Wille defines dyadic mathematics as “a human-oriented development of mathematics based on the conviction that the aim of mathematics finally lies in the support of thought and action of human beings.” So much for counting horses, so much for computers; by definition, that work is unsupported by dyadic mathematics.

Having said this, the author then proceeds to take a fairly elementary mathematical idea, namely the notion of a Galois correspondence in lattice theory (he missed a bet here; he could have gotten much more abstruse by considering adjoint functors between categories!), and forcibly applying it to create a model of human thought called formal concept analysis, the foundations of which are dubious at best. For example, the author talks about the “ordered set of formally represented ideas”; why is it a set in the sense of Zermelo-Fraenkel choice (ZFC)? Why is it ordered? Another example: the author claims that “the basic notion of a formal concept can be logically understood best via data tables.” Yeah, sure.

The result is neither interesting mathematically, nor does it contribute in any operative way to an understanding of human thought. The paper ends with the comment that “this indicates how inspiring and fruitful further human-oriented developments of mathematics might be.” I totally agree, though not in the way the author intended.

The paper contains a long bibliography, in which half of the entries are written or coauthored by either R. Wille or U. Wille.