Network of Functions
Document the world's entities like we document the functions of code, and build their network.
How the world works can be understood by viewing at all things as functions, and building their network. For example, a shop nearby takes in electricity, people's work, monetary inputs from customers, etc., and returns products to customers, and a number of other "side effects". A shop outside, thus, is a function with I/O.
The same applies to companies. A company takes something in (e.g., natural resources), and returns something else (e.g., products, or their parts).
This is also true to schools, hospitals, etc. A hospital takes in sick people, and returns healthy people.
There are many other examples of functions, e.g., a mobile phone takes in electric power, and input, voice gestures, microwave radiation, etc., and returns things like differences in pixel luminosities, frequencies of speaker vibrations, other electromagnetic impulses and so on., even based on the input of code.
The very surface of a stone nearby you takes in photons of one type of characteristics, and returns photons of different type of characteristics.
Anything that interacts can be thought of as a function.
The idea would be to document the world, as if the world were to be build out of functions.
Hopefully, this would help us really understand how the world works, and what is possible, in terms of abstract state spaces. This is actually related closely to the previous idea of Technology Maps ™ on Halfbakery, and inspired by thinking that in fact, the idea of "Function Networks" (FNs) is much broader than the idea of "Neural Networks" (NNs), in a sense that the NNs are composed of narrower set of possible functions. For example, mostly linear functions, and with a couple of non-linear ones as activation functions, and thinking of -- what if we would simply allow all the functions, in the most general sense, and built a network of them.
In fact, this extends quite broadly, and branches very fast, because -- every website, every protein, every lab and institution is a function too, and this type of documentation of the world would best be done by a collaborative effort, perhaps starting with the cooperative open project by world's nations, open knowledge organizations, and largest search engines, taking into account the fact, that openness needs to be with wise constraints.
We had some progress with websites in fact, in a sense, that recently websites had increasingly taken on to implement their APIs to document themselves.
However, most of the world remains remains undocumented.
The sole purpose is to introduce, evolve and maintain data alignment protocol.
Man patinka ši idėja. Galima derinti su verslo debesimi. Viena iš mano idėjų:
https://github.com/samsquire/ideas2
I like this idea. Could be combined with business cloud. One of my ideas:
https://github.com/samsquire/ideas2#98-business-cloud
Taigi, galvodamas šia linkme, aš bandžiau abstrahuoti dalykus, kuriuos mes renkame čia, 0oo. Iš esmės :
Atrodo, kad tai gerai atitinka nustatytas CS sąvokas:
So, thinking along these lines, I tried to abstract the things that we collect here at 0oo. Basically:
Category: Function class, e.g., Goal, Category, QuestionMethod: Function prototype, e.g., Idea, Invention, TransformationSystem: Function instance, e.g., Plan, Project, Agent, Organization, Team, Person, Equipment, Tool, Resource, InstrumentTask: Function call, e.g., Task, Request, Order.Place: Function parameter, e.g., Location, Address, Account.Result: Function response, e.g., System Log, Event, Report, Executed task, Operation, Work result, Demo, Transfer, Transaction, Log, Blog post, Press release, Product, Service deployed.It seems, that this corresponds well to the established concepts in CS:
Matyt, OPERANDAS ir VALUE, t.y., 5 ir 6 susilieja į vieną, nes jie yra labai panašūs, o tie, kurie mano, kad santykis nėra objektas, klysta.
Apparently, OPERAND and VALUE, i.e., the 5th and 6th merge into one, as they are very similar, and those who think that a relation is not an object, are mistaken.
// OPERANDAS ir VALUE, t. Y. 5 ir 6 susilieja į vieną //
Tai reikštų, kad neatskiriama „kintamoji“ (vieta vertybei) ir „vertė“ (pats dalykas). Taigi, galbūt prasminga likti atskirai.
// OPERAND and VALUE, i.e., the 5th and 6th merge into one //
Doing that would mean not distinguishing between a "variable" (a place for value) and the "value" (thing itself). So, perhaps it makes sense to stay separate.
Tai puiki idėja. Tai yra prielaida, ką darau. Sukursiu kitą temą, paaiškinančią mano požiūrį. Bet taip, viskas gali būti modeliuojama funkcijomis. Funkcijos ir diferencialinės lygtys yra lygiavertės. Kvantinę mechaniką galima suformuluoti per funkcijas. Mūsų programavimo kalbos ir qm yra labai panašios.
Thats an excellent idea. Thats the premis of what im doing. Ill create another thread explaining my approach. But yes, everything can be modelled with funcs. Funcs and differential equations are equivalent. Quantum mechanics can be formulated thru funcs. Our programming languages and qm are very similar, imo.
