Dinner of Words

Avant Garde Programming (Objects are dead, identifiers rule)

2011-12-21T01:29:00.000-08:00

So programming is becoming less about designing objects and more about tying collections of attributes as rules to an identifier. The identifier is also tied to behavior. An identifier may be thought of as a reference.

Linuverse

2011-10-21T07:33:00.000-07:00

I see only 5 hits on google for Linuverse. I'm thinking it's a concept that needs to be promoted a bit more. It looks like it all started in 1994 in Belgium. So, what is a linuverse? Are there multiple linuverse, all interconnetted by high speed e-ways? Let's discuss...

Ruinous Ramblings

2011-10-20T20:19:00.000-07:00

I've got a friend, jmhysong, who's left leaning who just put up a wordpress blog...check it out:Ruinous Ramblings

Why use document technology for building a 3D world?

2011-08-28T18:28:00.000-07:00

This is comparable to using a script or book for something a camera and video recognition or a pair of eyes and a brain should do. Documents are something you put in paper, tablet or pad. We don't need to construct 3D worlds from scripts, we already have a 4D world. 3D worlds should be built with 3D technology. Is there really such a thing as "saving" a world? It just is, you don't need to save it.
Yes, I realize that some religions want to save the world, but they're nutballs (or archivists). I don't want to be saved, I want to LIVE!

Qualitative Operators are Simply Arrows in Category Theory

2010-12-26T17:19:00.000-08:00

So it seems like qualitative operators being maps are very similar to arrows or functions between objects in category theory. These are the same thing as references and pointers I assume. So the equality between field access and getters and setters seems to be qualitative operators as well.

Qualitative Operators as Maps

2010-12-14T20:57:00.000-08:00

If most qualitative operators are maps, then it would seem like some of the best qualitative operators occur in relational database systems, with foreign keys and associative tables. Also, there are map data structures in many programming languages--perhaps only used to map strings to objects when one should map objects to objects. Perhaps the best combination of these two things is the object oriented database system.

Qualitative Operators

2010-12-12T21:02:00.000-08:00

While Qualitum Computers may not make sense (computing usually involves numbers), there seems to be research into qualitative operators. So I will do some research on qualitative operators.

Molecular/Qualitum Computers, reference material

2010-12-12T20:11:00.000-08:00

Review of Adelman's DNA computer which solved the travelling salesman problem, and new hope of Turing machine done with molecules (a bit dated) http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume8/issue2/features/srivastava.html

Qualitum Computers 2

2010-12-12T19:41:00.000-08:00

I am starting to think of operators, methods, functions, subroutines, and procedures as qualitum computing. Where operators are usually in the instruction set of the computer, the others are linked at runtime into an address space, so they are numerical. There are address spaces in geography that are coordinate and label based. Maybe if computers had two dimensional memory, things get more interesting. This reminds me of Jed Donnelley's IMPACT processor, where operators are positioned on a grid: http://www.webstart.com/jed/impact.pdf

Qualitum Computer

2010-12-10T23:10:00.000-08:00

I'm calling for research into a "Qualitum Computer." A computer used for pure, non-numeric qualitative research. Where operators and operands are not based on numbers, rather they are based on molecules or networks molecules flow through. Where energy or electricity is less important, and matter and reaction is more important. Some energy may be useful, but I'm imagining something more like enzymes and catalysts.

Streaming versus Document Object Model

2010-08-01T23:41:00.001-07:00

Streaming seems to be a wave type of thing. Documents seem to be a particle type of thing. What is the hybrid between a stream and a document? It seems like the text node in XML may provide for streams of data. The only distinction may be that documents don't have long lived connections, and streams, by necessity have long lived connections. If streams are treated like arrays, how do we store variable length arrays in relational database? It seems like we would store them as XML (a document), if there was no bound on their length.

Streams of keystrokes coming into documents add to the document structure. Similarly, streams of objects or commands may modify a scene. It seems like streams or waves are what affect the structure of our world, modifying it.

It seems like analog networking is going out of style. TV used to be analog, but now it's digital. I'm not sure radio is far behind. Will there be a bounceback to hybrid networking? We will see. Perhaps hybrid networking means changing the bit rate.

