Showing posts with label sets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sets. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Second Trio
Epilog: Future Directions in Mythic Algebra Research
            This concludes the published research into mythic algebra, leaving the prospect for further work open. Either the algebra itself could be further refined, or an unending task of new applications could be done. Before new uses are made, I think the algebra itself should be critiqued. This need arises both from the vague generality of the set elements (p,q,x,y,s,t) and the divergent nature of its areas of application.
            As cited in the penultimate paper on numbers, there are three distinct ways mythic algebra could be applied: in pure mathematics, into modeling the natural world, or to explain the workings of the mind. Since mythic algebra was derived from mythology, it immediately serves as a model of mental activity. It makes a structure amenable to describe any symbolic process. No small part of that success is due to the abstract vagueness of the (p,q,x,y,s,t) elements. Also, the association operation itself is so broad as to cover anything, even though the final two papers tried to limit it to a definition of linkage.
            Further research into mental operations may need some more specific operations than just + addition and * association. Again looking at the fifth paper’s chart of number types, it seems a good idea to define comparison and ordering as distinct operations on their own, so * may be truly isolated as just a link. The basic criterion of any operation remains non-reducibility. No operation should be reducible to some form of  +/- additive process, as in a computer language. The point is that the mythic algebra system is not reductionist to nothing-but quantities adding together.  So while a computer may do comparing and ordering of data based on its own +/- logic, that is not the basic reason why mythic algebra does those operations. The operations themselves should be universal to any application, basic parts of any structure. Results of these operations may still be a transform ® or just an unchanged relation of equal = or similar ». We may notate them as the colon : for comparison and > for order, using the math symbol for ‘greater than.’ The ordering is not just quantitative, nor is the comparison. And such qualitative uses of  : and > may have no numerical measure at  all, no scale of 1-to-10 to place judgments upon. These are basic operations not reducible to +/- logic.
            Introduction of : and > into the numbers chart would expand the complexity of it. Instead of trios of  + and * symbols, with 2 X 2 X 2 = 8 possibilities, there would be 4 X 4 X 4 = 64 possible basic trios, including ones not mentioned on the chart. If the chart of number types were used to examine pure mathematics, then further complexity would result. New patterns in any area of mathematics may turn up, possibly leading to new types of math, new mathematical functions, and so to new ways to model the physical world. Even the number trios chart as it presently exists could lead to these results, and caution is needed here, for there is apparently no necessary reason why the three realms of mathematics, nature, and mind should always share the same basic mythic algebra.
            For example, we could argue that while the numbers chart consists of trios of mental origins, these are outside views upon quantity numbers that exist objectively only as cardinals and ordinal qualities. Objectively, there is no mind to compare or order the numbers. They simply exist as they do, and have static structures. Then there is no need to interpose : comparison or > ordering operations until we consider human usage of mathematics. Likewise when modeling nature, who compares and orders? Perhaps nature is reducible to an unknown * linkage, with + addition as a rough approximation to it, a crude surface effect. Yet the unconscious brain mechanisms of the mind do compare and order set elements, so : and > could be introduced into any of the previous mythic algebra results of literary semantics, semiotics, mythology, logic, language, etc.
            Similarly, the (p,q,x,y,s,t) set elements do not have to be the same among mathematics, nature, and mind. All of the number modeling only used the x element. Physical nature would not have to distinguish people from animals, so we may have living things p versus objects x. Can we find any new structures in nature using mythic algebra, though? Do all of the features still occur? P®x could be a living thing dying and so becoming just an object. How helpful are such flexible interpretations of the mythic algebra features? A structural system is considered good the more widely applicable, but it must also be specific. Having six elements for the mind, four for nature, and only one for mathematics may not allow analyses, no matter how many subscripts are used to distinguish individuals.
            Perhaps mythic algebra could become an analytic approach within each field of study, with set elements and functions tailored to that field, with the aims of discovering new * associations within that field. These new *’s may be reducible to classical categories or not, i.e. using + operations of quantities. Chemistry may have each member of the periodic table as a set element. Physics may have each subatomic particle. Biology may have each organism. But why should scientists try such an approach if they are satisfied with the quantitative results that exist? Mythic algebra would only appeal if it could help solve outstanding problems, explain the currently unexplained, or lead to discoveries. All of these activities are beyond me, and I am the only person using mythic algebra.
            Returning to my topic of mental modeling, I suggest using : comparison and > ordering for new operations. To get beyond (p,q,x,y,s,t) elements, one way would be to introduce qualities as their own set elements. In regards to the second JLS paper, we could say if a flower is red, if a person is good. From this, the amount of set elements could grow unlimited. And here we come upon the basic flaw of any structural system. Pushed far enough, it either breaks down or bogs down in complexity. Mythic algebra has avoided this so far by remaining overly simple, covering everything yet nothing precisely.

