar question might be asked with respect to other non-classical logics, such as the Intuitionistic logic. However,
the answer would appear to be a simple no there, since here the orthocomplement is directly built into the notation,
whereas there, there is no orthocomplement. To add one to an Intuitionist logic is to turn the logic into a Boolean logic,
which weve already covered.
However, there are already older categorical formulations of the Intuitionistic logic that date from long before SpencerBrown, essentially all the way back to Curry. Therefore, the Spencer-Brown development may be seen as the
counterpart of this development for orthocomplemented lattices.
Programming Exercise 2:
Design a reduction system similar to the programming exercise of the previous section that
1) captures the rules presented above,
2) allows users to define their own morphisms,
f

3) displays the rule x y given the morphism f ,

4) constructs a morphism, f , given a valid reduction pattern x y .
Item 4 amounts to coming up with an algorithm for an NP-complete problem.

4. The Extended System

4.1. Finiteness and Infinite Expressions
The systems discussed in the preceding sections involved finite expressions (which was forced on us by Canon 3 and
the least fixed point idea). Thus effectively, weve been observing the rule which SB calls
Canon 9. Rule of Demonstration
A demonstration rests in a finite number of steps.
One can prove that

(( x) y) (((( x) y) x) y) (((((( x) y) x) y) x) y)
potentially leading to an infinite derivation of the infinite expression

(( x) y) (((((( x) y) x) y) x) y) .
However, an examination of the possibilities leads to the discovery that this expression above is indeterminate when
x 1 y .

Syntatically, this expression is an infinite expression but one with only a finite number of non-isomorphic
subexpressions. In fact, calling the expression z , the only subexpressions are
x, y, ( z ), ( z ) x, (( z ) x), (( z ) x) y, z ((( z ) x) y) .
An infinite expression with a finite number of subexpressions is called rational (c.f. Colmerauers presentation of
Prolog-2). Therefore, such an expression can always be presented as a finite number of purely syntatic relations
between its subexpressions. In this case, one relation suffices
z ((( z ) x) y ) .
SB attempts to give a temporal interpretation to rational expressions, essentially viewing them as specifications of
sequential boolean circuits. For instance, the rational expression specified by either of the following two relations
x (x) ,
or
x (( x))
is interpreted as an alternating 1 () . The other expression given above is essentially a Flip-Flop circuit element.
Programming Exercise 3: Colmerauer Unification
Devise an extension of the Unification algorithm which when given two systems of relations representing rational
expression, x, y will find their least common unifier (i.e. determine when one exists).

4.2. Interpretations
The axioms for an ortho-lattice are too strong to admit fixed-point closures. This is also the case for Boolean algebras,
which are a special case of ortho-lattices. This result is seen directly by the previous example. A solution to the
equation x (x) , within the axioms of an ortho-lattice, satisfies the identity
x xx x( x) (( x( x))) () .
From this, it follows that
() x ( x) (()) 1 .
From this equation, we obtain the general result (using Ortho), y y1 y() (( y))() (( y)1)(1) (1) () 1 , for any
other expression y . Commutativity was not used or required in any of this. Therefore, a consistent interpretation for
rational expressions must relax at least one of the other four axioms: Number, Order, Position or Ortho. Moreover,
the real problem started as soon as we found () 1 . The only axioms used up to that point were Order and Position.
Spencer-Brown uses a fancy diagrammatic notation to represent rational expressions. For instance, the rational
expression given by the system of relations
f (( gh)i ), g (hj ), h (ia), i (( jk ) f ), j (kg ), k ( fa)
is represented by the circuit