Hybrid Hierarchies

2010-08-01T23:31:00.000-07:00

So if we have continuous hierarchies and discrete hierarchies, what about hybrid hierarchies? Just like we have discrete event, continuous and hybrid simulation, can we have hierarchies that are hybrid? A discrete hierarchy is like a mathematical graph, with nodes and arcs, but no spatial or temporal attributes (except for demonstrational purposes). A continuous hierarchy exists in time and space, but it's difficult to show connections or differences between arcs and nodes. So we need a hybrid graph, in ink and paper, or a road network. We create a hybrid hierarchy by placing stuff representing a graph (a discrete thing) onto a continuous media.

Musicrosystems

2010-05-15T02:19:00.000-07:00

A spoonerism of Sun Microsystems is Mun Sicrosystems take out the "n" and you get Musicrosystems.

The Universe Bomb

2010-05-15T02:14:00.001-07:00

So what if the "Big Bang" was caused by some scientists who wanted to build an extremely powerful bomb? Their universe got blown away by the bang that created ours.

Something to think about. What can technology do? A new heaven and a new Earth? Revelations 21:1

Fuzzopedia

2010-04-03T00:47:00.000-07:00

I'd just like to define the title here. It's an encyclopedia filled with fuzz (as in fuzz testing).

A Theory of Time (and possibly space)

2010-03-18T22:37:00.000-07:00

I spent a month when I had some "free" time on my hands thinking about time. At that time, my best idea was: Time is like a doily in a cloud. I now think that time is like one or more brains (and even the second brain in your gut). A network of communicating nodes, with supporting structure. Now that you know what time is, what do you think time travel is? Is it possible for electroshock to "push" people back in time, such that they forget that time has passed? What better explanation for memory loss that they travelled through time backwards? The person's universe tilted backward in time, whereas the rest of us continued on.

Beauticklers

2010-02-06T12:20:00.000-08:00

Vibrating and Non-Vibrating Numbers

2009-12-13T22:32:00.000-08:00

Every rational number that has an end vibrates with the repeating rational number right below it. Thus 2 vibrates with 1.99999999999..., 3.5 vibrates with 3.49999999... Note that rational numbers which do repeat, they vibrate as you calculate them to the number of decimal points you want, moving from gross vibrations, to much more fine vibration. The only rational number that doesn't repeat is 0. 0 doesn't vibrate. Transcendental numbers vibrate like repeating rational numbers.

metacontinuity (not transformers) and feedback

2009-11-14T17:09:00.000-08:00

Stepping back from continuous hierarchy, perhaps we should take a look at metacontinuity. It appears that Transformers has taken this word for a roll, so I'll just refer to the universe as metacontinuous. It's not something about something, or stepwise recursion, it's feedback in movement. Perhaps it's a parser that has feedback built in. A self-critical aspect that's always running--figuring out how to improve itself.

Death of Continuous Hierarchy

2009-08-26T10:08:00.000-07:00

It appears that my current definition of continuous hierarchy is very similar to differential propositional calculus, so I'm going to resign that definition.

Defining Universes, Reference versus Awareness, How to do Artifical Intelligence and build a web browser.

2009-08-05T22:15:00.001-07:00

So how do you define a universe? A simple way might be "All there is." Which is perfectly acceptable. But does the abstract idea of a square exist in the universe? Does the idea of a universe exist in the universe? Is the universe of ideas somehow separate from the universe itself? Is there something which isn't the universe? Somehow there is a divide between the abstract and the concrete. The abstract may be used to describe the concrete. Art is one way of making the abstract concrete. One might say that reference is abstract, and awareness is concrete. People have spent hours and hours trying to create artificial intelligence and other programs out of reference. What they need to do is spend hours and hours trying to create artificial intelligence out of awareness. Record every mouse action and key press, network traffic and deltas between screen shots--and put them through a learning program (yes, I know it's difficult to learn through time). Learn how to predict input, and what output is expected from the input. Would it be possible to build a web browser just by using a learning program that learned by watching another web browser? How much would the human have to help?