            For all of this harsh analysis, mythic algebra still seems to have gotten some real results when applied to the mind. Perhaps it is too optimistic to hope that the principles of association could better describe pure mathematics and nature. At least it is a new approach, even if it harkens back to the earliest, mythic times.

Saturday, May 2, 2015


            From 1981, we must jump to 1992 when I wrote a properly unpublished book titled Imaginary Heroes in the Age of Science: Archetypes in Popular Culture. There was one good idea in it worthy of publication, which was developed into this collection’s first paper, ‘Mythic Spacetime.’ Once the framework developed in 1992, it took five years of idle contemplation before that set theory insight resulted one night. I now reproduce the few paragraphs, from the 1992 book, which were my first thoughts on and coining of the term mythic spacetime.

            In standard myths, where does a hero commit violence? In the land of adventure, the fantastic other realm outside of normal society. This is part of the constructive social meaning of archetypal models, which modern society tries to erase in its rational models of law and order, but which persists as part of human nature: there is a proper place for violence. In ancient times, it was on the hunt. In modern comics, it’s on the hunt for criminals or super villains. The mythic land is the place where violence is the correct thing to do, and anywhere a superhero is on the job becomes a mythic land for the duration of the fight. This fits in with why most of reality seems to ignore superheroes in the comic book stories.
            It also fits with the history and prehistory of real humanity. The hunting mentality can be thought of as a kind of ‘mythic time’ when men access the archetypes of violence. Coming back to the hearth, they would engage in entertainment to tell of their deeds, thus recalling when they were using their instinctive skills, i.e. accessing archetypes. The original boon that they brought back was the game that they killed. Of course, the women had the superior skill of producing a boon out of childbirth. Either sex has its own version of bloody violence in the mythic space-time.
            The would-be censors of violence on TV probably give less thought to sports. This is the usual mode for people to access the mythic space-time, far more popular than the pop cultures I consider in this book. The socially acceptable channeling of aggression and violent urges into competitive sports is no doubt completely satisfying for the participants. For some spectators, it’s not completely satisfying, and they have to start fights or riot. For other spectators, it may be the equivalent of reading a comic book, with the added experience of getting to shout from the stands. Or in the TV room.

            The notion of a separate space for superheroes to slug it out nagged at me, with its resemblance to Mircea Eliade’s description of making a ritual space. One night in my caregiver years, sitting on a couch by my sleeping mother, looking at a TV screen, the notion to represent the characters as set elements occurred. The consequent idea came that elements were mapping between sets. The further explication of these ideas is presented in the first three papers, all published in the Journal of Literary Semantics, thanks to the instant approval of its founding editor Trevor Eaton.



Thursday, April 2, 2015


            The following paper from 1981, ‘Set Theory and Some English Pronouns,’ was worked out after a much longer class paper on the use of singular ‘they,’ done for a communication course at Arizona State University in Tempe. That course paper was titled ‘Linguistic Neutralism: Everybody as They,’ and surveyed history and social use, briefly mentioning set theory implications.

Set Theory and Some English Pronouns
Abstract
The use of some third person pronouns corresponds with the mathematical rule for set unions. This leads to speculations about semantics and the place of mathematics among linguistic universals.

Descriptive linguists recognize a nonstandard use of a pronoun called the singular they, referring to uses of they, them, their, and theirs. An example is the sentence, ‘Somebody gave their donation anonymously.’ A prescriptive rule would have the sentence as, ‘Somebody gave his donation anonymously.’ for what is sometimes called the generic he. As for singular they, Ann Bodine (1975) traced its use through every recorded century of the English language, and showed how it filled a logical gap in the language, for a singular sex-indefinite pronoun.
Let us further pursue this logic, and state those principles of use: why do we say they when we mean either a he or a she? In our minds, we have two possibilities, of opposite sex. Only one of those possibilities will occur in reality, but that is irrelevant. The purpose is to communicate thoughts that consider both possibilities, so we use a plural pronoun. This is analogous to the mathematical formula for set union: a or b = a U b. Singular they indicates a union of two sets to compose a new set in which a member taken out of this new set could be from either of the two sets that combined.
It is as if we had two different semantic categories. The potential category indicates the basic complete picture of all elements. In mathematics that is the portrait of the sets and their union. The actual category is the result of performing some operation on the sets.  In mathematics that would be taking out one element, but in English grammar that becomes the use of the singular they. In the potential category, singular they is actually plural. The potential category is operated upon to become the actual category, and the proof that something has happened is shown by a plural pronoun becoming singular. This happens as long as the actual situation provides the context and not the hypothetical situation, in which case the pronoun would again have a plural meaning.
Pragmatics are involved in the use of singular they also. If a speaker had time to emphasize that either sex was meant, then ‘he or she’ may be spoken or written instead of they. However, if fast talking were going on, and the speaker didn’t want to call attention to such details, singular they may be spoken without awareness, just as a natural feature of the grammar.
As for syntax, singular they can show up as any kind of noun phrase function: subject, object, or modifier. Singular they encompasses four words. These words often show up with other indefinite pronouns, such as some-, any-, no-, or every- ending in –one or –body. A further example besides the one used at the start of this paper is the sentence, ‘If anybody shows up, give it to them.’
G.L. Brook (1964, 128) remarks upon the Old English adoption of the pronoun they from Scandinavia as a rare example of pronoun borrowing between languages. Jespersen (1938, 74) mentions other indefinite singular pronouns used in the history of the English language, including a contraction of them to ‘em, which is still in use today. The utility of they for indefinite singular usage may have contributed to its permanent establishment in the English language.
Perhaps other terms can cross over into other languages to fulfill set theoretic needs, or a language has a built-in flexibility to allow for such combinations among potential and actual categories. It would certainly be amazing if set theory principles from mathematics were not universal linguistic concepts. That might imply that any non-western language could create a different kind of set theory, and a totally foreign mathematics, to shatter our illusions of scientific truth. What we had thought was an unending universe of mathematics would turn out to be only one of many unending universes.