The most general interpretation of this example is

f ( F (t , t , t )) (( g (t )h(t ))i(t )), g (G(t , t )) ( h(t ) j (t )), h( H (t , t )) (i(t )a(t )),
i( I (t , t , t )) (( j (t )k (t )) f (t )), j ( J (t , t )) ( k (t ) g (t )), k ( K (t , t )) ( f (t )a(t )),

where t , t G(t , t ), H (t , t ), J (t , t ), K (t , t ) and t , t , t F (t , t , t ), I (t , t , t ) . For the previous example,

the most general interpretation is

x( X (t )) ( x(t ))
where t X (t ) .
One might then talk about two interpretations as being isomorphic if one can be mapped to the other by a
transformation of t (t ) such that is strictly increasing. Its not hard to verify that such functions are closed under
composition and inverses and include the identity function so result in an equivalence relation. Each rational formula
will then map onto one or more isomorphism classes. There may be some kind of uniqueness theorem lurking beneath
all of this. For instance, the most general piecewise continuous solution to x( X (t )) ( x(t )) will be

x(t ) (sin((t ))) () ( sin((t )))1

for a strictly increasing function (t ) , such that X ((t ))(t ) 0 . The piecewise continuous function (x) is given by
1 ( x 0)
( x)
,
0 ( x 0)
This is nothing more than a periodic waveform corresponding to the alternation 1 () , stretched out or contracted by
the function (t ) .

Uniqueness theorem or no; in any case, with the proper formulation what youre going to get is a notation for
sequential circuits with a Canonical Form Theorem like the following:
Every rational expression can be represented as a system of the form
(Q(t t), Y(t t)) (Q(t ), X(t ))
where
Q(t ) (q 1 (t ), , q m (t )), X(t ) ( x1 (t ), , x n (t )), Y(t ) ( y 1 (t ), , y p (t ))
for some m, n, p 0 , where : 2 m n 2 m p is a Boolean function. This is nothing more than the prescription for a
finite state Boolean processor.

4.3. Normal Forms and Reduction Sequences

Another unresolved problem relates to the interaction between rational expressions and the axiom system presented in
the previous section. Two issues of importance come up
(a) What restrictions (if any) are required on the axiom set to exclude a functor of the form f : () 1 ?
(b) Is there a characterization of the rational normal forms, or more generally of derivation sequences (its
possible that some may cycle endlessly or chaotically)
Note that with rational expressions 1 and () are no longer the only results of the reduction process. For instance the
rational expression
x (x)
has an infinite reduction sequence via o x : x (( x)) x .
Since rational expressions are all denumerable, one could always find a way to select out an expression from an infinite
cyclic reduction sequence to call normal form. But the question still remains, will all such sequences cycle or have
we touched upon the Halting Problem in disguise?

5. Bibliography
5.1. History

This reference list is derived from the 3rd edition of Laws of Form and George Spencer-Brown references originally by
Dave Keenan from sci.logic on 1994 April 26 18:16. It had evolved from a list originating 1991 December 7 in
sci.logic and sci.math; with the 2nd edition on 1992 April 24 being e-mail only to Lou Kauffman and Lee Odegard and
(possibly) others, relayed from there.
By 1994 (as per an observation made by Steve Parker from sci.logic on 1994 March 11 03:03), the Electronic and
Engineering Times was running a series of articles on the applications of the laws of form, with the Laws of Form being
slated for republication by Tarati Press.
The references in the 3rd edition were compiled also with the aid of contributions from Dick Shoup, Tim Peters, Randall
Whitaker, Kevin Sahr, William Bricken, Cliff Joslyn, Lou Kauffman, Jorn Barger, Nancy (Whole Earth Review) and
the Sciences Citation Index.
Keenan states Francisco Varelas Principles of Biological Autonomy (1979) as probably the most useful citation in the
list. Lou Kauffman has the highest frequency in the list and is also known for his books on knot theory. William
Bricken is also cited frequently below.
Spencer-Brown may appear in citations (such as the Sciences Citation Index) as Brown, G.S., Spenser-Brown, G.,
Keys, J. or Spencer-Brown, G..

5.2. Books by Spencer-Brown

All are out of print except possibly by Spencer-Brown & Co. (publishing),
London, phone 44-71-624-2358 or 44-836-313122. James Keys is a pseudonym.
Spencer-Brown, George (1957) Probability and Scientific Inference, Longmans, London.
Spencer-Brown, G. (1969) Laws of Form, George Allen and Unwin, London.
Spencer-Brown, G. (1972) Laws of Form, Julian Press and Bantam (paperback), New York.
A second preface was added relating to ordinary imaginary numbers and the elimination of the Whitehead
Russell Theory of Types. 4 pages.
Keys, James (1970) Twenty-three Degrees of Paradise. (poetry).
Keys, James (1971-4) Only Two Can Play This Game, Bantam (Ballantine?), New York.
love poetry plus scientific mysticism, said to complement Laws of Form, but even more obscure and out of
print
Spencer-Brown, G. (1979) Laws of Form, E.P.Dutton (paperback), New York.
A third preface was added relating to the four colour map theorem. 2 pages.
?(1982) The Falkland Papers.