A Universal Set and Illogical State-ments made Logical

2009-08-05T21:50:00.000-07:00

So a universal set may only exist within one universe. It may not extend across universes. However, relationships (information) between sets may exist across universes. Thus a set A may be a member of a set B in one universe, and the set A not be a member of a set B in another universe. Russell's Paradox only exists if you are referring to a single universe. There must be something about Russell's Paradox which is an informatic way of creating separate universes. A paradox is when conflicting things can be held true at the same time. Each side of the paradox exists in one universe, and is a totally acceptable way of talking about it. If A holds in one universe, and not A holds in another universe, then one may say A and not A holds true. If you are only referring to one universe, then both A and not A can not hold true at the same time (but they may at different times). If you think about a single universe of logic, then A and not A must be a false statement, and A or not A must be a true statement. If you think about multiply present universes, then A and not A may or may not be true, and A or not A may or may not be true.

A basis for continuous hierarchy in space

2009-08-05T16:59:00.000-07:00

The basis for continuous hierarchy in space is multiply present parallel universes (or massively parallel universes). Universes which cross over each other, and share atoms. A concrete set A in universe B may be different than the concrete set A in universe C. But A(B) and A(C) are the same set. Get it? Continuous hierarchy.

The basis for continuous hierarchy

2009-08-02T00:57:00.000-07:00

The basis for continuous hierarchy is that things change in time. Anything in physical reality is different every time you measure it--every concrete set is different. The question is, do things we think of (abstract sets) change in time when we measure them. Our understanding of a situation may change. We may get more insight into ourselves or a situation. We have a set in our minds that is the set of all squares. There are an infinite number of squares in the square set--assuming our mental universe is unbounded in size. There is no such thing as a concrete set of squares...they are all imperfect examples of something in the abstract set of squares.

Continuous hierarchy is not about abstract sets, it's about concrete sets. I cannot argue about stuff that is infinite in nature. It would take me too long.

Measurement and Continuous Hierarchy

2009-08-02T00:43:00.000-07:00

Since measurement is an essential component of continuous hierarchy, let us consider two measurements made at exactly the same time at a set. By the uncertainty principle, observation affects the measurements. So only one observer is different than two observers. The question is, will the two observers achieve the same measurement? We have set A, observer o1, and observer o2. They observe at time t. Thus:

A(o1, t) - A(o2, t) = {}(o1 - o2, t) Thus the effect of time is negligible (but it might affect the empty set), but the effects of the differences between the observers implies that we don't get the empty set. If o1 = o2, then we get the empty set.

Deltas between Sets Measured in Time

2009-08-02T00:35:00.000-07:00

In continuous hierarchy, set subtraction computes a delta between sets. We don't yet know if this result is a set or not. For example, if you have a set A, and the subtraction operator -, the A - A is not the empty set. Each time you measure A, you get a different result, so the two references to A are references to different sets in time. So you might look at the equations A(t1) - A(t2) = {}(t2 - t1) As t1 approaches t2, A - A becomes the empty set.

Differential Recursion, Real Recursive Functions lead to Continuous Hierarchy

2009-08-02T00:17:00.001-07:00

So, if you consider taking the time step in a recursive function to the smallest possible time, say dt, we get a smooth recursive function. This is "real recursive functions" or "differential recursion." I claim that if you apply this same technique to sets, you will get continuous hierarchy. What is the delta between sets? Reducing the delta between sets to something close to 0 will lead to continuous hierarchy.

Self-Reference versus Self-Awareness

2009-08-01T18:44:00.000-07:00

It seems like I've been chasing after self-reference for quite a while, and now I need to chase after self-awareness.

Continuous Hierarchy: What we are trying to achieve

2009-08-01T16:55:00.000-07:00

With continuous hierarchy, we are trying to get rid of recursion. The universe is not recursive, it is continuous. What we need is a continuous recursion, without levels. This works out to continuous self-reference, instead of leveled self-reference. Or no self-reference at all. No self-reference at all seems rather impossible at this point--people refer to themselves all the time, when they say "I", so let's attempt continuous self-reference. Continuous self-reference seems like narcissism, or schizophrenia, but without the mirror.

metaghastcar

2009-05-26T02:48:00.000-07:00

So if you had a car that ran on meta, how far would it go?