References
Bodine, Ann. ‘Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: singular they, sex-indefinite he, and he or she.’ Language in Society. 1975(4): 129-146.

Brook, G.L. A History of the English Language. New York: W.W. Norton, 1964.

Jespersen, Otto. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1938.

            Thirty years later, I can critique this paper as still valid even if the historical progression in usage is unclear. They was first used in English for uncertain singular or plural persons, then centuries-worth of prescriptive grammarians and school teachers have tried to limit it to plural only. Regardless of the origin of singular they, its modern use in violation of taught grammar shows a kind of set function where ‘male or female’ is thought of as plural, thus one selects a single choice from plural possibilities, so the taught label from plural comes to mind to use. Descriptive grammar is then vindicated by set theory, no matter which came first in history, single or plural they, or both together.

            This paper on they shows a first clue of sets and math processes turning up where they are not supposed to be, outside of mathematical topics. I did not pursue the matter further. After getting a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics, I got a master’s in library science and then a 13-year career in database publishing. Personal research and writing took other directions, but the new math works in mysterious ways.


Sunday, March 1, 2015

Table of Contents

Introduction: Origins

     Singular They

     Imaginary Heroes

First Trio: Journal of Literary Semantics

     Mythic Spacetime
 
     Narrative Algebra

     More Features

Comments: Follow-up

     Hero Cycle

Second Trio: Semiotica

     Mythic Algebra Uses

     Numbers

     Laws of Association

Epilog: Future Directions



Introduction: Origins

     While this book reprints six academic papers and related material, its origins are not in the dry, technical world of academic theory. It started with comic books. Before I went to school, before I learned to read, I ‘read’ comic books at home. Four decades later I was again reading them at home, and developed mythic algebra from them.
     Mythic algebra is a hybrid system of various parts of basic mathematics, sets and algebra cobbled together to describe the symbolic processes of the mind. Originally derived from mythology and superhero comic book stories, the system has been aimed to cover all mental activity, incorporating non-mathematical processes like mental association. This led to the idea that mythic algebra is the ur-mathematics out of which true mathematics, and any other language, evolved.
     This collection of academic papers is based on a radical assumption, that the mind works on symbolic processes which are the same no matter how expressed. Today’s educators speak of different learning styles, which is no doubt true. Beyond this, everyone assumes that each field of thought, each subject area, involves different ways of thinking. How one does mathematics differs from how one understands the arts, stories, language, or any other mental activity. Yet we have one brain for all of this, and while scientists can identify different areas of higher brain activity depending on type of thought, all areas are said to be interconnected. There are also many different types of connection: chemical, electrical, physiological, organelle, and perhaps electromagnetic broadcast. But if all these are considered the building blocks, what structure do they make?
     Notwithstanding the actual variation of brain parts and connections, when they all work together, does it make a single, unified process? Obviously it does, since we are autonomous animals that think and move on our own. While this fact is easily conceded on the level of body motion and physiology, it is rejected at the level of thought. Our personal conflicts, our ambivalent desires, are taken as signs of the competing systems in the triune brain, the reptilian brainstem versus the mammalian midbrain versus the human frontal lobes. Yet the triune brain produces a single person, even if it is only a highly evolved radio box to receive a spirit. Leaving aside spiritual questions, how could any unity of process be recognized? How could this be described in a functional notation system?
     Enter ‘the new math,’ that abandoned approach to teaching grade school mathematics in the 1960s. I am a product of that, for I absorbed the emphasis upon sets as a basis of understanding the world. It has colored my thinking, becoming my natural viewpoint upon anything, long before it inserted itself into my way of thinking about comic books and the first published paper here (from 2000), ‘Mythic Spacetime.’ I get ahead of myself, and must retreat to earlier decades, to give an unpublished example of a worldview colored by sets.