Jis gali būti abstrahuojamas įvairiais būdais. Santykiai gali būti modeliuojami kaip dalelių susipynimai, funkcijos, panašios į qm. Reaktyviosios funkcijos, ribojančios valstybę. Bet tada ribojanti funkcija gali būti pavaizduota kaip objektas, o rekvizitai - kaip dvi dalelių nuorodos ir simbolinis operandas. Tai grafiko nuorodos aprašas. Dabar mes turime grafiką ir galime jį kurti bei manipuliuoti grafiškai, naudojant žemo kodo kūrimo sistemą
Žinoma, tarp dalelių sistemų gali būti santykių, kaip nuo daugelio iki daugelio ir nuo vieno iki daugelio ir visa tai. Visi jie yra susipynimai. Ar yra matematikos ekspertų? Turiu klasifikuoti visą operandų rinkinį, kad būtų pateikti visi būdai, kaip rašyti ribojančias funkcijas, atominį stilių.
It can be abstracted in different ways. Relationships can be modelled as particle entanglements, funcs, analagous to qm. Reactive funcs constraining the state. But then, a constraining func can be represented as an object, with props as two particle refs, and a symbolic operand. Thats a descriptor of a link in graph. Now we got graph, and we can build and manipulate it graphically, in a low code development system
Of course, there can be relationships between systems of particles, like many to many and one to many and all that. They are all entanglements. Any math experts? I need to classify a complete set of operands, to represent all ways to write constraining funcs, atomic style.
// Kokie matematikos ekspertai? Man reikia klasifikuoti visą operandų rinkinį [..] atominis stilius
Manau, jums būtų naudingi logikos ir simbolinio mąstymo ekspertai, ontologijų ir žinių inžinerijos ekspertai, o ne tiek daug iš matematikų.
[skihappy], man atrodo, kad tai, kas patenka į jūsų dėmesį, patenka į jūsų sukurtos sistemos „prizmę“, bet jūs to aiškiai neminite, todėl skaitytojai nesupras, apie ką jūs kalbate , tiksliai ... taigi, ar galėtumėte bent aiškiai paminėti dalykus savo sakiniuose, pavyzdžiui, pasakyti tuos kelis sakinius, pavyzdžiui:
_ "Norint sukurti žinių grafiką, kuriame yra (tam tikros reprezentacijos ir galimybės), mums reikės A, ir jis gaus, mums reikia B ir C.", _
Nepatingėkite, kontekstualizavimas verčia susimąstyti.
// Any math experts? I need to classify a complete set of operands [..] atomic style
I think you'd benefit from experts in logic and symbolic reasoning, experts in ontologies and knowledge engineering, not so much from mathematicians.
[skihappy], I get a feeling that what comes to your attention, gets through the "prism" of your system that you're building, but you're not explicitly mentioning it, so readers won't understand what you're talking, exactly... so, could you at least mention subjects in your sentences explicitly, for example, saying those few sentences, like:
"In order to construct a knowledge graph that has (some representations and capabilities), we'll need A, and it get it, we'd need B, and C.",
Don't be lazy, contextualization makes thought.
Gerai. Aš linkęs fiksuotis. Aš perskaičiau jūsų idėją. Jūs siūlote, kad viskas būtų suskirstyta į struktūrą, kuri yra funkcijų išdėstymas, ir kiekviena funkcija būtų dokumentuota, ir būtų galima pamatyti, kaip viskas kuriama, ištyrus struktūrą. Funkcijas lengva dokumentuoti. Kaip šios funkcijos derinamos į struktūrą, yra kita tema, ar nemanote? Tik pradinės mintys. Bet man patinka idėja bandyti susisteminti žinias į protingą struktūrą, sudarytą iš sluoksnių, kuriuose galima nukrypti nuo funkcinių sričių iki nulio. Atrodo, kad tai gera idėja, tačiau kuo ji skiriasi nuo esamos praktikos. Malonu turėti pavyzdį. Manau, kad jūs kalbate apie žinių suskaidymą atominėse žievėse, kiekviena su savo aprašymu. Ar tai teisinga?
Ok. I do tend to get fixated. I reread your idea. You suggest that everything is broken down into structure, which is arrangements of funcs, and each func is documented, and it can be seen how the things are build by examining the structure. Funcs are easy to document. How these funcs fit together into structure is another subject, dont you think so? Just initial thoughts. But i do like the idea of trying to organize knowledge into a sensible structure, with layers, where one can traverse functional scopes to zero in on specifics. It seems like a good idea, but how would it be different from existing practice. Be nice to have a sample. I think you talking about breaking up knowledge in atomic peices, each with its description. Is that right?