Object Oriented Artificial Life Programming

2008-09-25T22:24:00.000-07:00

So what if we had object oriented programming that was a little more like real life. Instead of having a reference to an object, say to contact an object to send it a message, you had to do a search through a space (ambient authority?). Even if you have the address of an object, a different object may pick up the message, possibly to pick it up and deliver it through delegation or aspect oriented programming.

Here are the fundamentals:

1. Objects can create new objects.
2. Every object has a voice/signing ability that is adjustable to send messages to other objects
3. Every object can feel/taste/hear/see/smell its environment and other objects
4 . Objects can ingest objects to protect them or destroy them.
5. Objects can move other objects around.
6. Messages may or may not make it to an object.
7. Messages may be recorded for playback.
...

Structures

2008-09-02T14:30:00.000-07:00

The bit is a 1 dimensional object (in time) everything else in information technology is a collection

Discrete Structures (information based)
Set (0D, non-ordered, singleton values--since it is 0 dimensional, it doesn't really exist)
Array (list, 1D, implicit indexing, singleton values)
Array (map, 2D, explicit indexing, name-value pairs)
Array (graph, nD, implicit indexing, value tuples)
Table (nD, fixed size rows and columns), CSV, TSV
Table (tree/outline/hierarchy/taxonomy, nD, variable size rows and columns) XML, HDF, Lisp
Hypertext (multiple taxonomies, ontology)
Image (3D, fixed size depth, rows and columns), JPEG, TIFF, PNG
Movie (4D, bounded depth, rows and columns, time), MPEG
HyperMovie (4D, unbounded depth, interactive)
MMOG (5D, each user sees a different movie)

Continuous Structures, Equations (geometry/calculus based)
Now - 0D object (transient)
Points - Continuous 1D object (in time)
Lines - Continuous 2D object
Curves - Continuous 3D object
Plane - Continuous 3D object
Surface - Continuous 4D object
Mathematical Space - Continuous nD object
Volume - Continuous nD object
Hypervolume - Self-referential volume, Klein bottle, Escher's "The Gallery", Continuous Hierarchy (self-reference at a massive scale)

Hybrid Structures (physics based--motion described by geometry/calculus, measurement described by information)
Fractals
Fuzzy Systems
Mass
Time
Space
Turbulence/Flow
Molecules
Photons

Statistical Parsing

2008-06-14T11:32:00.000-07:00

So I just discovered statistical parsing. It looks a lot like continuous hierarchy.
You would assign a probability to each ordering of a set. You would assign a probability to each membership of a set, and you would assign a probability or uncertainty to the value of any element.

Subjective Uncertainty in Code

2008-05-29T08:27:00.000-07:00

So how do we apply subjectivity and uncertainty to code? Here's how: You are uncertain which method you are going to call. You are uncertain as to the order of the parameters to the method. Inside the method, you are uncertain as to which statements are in the body of the code. And you are uncertain as to the ordering of the statements. You are also uncertain of the number of objects and ordering that will be returned from a function.

If you were programming in Lisp, you wouldn't be sure of the ordering or content of the s-expressions in your program.

Turing Machines and Fuzzy Systems

2008-04-05T23:51:00.001-07:00

So Turing Machines are based on symbols. But what if no two symbols are exactly alike, especially in time? Does it matter? Can a Turing machine recognize a symbol which is not exactly like what it's expecting? This is the whole problem with classical Turing machines, that they are based on symbols which are exact. (perhaps not quantum Turing machines)

Oscillating or Fuzzy or Uncertain Time

2008-04-04T20:52:00.000-07:00

So if we are unsure of things in space, perhaps we can have uncertainty in time as well. Perhaps I can say it's 9pm + or - 7 minutes. Since we have time zones, we don't really know what the real exact time is, we are generally within one hour of the actual time. That provides a lot of leeway.

More on Continuous Hierarchy and Geometry

2008-03-11T08:02:00.001-07:00

1. We are uncertain of what the fundamental aspect of geometry is (points don't exist)
2. We are uncertain of the collections of the fundamental aspects.

Continuous Hierarchy and Geometry

2008-02-16T23:28:00.000-08:00

Here's how Continuous Hierarchy relates to geometry.

1. We are uncertain of either the velocity or the position of a point
2. We are uncertain of the ordering of points within a group.
3. We are uncertain of the points a group contains
4. A polygon is an uncertainly ordered group.