Friday, August 1, 2014

The Doom Patrol: Exemplars of Association in Mythic Algebra


Abstract

Mythic algebra is used to model storytelling using sets, transforms, and addition. Another operation in mythic algebra is association, together with its undoing operation of dissociation. Each member of the original Doom Patrol can exemplify an association trait, to stand for collection, binding, comparison, ordering and linkage.The Chief is a collector. Robotman represents binding, while Negative Man represents the unbinding of dissociation. Beast Boy uses comparison, and Elasti-Girl uses ordering. Mento has family linkages to Beast Boy and Elasti-Girl, and a scene of this provides an example of notating a narrative sequence in mythic algebra.  After a brief comparison to the X-Men, an in-depth  comparison to the Fantastic Four shows that despite their similarities, only the Doom Patrol are association exemplars. Principles of set element exclusions and the modeling of specific qualities further refine the concept of when association exists. This comparison suggests legal uses for mythic algebra in copyright or creators’ rights. Other uses are to help composition, reader appreciation, and scholarly analysis. The paucity of scholarly attention to the Doom Patrol is discussed, leading to speculation on why the team has survived many cancellations and returned, possibly due to the special appeal of modeling so many different types of association.


Introduction: The Mythic Algebra of Comic Books


Mythic algebra is used to model storytelling and other symbolic processes. The contents of the algebra can be listed in a lineup as:


(p,q,x,y,s,t), M, R, M/R, R/M, →, +, –, *,*


where sets (p,q,x,y,s,t) consist of the elements people p, their actions q, things x and their actions y, and spacetime s,t.  Sets may have a state like mythic M, real R, heroic H, or villainous V. Mapping or travel between sets is notated by M/R or R/M, for example, and elements or states may simply change by a transform arrow →. An  article on Wonder Woman  (2012) presented most of the basic operations and made extensive use of mappings and transforms,  M/R, R/M, →.   Set elements also interact by the operations of addition or subtraction +, – which indicate combination or its undoing. An example would be p+x to represent the person Thor holding his hammer, the thing x. If he threw the hammer, it would be an action q or also the subtraction of p–x since the hammer is now gone from the person. There can be more than one way to describe something with the algebra, or to string together sets to make a narrative.


The remaining operation in mythic algebra that has not yet been discussed is association, together with its undoing operation of dissociation, notated in the above lineup as * and –*. This is the more general alternative to addition, in which things are connected but not combined. There are many ways to interpret association, but they can all be considered variations on connection. Previous articles in other journals have made use of association to stand for collection, binding, comparison, ordering and linkage. Each member of the original Doom Patrol can exemplify one of these traits.


We should first note that any supergroup is an association of related members in a single set, such as (p1*p2*p3*p4*p5*p6) for a team with six members. The last image of the Doom Patrol from their final issue in 1968 clearly illustrates this. Having chosen to sacrifice their lives, their last gesture is a team handshake, a physical and emotional connection (fig. 1) .




FIG1 Doom Patrol #121, Sept-Oct 1968.


The Chief


The action of making such a set can be considered one type of association. The founder of the Doom Patrol, Niles Caulder or the Chief, is therefore the perfect representative of the set-collecting type of association. The Chief is a scientist in a wheelchair who recruited each of the original members separately. For some of the members, he did more than recruit them; he also created them from the ruined bodies of normal human beings. We may notate the Chief's operation as (*) to signify that he makes a set of associations.


Robotman


So to our next type of association, the binding together. An ultimate example of this is the character Cliff Steele, also known as Robotman. He was retrieved from a racing car accident, and the Chief transplanted his brain into a robot body. The only living tissue of Cliff is bound inside a metal casing. He is often in danger of being unbound, or having his metal body ruined so that his brain is exposed and dies. Sometimes Cliff will partially unbind himself, such as pulling off a limb to use as a club in a fight. To show his original binding into a metal body, we can write (p*x), where p is the person of Cliff and the thing x is his robot body.


Negative Man


Another good example of binding is Larry Trainor, called Negative Man, but he is an even better example of unbinding, or dissociation. This is the undoing of association. Larry was a test pilot who crashed after encountering strange radiation in the upper atmosphere. His body emits lethal levels of radioactivity, and he is bundled like a mummy in bandages treated with a shielding material created by the Chief. Larry unbinds by sending his energy form, a creature of black lightning, out of his body for a short period of time before it must return. This is such a dramatic action that it was used on the cover of their first issue in 1963 (fig. 2). One way to write Larry's unbinding is as an action q of his negative energy self which is dissociating from p, his physical self: (q–*p). This avoids the issue of how many p selves does Larry have, which was exploited by other writers in later series.