5.3. Books

Brand, Stewart (1981) Review: Laws of Form. In: The Next Whole Earth Catalog, p31, Doubleday ?, New
York.
contents: This epochal book has spawned whole disciplines, vast and surly arguments, and not a little
mystical endeavor. Not bad for a rudimentary arithmetic book. In the beginning God said, Draw a
distinction. The primordial creative act. You can take it from there. [publishing and availability info] [5
extracts of 2 to 4 paragraphs each from Laws of Form]
Calvino, Italo (1976) A sign in space. In: Cosmicomics, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. pp31-39.
Profound fiction. Does not cite Spencer-Brown but is strongly related
Kauffman, Louis H. (1987) On Knots, Princeton University Press. (chapter VI, sections 4, 5, 8).
Kauffman, L.H. (1991) Knots and physics, Singapore; Teaneck, NJ: World Scientific.
Peat, F. David (1987) Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind, Bantam Books. pp198-206.
A fairly basic description plagued by the all too common typos where blanks, and in this case their preceding
equals signs, get lost.
Rolt, C.E. (1920) Dionysius the Areopagite on the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology.
Spencer-Brown appears to have been influenced by this book based on a translation from 5th century Greek
Russell, Bertrand (1967-69) The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell 1944-1967 (Volume III), George Allen
and Unwin Ltd, London, p166.
Varela, Francisco J. (1979) Principles of Biological Autonomy, Elsevier North Holland, New York.

In case you can't get hold of Laws of Form, chapter 11 and appendix B of this book are the next best thing.
Chapters 12 and 13 extend Spencer-Brown's work. This book includes material from the following papers:
Varela (1975), Varela & Goguen (1978), Varela (1979), Kauffman & Varela (1980))
von Foerster, Heinz (1972) Review: Laws of Form. In: The Whole Earth Catalog, p12, Random House, New
York.
Watts, Alan (1975 (posthumous)) Tao: The Watercourse Way, Penguin, London.
Only cites Laws of Form in passing on page 45: The chaos of hsan is the nature of the world before any
distinctions have been marked out and named, the wiggly Rorschach blot of nature. But as soon as even one
distinction has been made, as between yin and yang or 0 and 1, all that we call the laws or principles of
mathematics, physics and biology follow of necessity, as has recently been demonstrated in the calculus
system of G. Spencer Brown.
Parsons, Denys (19??) Directory of Tunes and Musical Themes. Spencer-Brown & Co. (publishing), London.
Each tune is identified by a string of U, D, R, representing movement Up, Down, or Repeat from the last note!
Amazingly, this works uniquely in 15, often fewer, notes. The book is divided into two parts, classical themes
and popular melodies.