Reversible Computing

2008-02-16T08:09:00.000-08:00

At the lowest level, reversible (quantum) computing (circuitry) can be done by maintaining the inputs from each computation. Thus there along with 2 inputs for an AND gate, there is an unknown input. There are 3 outputs as well, the 2 inputs, and the result from anding the two inputs. This allows computations to be reversed and checked as well. There is no loss of information, and unknowns progress into knowns. The only thing that you can't recover is the unknowns.

Continuous Hierarchical Turing Machine

2008-02-16T05:55:00.000-08:00

So what would be a turing machine that could deal with continuous hierarchy?

1. First, it would have to deal with symbols changing slightly, with possible unknown symbols.
2. It would have to deal with tape that it doesn't know the contents of, and the tape may change suddenly under it. (I think currently turing machines have this).
3. It would have to deal with reordering of symbols on the tape.

I think that probablistic turing machines can handle 3. And a quantum computer is a a kind of probablistic turing machine.

I have to think more about the rest of the turing machine besides the tape perhaps.

Combinatoric Turing Machines

2008-02-08T22:04:00.000-08:00

Combinatoric Turing Machines work on scales of the internet, where there are millions of symbols. Each step in the machine reads and writes millions of symbols. But for efficiency of processing, out of the millions of symbols being read, only a few are chosen to compute the value of a symbol under the read head. Once you have the chosen symbols, you would apply some criteria to chose one: average, max, min, lucky, first, last, sum, best, most terms covered, etc.

More on Fractal Turing Machines

2008-02-08T21:58:00.000-08:00

Well, here's more on fractal turing machines. What I am thinking is that you can go both up and down the number of symbols being analyzed. Thus you could look at two symbols at the same time, four symbols at the same time .... Or you could look at 1/2 a symbol... As well as being able to advance fractional amounts. If you look at a lot of symbols at the same time, you would need some function to provide a final value, like, min, max, average, etc. What if you have millions of symbols, what do you do? The answer is to choose a certain number of symbols to represent the collection of symbols, or what you might call a combinatoric turing machine.

Double Helix Turing Machine

2008-01-31T19:52:00.000-08:00

What if there was a twisting Turing Machine?

Fractal Turing Machines

2008-01-31T19:24:00.000-08:00

So there is variable rate encoding of music. What about a variable rate Turing machine, such that the frequency and amplitude of each symbol are different distances apart on the tape.

Or how about a Turing Machine which divides a symbol into 2, 4, or 8 symbols (quadtree and octree).

These might be thought of as fractal Turing machines.

Criticisms of the Turing machine

2008-01-31T09:01:00.000-08:00

Here are some criticisms of the Turing machine:

1. It doesn't allow for advancing a fractional amount along the tape
2. It doesn't allow for torn tape, or the machine falling off the tape
3. It might not allow for unknown symbols

What you might want to do with a Turing machine is:

1. Add new sections of tape
2. Delete old sections of tape

I think these can be handled with a Turing machine, through erasing and moving symbols

I think we need to advance to a fractal Turing machine

A Continuous Hierarchy

2008-01-30T05:34:00.000-08:00

Composite functions in computers take a time to run. Each step takes time. Climbing up and down hills take time. Each step takes time. So how are steps in computer science like steps in a computer? We can often determine how long a step will take in a computer. A composite step however, may take different amounts of time. Thus we assign a range to the amount of time an algorithm takes, or a big O() notation. In real life, we can give a rough estimate to how long a step will take, but it depends on how fast the person is hiking, what kinds of obstacles there are, etc. Similarly, there might be obstacles in computer science. The hills in computers are circuits, and each step is a transistor. The circuit is continuous. If we use AND OR and NOT as primitives on the network, we can see even more time being spent between steps. Light bounces around the room a continuous fashion, and each collision with an object is a step.

Continuous Hierarchy as Continous Programming

2008-01-27T00:18:00.000-08:00

Currently, computer programming, in a language like, say Lisp or Java, has a levels of hierarchy. I think we need to break the levels down into surfaces or curves, to achieve continuous programming. Then we can mix and match.