If we assign a negative value to Larry’s energy self, as  –p,  then we can distinguish it from his physical body p. The unbinding can then be written as: ( –p –*p). We might then use the q action to represent the radiation that comes off of Larry’s body and must be shielded: (p,q). As a character, Negative Man follows the law of conservation of energy, in that he is either radiating from his physical body or taking the energy out completely as the flying black lightning. He even has an analog to radioactive half-life since the negative self can only exist apart from the body for one minute. Visually, he goes from being one person to two: (p,q), ( –p –*p), ( –p,p,t) using t to represent the time limit, then the two selves must rebind and merge into the appearance of one, as the transform arrow shows: (–p*p→p).




FIG2 My Greatest Adventure #80, June 1963.


The sequence of Larry’s energy states is then (p,q), (p,–p), (p,q) and the energy conservation law can be stated as if it were from a logic truth table: q or not-p. The energy states switch, so a transform arrow can be used, (q→ –p), or (–p→ q), limited by the time constraint.  The half-life analog could be listed as a sequence of time elements from one to sixty seconds: (t1,...t60), and this sequence can form a threshold in the illustration of Larry’s Negative Man as a cyclical process, going clockwise:


p,–p


–* t1, ..., t60    *


p,q



Beast Boy


To represent the comparison form of association, we may consider Gar Logan, or Beast Boy. He imitates other creatures by shape shifting, and thus may be considered a comparison to them. Beast Boy gained his powers from medical treatments before he was orphaned. The two remaining members of the Doom Patrol became his adopted parents. If we consider animals as things x, then Beast Boy's comparing to them would also be described as (p*x). When he changes into a form resembling them, we may use the transform arrow →, as will be shown in the examples with Mento.


Elasti-Girl


It is a bit of a stretch to claim Rita Farr as an exemplar of the ordering form of association, but she will do for it because that is what she does: stretching. Her team name is Elasti-Girl. On a movie shoot in Africa, she was affected by volcanic gases. She can grow or shrink in size and stretch her limbs out. As such, she becomes bigger or smaller than her normal size by orders of magnitude. The ordering is not of the  common   1st,  2nd,  3rd  ... variety, but of  variations  from the  original size: small, normal, big. One can see that this involves comparison, but unlike Beast Boy's  form of comparison, there is a scale of order for one entity or set element.  Beast Boy compares to any animal, but Elasti-Girl only compares to herself. Her association must be written as (p*p) then, with the same set element p used twice. We see in the above examples that she chose to end her life as a giant, while the first image of her is as a miniature.


Mento


An easier form of association is linkage. Rita's husband is Steve Dayton, the fifth richest man in the world. As the de facto team member Mento, he wears a special helmet that magnifies his thought waves and gives him various powers like telekinesis and creating illusions. He is thus linked to Rita by marriage and mentally with his helmet if he chooses to use it that way. The following panels from 1967 (fig. 3) indicate Steve's linkage to both Rita and Beast Boy. Index numbers can  distinguish p elements, so the family relations can begin with Mento as p1, Rita as p2, and Beast Boy as p3, giving (p1*p2), (p1*p3). If we also assign Robotman as p4, we can then give examples of the different ways a narrative sequence can be described with sets:




FIG3 Doom Patrol #111, May 1967.


In the first panel, Beast Boy does two actions: q1 to raise the statue and q2 to break the board. He has also transformed into a bear, which could be written as p3 → x, and so his actions as an animal are y1 and y2, not q1 and q2. Mento is merely standing in grief while thinking of his adoption of the boy, so the association could be shown with him, (p1*p3). If we put all of this into a single set for one panel, it could be (p1*p3, p3 → x, y1,y2).  If we care about the western reading style of left to right, then we would list Mento after Beast Boy and the set would look like (p3 → x, y1, y2, p1*p3).


In the next panel, Cliff and Rita stop by to say hi on their way out, with Rita calling Steve 'dear.' This justifies noting the family links of the two, with (p2*p1) equivalent to (p1*p2) but preferable since it gives precedence to Rita who is the actual speaker.  Beast Boy stands in the background, now in human form, so he must also be included in the set. We may want to note that he just changed from a bear to human as (x → p3). To include all four characters in one set for the panel then could be (p4, p2*p1, x → p3).