5.4. Journal Articles

? (1957,58?) Book Review: Probability and Scientific Inference. Scientific American ???:???.
Andrew, Alex M. (1979) A Comment on Varela's Calculus for Self-Reference (Letter to the editor).
International Journal of General Systems, 5:57-59.
Asenjo, F. G. (1966) A Calculus of Antinomies. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 7(1):103-105.
Banaschewski, B. (1977) On G. Spencer Brown's Laws of Form. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic,
18(3):507-509, 1977.
Beer, Stafford (197?) Book Review: Laws of Form. Nature ???:???.
An extract appears on the back cover of LoF (1979). A wrong reference was supplied as Nature 215:312
(1971)
Comfort, Alex (1981) Comments on Kauffman and Varela's Form dynamics. Journal of Social and
Biological Structures, 4:91-96.
includes a rejoinder from Kauffman and Varela
Comfort, A. (1989) A Bridge to Twenty-First Century Science. The Lancet 2(8678):1512-1513.
Mostly a review of Penrose, R (1989) The Emperor's New Mind. Only cites Laws of Form in passing: "True,
but it [the anthropic principle or Pangloss's theorem] fails to answer Spencer Brown's fundamental question:
how is it that the universe has aquired the capacity to be aware of itself?
Cull, P. and Frank, W. (1979) Flaws of Form. International Journal of General Systems, 5(4):201-211.
Edmonds, James D. Jr. (1978) Hypercomplex Number Approach to Laws of Form and Logic. Speculations in
Science and Technology, 1(3):245-251.
Etter, T. (1991) Are the Laws of Form Non-Boolean? ANPA West (Journal of the Western Chapter of the
Alternative Natural Philosophy Association) 2(3):19-43. 409 Leland Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306.
Gardner, Martin (197?) Scientific American ???:???.
The comment beautifully written but content free is due to John Horton Conway (of game of life fame). It
appears in a Martin Gardner column where GSB is referred to as the "maverick British mathematician ...".
All of mathematics (pure mathematics!) is content free. Some of mathematics is beautifully written. Conway's
remark is a high compliment; backhanded, but high! Unfortunately, GSB took umbrage at the Conway
remark, or so he often says.
Goguen, J.A. & Varela, F.J. (1979) Systems and Distinctions; Duality and Complementarity. International
Journal of General Systems, 5:31-43.
Goldman, J. & Kauffman, L.H. (1993) Knots, tangles and electrical networks. Advances in Applied
Mathematics 14, 267-306.
Gould, William E. (1977) Review: Laws of Form. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 42:317-318.
Gunji, Yukio (1990) The algebraic properties of finite cellular automata, Physica D, 41:282-294.
Gunji, Yukio (1990) Pigment color patterns of mollusks as an autonomous process generated by asynchronous
automata, Biosystems 23(4):317-334.
Gunji, Yukio & Nakamura, T. (1991) Time reverse automata patterns generated by Spencer-Brown modulator
- invertibility based on autopoiesis, Biosystems 25(3):151-177.

Gunji, Yukio & Norio, K. (1991) Artificial life with autonomously emerging boundaries, Applied
Mathematics and Computation 43(3):271-298.
Heylighen, Francis (1990) Relational Closure. Cybernetics and Systems '90, 21:335-342, ed. R. Trappl, World
Science, Singapore
Mathematical concept for distinction-making and complexity analysis
Heylighen, Francis (1990) Representation and Change. Comm. + Cognition, Ghent, Belgium, NOTE:
Dissertation
Metarepresentational framework for the foundations of physical and cognitive science
Howe, R.H. & von Foerster, H. (1975) Introductory Comments to Francisco Varela's Calculus for SelfReference. International Journal of General Systems, 2:1-3.
Jacobs, W.J. et al (1988) Observations. Psychobiology 16(1):3-19.
Only cites Laws of Form in passing: More bluntly, the way that we describe and classify events in the natural
world determines the theoretical description that can be derived from it (...; Spencer-Brown, 1979; ...).
Kauffman, L.H. (1977) Review #4892: Laws of Form. Mathematical Reviews 54:701-702.
Kauffman, L.H. (1978) Network Synthesis and Varela's Calculus. International Journal of General Systems,
4:179-187.
Kauffman, L.H. & Varela, F.J. (1980) Form Dynamics. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 3:171206.
Kauffman, L.H. & Solzman, D.M. (1981) Letter to the Editor. International Journal of General Systems,
7:253-256. (in response to Cull & Frank (1979) and Kohout & Pinkava (1980))
Kauffman, L.H. (1987) Self-Reference and Recursive Forms. Journal of Social and Biological Structures,
10:53-72.
Kauffman, L.H. (1990) Map Coloring and the Vector Cross Product. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series
B, 48(2):145-154.
Kauffman, L.H. (1991) The Primary Algebra of Spencer-Brown is Non-Boolean. ANPA West (Journal of the
Western Chapter of the Alternative Natural Philosophy Association) 2(3):5-18. 409 Leland Avenue, Palo Alto,
CA 94306.
Kohout, L.J. & Pinkava, V. (1980) The Algebraic Structure of the Spencer Brown and Varela Calculi.
International Journal of General Systems, 6:155-171.
Orchard, R.A. (1975) On the Laws of Form. International Journal of General Systems, 2:99-106.
Oshins (Oshens?), E. (1990) Why Brown's Laws of Form and Pribram's Hologram hypothesis are ...just
what is not relevant in a quantum context. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of ANPA West.
Pountain, Dick, (1982) Namer of The Nameless. Australian Personal Computer Vol 3 No 10 (Oct 1982).
a non-technical review of Laws of Form
Schwartz, Daniel G. (1981) Isomorphisms of Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form and Varela's Calculus for SelfReference. International Journal of General Systems, 6:239-255.
An analysis which purports to equate Varela's calculus with Kleene's total recursive undecidability
Soto-Andrade, J. & Varela, F.J. (1984) Self-Reference and Fixed Points: A Discussion and an Extension of
Lawvere's Theorem. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, 2:1-19.
Varela, F.J. (1975) A Calculus for Self-Reference. International Journal of General Systems, 2:5-24.
Varela, F.J. & Goguen, Joseph A. (1978) The Arithmetic of Closure. Journal of Cybernetics, 8:291-324.
Varela, F.J. (1979) The Extended Calculus of Indications Interpreted as a Three-Valued Logic. Notre Dame
Journal of Formal Logic, 20(1):141-146.
Walgate, Robert (1977) A Colourful Character. New Scientist, 6 Jan 1977, p6.
biographical and non-technical mention of claimed four-color proof
Whyte, Lancelot Law (1972) Review: Laws of Form. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 23:291292, 1972.