2008-01-26T23:38:00.000-08:00

If you think of logic as a hierarchy of rules, then what is a fuzzy hierarchy of rules? What is a continuous hierarchy of rules? The rules must break out of their well confined structure of sets and be truly fuzzy. Thus decision trees become a pile of fuzzy fuzzy rules.

Defective Fuzzy Operators, Fuzzy Defective Operators

2008-01-25T17:21:00.002-08:00

So what are defective fuzzy operators? They are the typical fuzzy operators, such as union/or intersection/and and complement/not but they don't return crisp fuzzy sets. Instead they return fuzzy fuzzy sets. So the boundaries of your resultant fuzzy set don't match the input fuzzy sets.

This appears to be a new technology. One may say that my model is wrong if the operators return the wrong results. I say that fuzzy operators as they typical are thought of are defective, and need to be replaced with more realistic, real world operators.

Perhaps there are fractal fuzzy operators or fuzzy fractal operators. And don't forget faulty fuzzy operators and fuzzy faulty operators

Something to think about.

Fractional and Transcendental Derivatives

2008-01-15T00:08:00.000-08:00

So, if you have a fractal hierarchy that bends, its motion can be described with fractional derivatives. But what is a transcendental derivative? That seems very interesting, and I am pursuing information on it.

Continuous Hierarchy from a geographical perspective

2008-01-13T06:29:00.001-08:00

We have artificial political boundaries that form from bivalent thinking. But the world is geographical. There aren't really lines where my property, city, county, state, or country begins or ends. Of course, you shouldn't trespass or steal--but that's a social idea, not a geographical idea. You would let your neighbor stand on your driveway to talk to you, but if he was just standing there all day long, you might be concerned for him.

As a youngster, I thought about what it meant to have a house that was on a state or country line. Would that mean you would have to pay taxes in both states? Neither state? The state of your choice? Whatever side of the house you spent the most time in?

Continuous Hierarchy, a new definition

2008-01-09T08:09:00.000-08:00

So I don't think that set membership should be a quality of continuous hierarchy. Instead continuous hierarchy should be more like exploration. You wander around a "space" and find elements, without any set boundaries. There is no membership in sets. Sets are abstractions which don't belong in continuous hierarchy. What there is is relativity. You place elements relative to each other, not on coordinates like in a set or not in a set. The location of each element is uncertain, as well as the velocity.

Now how does this relate to speech? A sentence is a landscape of information.

Multidimensional Electricity

2008-01-07T06:46:00.000-08:00

I know that direct current electricity runs from positive to negative. But what if there were more poles to electricity? There are 4 forces. Can we leverage the forces in these to generate other types of electricity? Maybe we can remotely control electricity? Alternating current can be thought of as a 2 dimensional wave. What about an ocean of electricity, a 3 dimensional wave? Or even more untapped dimensions. Light might be thought of as an ocean of electricity. How many dimensions are there to light? Complex numbers were perhaps invented to get rid of discontinuities between surfaces in space. What about the discontinuities between stars in space? Could some complex number system allow us to travel between stars?

Editor's Note: After viewing a lecture on Physics, I realize that there is a field of electricity.

Subjective Computer Science

2007-12-31T18:43:00.001-08:00

Well, computer science is really a subjective science...here's why. The people who write the requirements have their own view of what the product will be. The people who design the product have their own view of what the product will be. The people who implement the design have their own view of what the product will be. The people who test the implementation have their own view of what the product will be. The people who put the product into production have their own view of what the product will be. The technical writers have their own view of what the product will be. The technical and sales support team has their own view of what the product will be. And the customer has their own view of what the software should do. Ideally, the software should do what the customer wants. But each customer has different wants, thus there are conflicting requirements, conflicting designs, conflicting implementations, conflicting testing, conflicting deployments, conflicting documentation, and conflicting technical support.

All these views and conflicts are what are so interesting in computer science. So instead of trying to stomp out different views, or conquer the world, we should embrace conflicting ideas. Here are some examples. Everyone has a different set of search terms they want to look for. Everyone has a different set of applications they use for work and entertainment. Diversity is good. Choice is good.