Our narrative sequence for these two panels is then  (p3 → x, y1, y2, p1*p3),(p4, p2*p1, x → p3). Note that we did not use the association symbol * to mention the team membership of p4 Robotman or to describe Beast Boy's powers as (p3*x). If it had been important to the scene or of particular concern to us we could have used * for those purposes. What seemed relevant was the family relations of Mento.


Mento's family links are a common form of association that most characters -- and real people -- have.  Other types of association may not be so common outside of the Doom Patrol. Yet overall, association may be the most widespread operation that mythic algebra models. We model science and business with reduction to addition, but people and their stories are slippery, not so easily nailed down.  Association itself exemplifies that mythic algebra is a formal system that does not require rigid determinism. It can model the constantly shifting plots, settings, and tropes of the stories we tell. Sets can be written in a narrative chain to any length needed, to cover a scene or story to whatever level of detail is assigned to their set elements. This can be a guide to analysis or an aid to creation.  Of course, no one sat down with a laundry list of associations in order to invent the Doom Patrol.  Their slogan of "the world's strangest heroes" provides motivation enough, but just how strange are they?


Similarities to the X-Men


The question of how strange they are involves how unique they are, and thus how similar might they be to other superhero groups, using the association of similarity. While it is true that things may be associated but not similar, or similar but not associated,  this is meant in the context of mutual membership in the same set or grouping. Sometimes things may be both similar and associated together if the context is sharing some quality, another kind of connection. The Doom Patrol has tenuous connections to two other superhero groups, if we look at their origins.


They began in 1963, a few months before the X-Men debuted, and the similarities were uncanny, such as the Chief using a wheelchair like Professor Xavier. Their original writer, Arnold Drake, in fact left the Doom Patrol to write the X-Men for Marvel Comics, yet he stayed with the Doom Patrol until their first cancellation.


Wikipedia states:
‘Some similarities exist between the original Doom Patrol and Marvel Comics' original X-Men Both include misfit superheroes shunned by society and both are led by men of preternatural intelligence confined to wheelchairs. These similarities ultimately led series writer Arnold Drake to argue that the concept of the X-Men must have been based on the Doom Patrol.
Drake stated:

...I’ve become more and more convinced that [Stan Lee] knowingly stole The X-Men from The Doom Patrol. Over the years I learned that an awful lot of writers and artists were working surreptitiously between [Marvel and DC]. Therefore from when I first brought the idea into [DC editor] Murray Boltinoff’s office, it would’ve been easy for someone to walk over and hear that [I was] working on a story about a bunch of reluctant superheroes who are led by a man in a wheelchair. So over the years I began to feel that Stan had more lead time than I realized. He may well have had four, five or even six months.

(X-Men #1 debuted three months after MGA #80; due to publication lag times, Lee could not have known of the Doom Patrol when he scripted the first X-Men story unless he had been told about it in advance of its publication.)’


In mythic algebra notation, we could use the character name initials as set elements to show similarities, thus Niles Caulder, the Chief of the Doom Patrol, is like Charles Xavier, the founder of the X-Men, so (NC*CX) at least for the category of (leader is in wheelchair).


Similarities to the Fantastic Four


Wikipedia goes on to state:
‘However, others have noted that the Doom Patrol shares fundamental similarities with Stan Lee's earlier title, Fantastic Four. The original lineup of both teams included four members, who did not have secret/double identities; each had a headquarters that was a public building in the middle of a major city; each team had one member with stretching powers (Rita Farr of the Doom Patrol, Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four), one member with flame or flame-like powers (Larry Trainor of the DP and Johnny Storm of the FF), a member with brute strength and a freakish body, with bitterness at being trapped in it (Cliff Steele and Ben Grimm) and a member who was invisible or stayed out of the public view (Niles Caulder and Sue Storm). Both teams quarreled amongst themselves, unlike most other teams published by DC/National.’


Again resorting to mythic algebra notation, we consider these individual similarities. Reed Richards and Rita Farr both have stretching powers, so (RR*RF) for (stretching powers).  Larry Trainor and Johnny Storm have flame-like powers, so (LT*JS) for (flame-like powers).  Cliff Steele and Ben Grimm are tormented strong men, so (CS*BG) for (brute strength freaks). Niles Caulder and Sue Storm are both unseen, so (NC*SS) for (not seen).


These similarities were also noted by a fan blogger, reinforcing the Wikipedia analysis:


‘Like the Doom Patrol, the Fantastic Four has a flying character, the Human Torch. Like Negative Man, when his powers are in effect, visually, he's a pure manifestation of his power; Negative Man is pure energy, and Torch looks like pure fire.


Like the Doom Patrol, the Fantastic Four's leader is a brilliant scientist, and its leading lady is, originally, quite shy and ready and willing to follow. Reed Richards is Mr. Fantastic, the world's most intelligent man, and he stretches, just like Elasti-Girl. Visually speaking, in an action scene, Niles Caulder is missing from the battle, much like the Invisible Girl, Susan Storm, can be said to be "missing" from the scene since she's, you know, invisible.


