Friday, November 24, 2017

Is the Realm necessary?

Changes pursuant to implementing the concept of the Clique Space trinity from the last post have led me to a contradiction that I believe can be completely resolved by doing away with any explicit reference to an Element's Realm via a principle.

As I can recall, Realms were once known as Clique Spaces. I re-named them in part because they could conflict with the use of Clique Space as a trademark. I assert that Clique Space is a trademark to this day. However, the implementation of the Realm concept as a property that can be held in thought as a distinct quale in a principle and communicated as a surrogate in a signal has been looking a little artificial for some time.

This artificiality has been lingering because a while back, I noted in an earlier blog entry the need for one Client Device to be able to communicate to another a sacred quality of belonging to an individual. If the other Client Device was from the same individual, that other Client Device would be able to sense that the communication was from self; representing a unit of cognition from the individual manifest. This was handled by an (as yet currently unimplemented mechanism) where a signature was steganographically embedded in the containing Element's identifier. To a pair of co-sovereigned Client Devices, this signature would be plainly evident while to a pair of contra-sovereigned Client Devices, each would be speaking to the other about quale contained in Elements that, if they even possessed some type of signature mechanism, this mechanism encoded its messages using an unknown cypher.

When, as described in my previous entry, three singletons became one, the Sovereign became the Sovereign's Realm and hence a member of the Realm's viscus; a visceral Participant. However, the Client Device nature of this singleton "trybrid" also acts as a synapse's Participant. A Client Device creates two new synapse Participants every time it engages with another as an initiator; it assigns one Participant to itself as the Owner of the synapse, and the other to its interlocutor as the non-Owner.

So, what is it going to be? Is the Sovereign going to be a Realm and generate a realm surrogate to communicate this fact, or is the Sovereign going to be a Client Device and create synapse Participants every time it engages? Clearly, it cannot be the latter which goes.

The Realm (as Clique Space) was an observation I made about my ideas soon after they were conceived in 2004. I observed that my ideas described the interactions of individuals, and these individuals each had a sphere of influence (a Clique Space or a Realm). At the time I conceived the idea, I also noticed that each individual may bare an Affiliation to one or more collective entities, and I also thought that a degree of collectivism could be expressed in the notion of Realms. All of this was still very opaque; I had conceived a mechanism in addition to Realms that had two hierarchies: one composed of Media Profiles that describe physical aspects of devices (including Client Devices) through Connections and another composed of Mode Profiles that describe assertions through Affiliations. The Affiliations and their constituent Mode Profiles have been removed. It looks like the realm as an explicitly named component of the implementation should go too.

So, time and continued application of effort have seen an evolution of the concept where whole structures have dissolved. A single hierarchy can be used to describe not only physical characteristics of devices, but can also be used to assert membership to and function within organisations. Realms are removed from the implementation because the phenomenon of the manifest individual is realised through the steganogaphically signed Element identifier.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

The "holy" trinity.

This entry is primarily about how I have observed a pattern in the code, and the re-factoring I have done as a result, but it might also perhaps be an observation in how religion (Christianity in this instance) makes chew toys out of similar patterns.

I have observed that the Sovereign's Realm, the Client Device, and the Sovereign itself all exist as singleton objects. Hence, I have simplified the implementation by aggregating them all into the same singleton. It is a simplification that was not apparent to me in 2004 when I conceived Clique Space (TM), but it is apparent to me now, and so this record stands as testament to the models evolution.

I liken this Clique Space trinity to the "father" (the Sovereigns Realm), the "son" (the Client Device) and the "holy ghost" (the Sovereign), although there is probably no significance in this relationship because religion is fairy tale used by people to temper their fear of living in a capricious universe of unfathomable complexity.

Perhaps the Identity is the son, but I guess the correlation is trivial; perhaps others will be in a better position to explain this apparent coincidence if there is anything to be explained.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

What is the singular term for "glia"?

I am entertaining a dilemma which I will answer conclusively in this posting.

As Clique Space(TM) continues to evolve, the necessity for delineating between neurons and other related cells (I have called them glia in previous posts because of what seems to be a structural necessity that for as aware of neuroscience (no spell check - not pseudoscience) as I am not, seem to be similar to glial cells.