5.5. Proceedings, Technical Reports, Theses, Unpublished, etc.

Barger, Jorn (1979) Antimath. Unpublished paper. PO Box 81988, Chicago IL 60681-0988. Email
jorn@mcs.com.
An alphabet of emotions and a simple story notation system relevant to artificial intelligence
Bricken, Meredith. A Calculus of Creation. Unpublished Paper.
Meredith and William Bricken are wife and husband

Bricken, William (1986) A Deductive Mathematics for Efficient Reasoning, Technical Report No. HITL-R86-2, Human Interface Technology Laboratory of the Washington Technology Center, University of
Washington.
Bricken, W. (1986) A Simple Space. Proceedings of the Sign and Space Conference, University of California
at Santa Cruz. Also as Technical Report No. HITL-R-86-3, Human Interface Technology Laboratory of the
Washington Technology Center, University of Washington.
Bricken, W. & Nelson, P.C. (1986) Pure LISP as a Network of Systems. In Proceedings of the Second Kansas
Conference: Knowledge-Based Software Development, Kansas State University.
Bricken, W. et al. (1987) Implementation of the Extended Program Model for the Intelligent Program Editor.
Technical Report TR-1047-03, Advanced Decision Systems.
Bricken, W. (1987) Utilizing Boundary Mathematics for Deduction. Technical Report, Advanced Decision
Systems.
Bricken, W. (1987) The Efficiency of Boundary Mathematics for Deduction, Technical Report ADS-6824-1,
Advanced Decision Systems.
Bricken, W. (1987) Boundary Numbers. Technical Report, Advanced Decision Systems.
Bricken, W. & Gullichsen, E. (1989) An Introduction to Boundary Logic with the Losp Deductive Engine.
Future Computing Systems 2(4). Also as Technical Report No. HITL-R-89-1, Human Interface Technology
Laboratory of the Washington Technology Center, University of Washington.
Bricken, W. (1990) Boundary Logic (boundary implementations), Technical Report No. HITL-P-90-3, Human
Interface Technology Laboratory of the Washington Technology Center, University of Washington.
Bricken, W. (1990) Extended Abstract: A Formal Foundation for Cyberspace, Technical Report No. HITL-M90-10, Human Interface Technology Laboratory of the Washington Technology Center, University of
Washington.
Bricken, W. (1992) Spatial Representation of Elementary Algebra. Proceedings of the IEEE workshop on
Visual Languages, Seattle, Washington, 56-62.
Bricken, W. (1992) A Boundary Notation for Visual Mathematics. Proceedings of the IEEE workshop on
Visual Languages, Seattle, Washington, 267-269.
Campbell, H. (1987) Mathematical Development of the Laws of Form and Related Brownian Algebraic
Logics. Artificial Intelligence for Advanced Concept Aircraft, Volume II, Aeronautical Systems Division,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
Doyle, B., Friedman, M. & York, B. (1987) An Introduction to Forms and Logic. Technical Report BUCS-87008, Boston University.
James, Jeffrey M. & Bricken, W. (1992) A boundary notation for visual mathematics. In Proceedings of the
IEEE Workshop on Visual Languages.
James, J. M. (1993) A Calculus of Number Based on Spatial Forms. Thesis, Master of Science in Engineering,
University of Washington. FTP /pub/papers/james/thesis.ps.Z@ftp.interval.com. Email jjames@acm.org.
Kauffman, L.H. (1978) De Morgan Algebras - Completeness and Recursion. Proceedings of the 8th
International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic, 82-86. IEEE Computer Society Press.
Kauffman, L.H. (1980) Complex Numbers and Algebraic Logic. Proceedings of the 10th International
Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic, 209-213.
Kauffman, L.H. (1982) Sign and Space. In: Religious Experience and Scientific Paradigms - Proceedings of
the IASWR Conference, 118-164. Institute for Advanced Study of World Religions, Stony Brook, NY
Kauffman, L.H. (1986,90,92) Arithmetic in the Form. Dept of Math, Stats and Comp Sci, University of
Illinois at Chicago.
Kauffman, L.H. (1986,90,92) String Arithmetic. Dept of Math, Stats and Comp Sci, University of Illinois at
Chicago.
Kauffman, L.H. (1987) Imaginary Values in Mathematical Logic. Proceedings of the 17th International
Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic, May 26-28, Boston MA, 282-289. IEEE Computer Society Press.
Kauffman, L.H. (1987) Sign and Space - An introduction.
Unpublished handwritten notes toward a book of the same title. 68 pages.
Kauffman, L.H. (1988) Special Relativity and a Calculus of Distinctions. Technical Report, Dept Math Stats
& Comp Sci, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Kauffman, L.H. (1988) Notes on the Arrow. Technical Report, Dept Math Stats & Comp Sci, University of
Illinois at Chicago.