And most telling of all, like the Doom Patrol, the Fantastic Four have an orange powerhouse who can in absolutely no way even pass for human, and all he wants is to be human. Like Robotman, the Thing is gruff but really likable (the Thing is actually lovable).’ (Tano 2010)


We can add some more mythic algebra similarities based on those observations. Larry Trainor and Johnny Storm have flying-energy powers, so (LT*JS) for (flying energy).  Reed Richards is also like Niles Caulder for  (team leader is brilliant scientist), so (RR*NC).  Sue Storm and Rita Farr are both shy followers, so (SS*RF) for (shy leading ladies).


A third commentary on the similarities occurs in the TV Tropes article on the Doom Patrol, in its listing of tropes the team used:


Follow the Leader: At one time the Patrol acted as a school... for young mutants. The two groups debuted within months of each other, however, not nearly long enough for one to be based on the other. That being said, there are also some very clear parallels between the original Doom Patrol and the Fantastic Four, who came first by a much wider margin.


Four Temperament Ensemble: The original team is one of these.’


In the TV Tropes article on the ‘Four Temperament Ensemble,’ the ‘Comic Books’ section lists both groups, as the first and second examples of the trope:
Fantastic Four: Johnny (sanguine), Ben (choleric), Reed (melancholic), and Sue (phlegmatic). Franklin (leukine). Although the first two are more obvious than the latter, and even the first two are more complex characters. Johnny has behaved cholerically on occasion (e. g. in the early issue where he left the team because he felt unappreciated) and Ben is often melancholy and introvert, e. g. going to a bar to try and drown his sorrows (after all, you could say that usually he wants to be left alone and then Johnny plays a prank on him). Also note that the Fantastic Four are also a four-elements example in a way that does not align with the descriptions above: Johnny is Fire, Ben is Earth, Sue is Air, and Reed is Water.


Doom Patrol: The Chief (choleric), Elasti-Girl (melancholic), Negative Man (phlegmatic), and Robotman (sanguine). Alternatively, in the second incarnation: Celsius (choleric), Negative Woman (melancholic), and Tempest (phlegmatic).’


From these ancient personality types, we have the following similarities: Johnny Storm and  Robotman, Cliff Steele, are sanguine, so (JS*CS) for (sanguine). Ben Grimm and  Niles Caulder, The Chief, are choleric, so (BG*NC) for (choleric).  Reed Richards and Rita Farr, Elasti-Girl, are  melancholic, so (RR*RF) for (melancholic).  Sue Storm and Negative Man, Larry Trainor, are  phlegmatic, so (SS*LT) for (phlegmatic).


From three different commentators, we have acquired quite a list of character similarities: (NC*CX), (RR*RF) for two different aspects, (LT*JS), (CS*BG), (NC*SS), (RR*NC), (SS*RF), (JS*CS), (BG*NC), and (SS*LT).


Set Exclusion Principles


All of the previously noted team similarities constitute forms of association depending on their qualitative criteria. Characters may be associated with a quality, or different teams may be associated with each other because they share a quality. This raises the question of how much association can coexist between sets and among elements in the same set. One might assume that there is no limit to how much, especially since we are dealing with fictional characters in made-up stories. Not even the sky’s the limit when dealing with superheroes.


For example, consider two of the above-noted team similarities between three people: Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four has stretching powers like Rita Farr, Elasti-Girl of the Doom Patrol. Using their name initials, then (RR*RF) for the set category (stretching powers). If the  set category is (team leader is brilliant scientist), then Richards is like Niles Caulder, the Chief of the Doom Patrol, so (RR*NC). However, no single character in the Doom Patrol is both stretching and a brilliant scientist like in the Fantastic Four, but there could have been if any writer had so chosen. Niles and Rita are associated in the same group, so we can say (NC*RF), but not based upon any shared powers. We cannot say (RR*NC*RF*RR) based upon either shared powers or team membership alone. We would have to be at a broad level category like (Earth humans) or (superheroes) to finally include all three in the same set.
While this illustrates a property of mythic algebra and thus symbolic processes, it does not necessarily lead to more exemplars of association.
Qualities Versus Exemplars


The natural question arises, since the Doom Patrol are so similar to the Fantastic Four, and the Doom Patrol are exemplars of association, are the Fantastic Four also such exemplars? The answer is no, which we can now demonstrate.