Now, how do we make diversity and choice possible? One approach would be to set some standards for people to adhere to. This stifles creativity, and sets the stage for software that doesn't please the customer. One way to make diversity and choice possible is to implement a pluggable interface. This is form of a standard. But there can be different pluggable interfaces for different products. Wouldn't it be nice if you could use the same plugin in different products? Say you had a plugin that worked in ImageJ. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to use the same plugin in Adobe Photoshop and the GIMP? Wouldn't it be nice to use the same interface builder format for Xcode, Eclipse, Visual Studio and NetBeans? What if I could write XML applications that would work in Safari, Firefox, and IE? It's the same fucking problem all the time. Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel. Do I use CLI or Babel?

So what is the solution to all this? At a fundamental level, we have to accept that there is diversity. There is uncertainty in all numbers. There is uncertainty in the elements in a set. There is uncertainty in the order of elements in a set.

Uncertainty and Continuous Hierarchy

2007-12-22T20:31:00.000-08:00

Uncertainty may be thought of as a form of continuous hierarchy. You aren't certain of the levels within the hierarchy, the nodes within the hierarchy, and where the arcs are connected within the hierarchy.

For elements, you aren't certain exactly what the element's value is.
For sets, you aren't exactly certain what the elements are.
For both, you aren't sure whether it's an element or a set, or both.
For order, you aren't certain of the order of the elements.

Thus uncertainty is a form of continuous hierarchy.

Continuous Hierarchy versus Fuzzy Stuff

2007-11-29T07:50:00.000-08:00

The difference between continuous hierarchy and fuzzy sets is that fuzzy sets give a degree or range to linguistic variables. This is necessary for speed. Continuous hierarchy treats linguistic variables as a continuous hierarchy.

The Network Effect of Gravity

2007-11-28T20:47:00.000-08:00

When there was only a single point in space, gravity didn't exist. Once two pieces of matter were formed, gravity became present. As matter coalesced into stars, galaxies moons and planets, gravity became a network of all matter connected to all matter. The closer the matter was to each other, the heavier the weight of the connection. Larger pieces of matter contained more weight in the connections. Lots of connections meant that space was bent due to the weight of the connections. Weight is not a property of mass, it is a property of gravity or the network connection. The further the connection, the less the weight. The mesh of gravity estimates a gravitational field. Thus, at the discrete level, there is matter, then at the hybrid level there is a gravity network, and at the continuous level, gravity becomes a surface or field. The quantum nature of gravity means that as body moves through space, matter obscures other matter, and two connections might become one or one connection might become two. As connections are formed and dropped, there are quantum jumps in gravity, or gravitons. More obscuration means a stronger connection.

The Network Effect

2007-11-28T20:43:00.000-08:00

What has happened in computer systems? First there was the first instance of the computer, then more came. Then we started hooking them together in a network or mesh. Now computers are in fields of wireless networks. Soon the whole internet will become one big field. The same thing will happen to cell phones. Currently there are only cell phone networks connected by a network of cell towers and land lines. The next step is to create a field that all cell phones will be a part of, and the network will disappear into the field.

Equivalent to continuous hierarchy

2007-11-28T10:45:00.000-08:00

An equivalent to continuous hierarchy or network might be an energy hierarchy or network. I am not refering to the typical electric company. I am referring to energy in it's natural form. Gravity, electromagnetism and others. Would a nervous system be considered an energy network? What is the nervous system for gravity? Gravity seems to be centered on points of matter. Gravity between all the atoms in the universe creates a tremendously large network. Magnetism creates networks between magnetic objects. I believe that forces within atoms create very small networks. Gravity seems to travel in both directions of the network, and electromagnetism has definite poles to it. I don't know about atomic forces.

I guess typical physics would call these things fields and write equations to describe them.

Continuous Hierarchy revisited

2007-11-28T10:16:00.000-08:00

What seems to make hierarchies continuous is movement in space and time. Perhaps movement or fluidity is what makes particles look like waves. The question remains whether motion is a continuous, discrete continuous or discrete thing. All my intuition leads me to believe it is discrete continuous in space (discreteness occurs during collisions) and continuous in time. If we discuss collisions in time, we talk about scheduling. Perhaps the universe is running on a scheduler. Two things can't exist in the same spot--can two things exist at the same time? If a single particle exists in a vacuum, will it vibrate? Is there something about a vacuum that makes it vibrate?