Kauffman, L.H. (1988) The Form of Arithmetic. Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on
Multiple-Valued Logic. IEEE Computer Society Press.
Kauffman, L.H. (1990) Robbins Algebra. Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on MultipleValued Logic, May 23-25, Charlotte NC, 54-60.
Kauffman, L.H. (1991) Ways of the Game - Play and Position Play. Dept of Math, Stats and Comp Sci,
University of Illinois at Chicago.
Kauffman, L.H. (19??) On the Form of Self-Reference. Dept of Math, Stats and Comp Sci, University of
Illinois at Chicago.
Keenan, David C. (1992) Learning Logic Functions Explicitly by Back-Propagation in NOR-nets. Proceedings
of the International Workshop on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, August 11-14, Melbourne,
Australia, 435-440.
Keenan, D.C. (1991,92) To Dissect a Mockingbird - A Graphical Notation for the Lambda Calculus with
Animated Reduction. Unpublished paper. 116 Bowman Parade, Bardon QLD 4065, Australia. Email
davek@peg.pegasus.oz.au.
Odegard, Steven L. (1989) Chapter 4A: The Extension.
Posted to Usenet newsgroup sci.math 29-Nov-89, reply to n8243274@unicorn.WWU.EDU.
Shoup, Richard G. (1992) A complex logic for computation with simple interpretations for physics.
PhysComp '92, Workshop on Physics and Computation, IEEE Press 1993.
Spencer-Brown, G. (1961) An algebra for the natural numbers. Unpublished.
von Meier, Kurt (Ed.) (1973) Spencer Brown Transcript, Art 269.
Unpublished transcript of discussions with Spencer-Brown at Esalen, California (March 19-20, 1973). 122
pages.
Other participants: John Lilly (Chairperson), Kurt von Meier, Alan Watts, Douglas Kelley, Heinz von
Foerster, Gregory Bateson, Walter Barney, Karl Pribram, Lu Ann King, Ram Dass, Brendan O'Regan.