Can the Fantastic Four be fit into the same categories of association? Let us compare each team member to their Doom Patrol analog’s type of association.While Ben is trapped in an orange body, he is not bound in it. His body is transformed into a rock-man. When Johnny yells “Flame on!” he is not unbinding but rather transforming his own body into a flame-man. Reed does not grow or shrink in size on an orderly scale of measure. His body has been transformed into a stretchable rubber-man,. like the classic DC character Plastic Man. Sue’s body has also been transformed to enable invisibility. We see that all four members of the team make use of the mythic algebra transform arrow →.  They have also been uniquely transformed, unlike Beast Boy’s ability to transform into any animal.


The Fantastic Four and the Doom Patrol do share some associations, but the same ones that any teams share. As founders of their groups, Reed and The Chief both are collectors. Any team should have romantic links, so Reed and Sue are married, as are Mento and Rita. Aside from these common traits, there are many more shared qualities than association types.


Moreover, there is a difference between the forms of shared qualities between the teams. As the TV Tropes article highlights, the essence of the Fantastic Four is their modeling the elements of earth, air, fire, and water. The Doom Patrol characters do not model these elements. Negative Man’s energy is not fire. Elasti-Girl’s only connection with water is her emerging from an African river upon her origin. She seldom is elastic, instead just growing or shrinking proportionately in size. Robotman is all metal, not made of rocks. The Chief does not move through the air invisibly. So while the two teams have similar qualities, they do not model the same things.


We have now seen that one team, the Fantastic Four, models classic elements while the other team, the Doom Patrol, exemplifies types of association. Yet both teams share qualities as they represent such different things. This is an example of teams being similar but not otherwise associated. If we want exemplars of association, we must look to the Doom Patrol!


Conclusion


This comparison of teams brings up another possible use for mythic algebra: as a legal tool for copyright cases or cases involving creators’ rights. What if Marvel had decided to sue DC to stop the Doom Patrol, in the same way DC sued Fawcett to put Captain Marvel out of business? Mythic algebra notation can help clarify how much similarity exists versus the more important differing qualities. Or in a creator’s rights case, the notation may show generic traits, such as a hero cycle, versus unique qualities of a character that might otherwise just be listed in a legal brief. So there are now three possible uses for mythic algebra: legal tool, guide for creators, or to enhance the appreciation of readers and scholars.


The Doom Patrol has received little academic interest, most of it focusing on Grant Morrison's tenure as a writer from 1989 to 1992 (Shaviro 1997). While this was a high point for the team's popularity and profundity, they have had loyal cult followings through all of their incarnations. Why were they canceled, and why have all subsequent relaunchings not lasted?


One critic notes that a strong appeal of the original team was that they were outsider freaks who were only tolerated by the public long enough to do a good deed. They retired to their brownstone building after missions and avoided public contact. This resembled the early X-Men milieu. When this story angle changed, sales could never sustain publication. Indeed, their linkage with Mento and Beast Boy, never official team members, is cited as part of what decreased their appeal (Benson 2010). Mento, Rita, and Gar provided a nuclear family and an outpost in the mundane world, not an interesting hideaway.


Yet something interesting about the Doom Patrol persisted, and new versions of the group were tried over the ensuing decades, each lasting a few brief years. To say that the team is interesting because of its unusual characters does not distinguish it from any other superhero group. So perhaps part of its special interest lies in the variety of associations it exemplifies.


References

Benson, C. (2010), 'Deck Log Entry # 108 Death in the Silver Age: the Doom Patrol, R. I. P. (Part Two)', Captain Comics. http://captaincomics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/deck-log-entry-108-death-in/. Accessed 26 June 2014.

‘Comic Book: Doom Patrol’, Television Tropes and Idioms. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ComicBook/DoomPatrol?from=Main.DoomPatrol. Accessed 26 June 2014.

‘Doom Patrol’, Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_Patrol. Accessed 26 June 2014.



Drake, A. and Premiani, B. (2009), Showcase Presents the Doom Patrol, Vol. 1. New York, NY: DC Comics.


Drake, A. and Premiani, B. (2010), Showcase Presents the Doom Patrol, Vol. 2. New York, NY: DC Comics.

‘Four Temperament Ensemble: Comic Books’  Television Tropes and Idioms. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FourTemperamentEnsemble/ComicBooks. Accessed 26 June 2014.



Griffin, M. (2012), 'Wonder Woman: Hero Cycles and Mythic Algebra', The Comics Grid. http://www.comicsgrid.com/2012/08/wonder-woman-mythic-algebra/. Accessed 26 June 2014.


Shaviro, S. (1997), Doom Patrols: A Theoretical Fiction about Postmodernism. New York, NY: Serpents Tail. http://www.shaviro.com/Doom/index.html. Accessed 26 June 2014.

Tano, D. (2010), ‘The Doom Patrol May Have Been a Rip-Off After All’, The Comics Cube. http://www.comicscube.com/2010/11/doom-patrol-may-have-been-rip-off-after.html. Accessed 26 June 2014.