My code-base consists of five projects. One of these five projects is called "GlialDevice". I don't like this - it's too long and clashes with another project (the base project) called "ClientDevice". Being that I am designing GlialDevice to encapsulate all the necessary behaviour of any glial device, I want this project and the common behaviour it represents to stand as an idealised Client Device.

There is a need, however and especially within the Neuron project, to refer to a specific glial device without having to be concerned about the specific glial device's function. Hence, I need a label (indeed an abstract noun) that allows me to indicate that I am talking about a specific glial device even though I am not concerned with what that device specifically does.

I have decided the following: this project's name will remain the same. However, when I need to refer to a specific glial device instance (an example is when a Neuron is engaged by a glial device), I will use the term "glion". Now at least one publication has protested the use of this term; but I am not concerned. I am going to henceforth use the term "glion" to describe an abstract instance of a glial device, and such a label will be used in my code whenever such a need arises.

So, some examples of the use of this label are: 1. a Neuron will be engaged by a glion, 2. a glion can act as an initiator in an engagement, and 3. a glion can observe, but cannot participate in cognition.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

Refactoring and some name changes.

I've decided to change more names.

The Agent Device is now known as the Neuron. The capitalisation is intended to convey that all that has happened here is that an existing concept in the patent has merely been given a different name because after some deliberation over these years, I have finally decided to run with my intuition and give this beast the name I think is obvious.

The administrator client (without capitals because I believe the mechanism wasn't an accurately described part of the original patent) has actually been split into two projects. The first, called the "glial device", is believed to have function similar to what neuroglia in our nervous system possess. These type of Client Devices can receive messages and send challenges (explained in a previous blog entry somewhere), but cannot themselves contribute to the cognitive function of a given Clique Space(TM) because they cannot send messages and receive challenges. These Client Devices are rather more observers to the activity which is primarily mediated by the Neurons. The glial device is abstract; it contains the engagement logic necessary to behave like a glial cell should.

The second project is tentatively called the "renderer" does what it might suggest to the reader: it renders all the Clique Space components (Elements and Cliques) in a nice graphical context known in the patent as the View. Although very little has been implemented, recent thoughts directed to the presentation seem to have kept the original intentions largely intact with one current exception: a Clique and its collection of Participant Chips will not (currently at least) have a bounded ellipse. The implementation of a bounded ellipse turns out to be out of my capability. I don't know too much about matrices or coefficients or parametric equations to really make sense of the bounded ellipse; I thought a bounded circle (which I had found an algorithm that worked) would be something I could use, but then I just thought that having an unbounded tessellation of Participant Chips itself indicate the Clique to which they belong would be enough for now... maybe this will be enough for ever but I'm going to see how things work with this idea before I commit to any measure of permanency.

Oh, I'm still here... yay!

Saturday, April 8, 2017

Agent Devices are neurons and Administrator Clients are glia.

I'm still here. Doing Clique Space (TM). Drip drip drip.

The pattern seems almost too obvious to actually use, but I suppose I am reaching a state of comfort that might permit another name change.

Agent Devices manage, coordinate, and ultimately implement the dissemination of state within and between Realms. Agent Devices create two synapses when two instances of an Agent Device engage each other. Agent Devices can send and receive message and challenge signals. Agent Devices must be neurons.

Administrator Clients observe the flow of state. Administrator Clients create a single synapse between themselves and the one or more Agent Devices with which they are engaged. Administrator Clients can only receive message signals and send challenge signals. Administrator Clients must be glia.

If usage of the terms Neuron and glia become common place in future blog entries, this will have been because they have replaced the terms Agent Device and administrator client respectively. Neuron will always be a proper noun while glia will be common and therefore will not be capitalised when used in a sentence anywhere else than as the first word.

Glia represent undifferentiated support cells and hence my usage of the term is in this sense, even though administrator clients are a specific type of glial cell. The term administrator client may still have use when I have to craft glial cells that serve other purposes. Maybe the term administrator client has outlived its usefulness; I think I might instead opt for a single monosyllable like "probe" being that I seem to be gradually crafting this Client Device (I might yet keep that term in reference to both glia and Neurons) to provide real-time information on a Clique Space neural cluster.

Maybe the best I can hope for is to put this on GitHub, but I haven't come to that conclusion yet.