Finally, a definition of continuous hierarchy

2007-11-27T06:44:00.000-08:00

A continuous hierarchy or network is a collection of sets in which:

1. The elements are hard to distinguish. Examples of this are puns and synonyms.
2. Elements are different based on viewpoint (fuzzy numbers).
3. Sets can be difficult to distinguish.
4. Sets have different elements depending on viewpoint. This brings forth a whole subjectiveness to mathematics and computer science. Discussions about whether something is a fish or a mammal, a fruit or a vegetable become relevant.
5. The whole hierarchy is a dynamic, changing thing. This allows languages to change.
6. The order of elements within a set is hard to distinguish
7. The order of elements within a set is different depending on viewpoint
8. The order of elements within a set is also a continuous hierarchy or network.

Perhaps these simple insights will help us create a mathematics for politics, religion, social sciences, etc.

Subsets of Continuous Hierarchy

2007-11-21T10:00:00.000-08:00

One of the subsets of continuous hierarchy is dynamic hierarchy. Viewed from the point of set theory (say Venn diagrams), dynamic hierarchy includes rotating sets, growing sets, shrinking sets, moving sets, jumping sets, and deforming sets. Hierarchies that continuously reform links. Hierarchies creating and destroying nodes. Loose links. Constant restructuring. Adaptable hierarchies. No ego. Only purpose. Hierarchical infrastructure that dynamic hierarchies meet get thrown into a quandry.

Another subset of continuous hierarchy is partial hierarchy. In a set theory view, the edges of the set become permeable. A member could be both in and out of a set or somewhere not quite in a set. The set boundaries may disappear leaving half of a set boundary. Some boundaries are distinct and some are non-existent, and everything in between. In the hierarchy, the edges are semipresent and are colored in gray values.

There are other subsets of continuous hierarchy that are yet to be named. One that might be considered is one where the nodes share a point instead of an edge. Another is where nodes overlap to some degree.

What seems apparent is that continuous hierarchy or continuous networking is something that has energy. Electromagnetic waves have both a particle and a wave behavior. The wave carries the particle. In continuous hierarchy, perhaps there is energy flowing between the nodes and over the edges. Perhaps in computer science, this energy may be thought of as the program counter, thread of control, or current instruction. I prefer to think of all nodes as being energized alive and operating.

All these represent primitive ideas about continuous hierarchy. The search continues.

Semantic Organism

2007-11-21T00:44:00.000-08:00

What is language? Some say language is a semantic network. I say it's a semantic organism. There are many semantic organisms, natural, sign, mathematical, technical, visual. People absorb semantic organisms to survive, learn and entertain themselves. Some semantic organisms are painful, some are healing. Some medications control semantic organisms. Some semantic organisms affect medications.

Continuous Hierarchy

2007-11-20T23:17:00.000-08:00

One might ask, what is continuous hierarchy? Well, I'll tell you. It is not the hierarchy you typically think of. One might think of the edges of the hierarchy getting shorter and shorter. One might think of the nodes getting bigger and bigger. Edges get less important. Nodes begin to overlap. If the hierarchy is view in terms of set theory, the edges of the sets begin to bleed into each other. A member could be both in and out of a set, or somewhere not quite in a set. The set boundaries may disappear leaving half of a set boundary. Some boundaries become distinct and some are non-existent. When languages and cultures meet, they exchange words. Jargon from a specialty creeps into natural language. (URL is you are el. english and spanish and hebrew?) I don't believe this is fuzzy sets or fuzzy logic. Here's why: everything is also dynamic.
Distance collapses. Languages collapse under the pressure from other languages. Cultures collapse. Technology lets languages extend into countries. Infrastructure that is distinctly hierarchical gets undermined. Only a system based on continuous hierarchy can survive. The top and the bottom are right next to each other. There is no top and there is no bottom. Only shifting hierarchies. Hierarchies continuously reforming different links. Loose links. Constant restructuring. Adaptable hierarchies. No ego. Only purpose. An organization with a vision survives. Critical skills are shared so there aren't any weak points.

Now. How does one write a system with these capabilities which does this in an efficient manner?