Obvious Leo wrote:Reactor wrote:What I have learned from a career in engineering:
1. We work and play in ongoing dynamic time, but all our logic, arithmetic, and machine control is confined to timeless static frames. We can speak of and write about circuit, machine, and animate behavior, but the fundamental operators of ordinary logic can only describe static states, not dynamic activities.
2. Behavior emulation using standard logic is therefore limited to still frames stitched together with clock pulses or many lines of linear-sequential code (software) like a child’s connect-the-dot drawing. That is why there are millions of lines of code in some programs.
3. There is a dynamic alternative to computation for process management. It is truly real time, it is parallel-concurrent, and it reacts immediately to changes. It has 100-times fewer components, is 100-times faster to respond, has little or no run-time software, and it is safer. Control circuits and systems designed and built to this method would be improved and cost less.
I offer to prove the truth of the first two statements (for those who do not already believe them) and demonstrate the truth of the third statement.
Best regards, Reactor
Reactor. We are kin. However when you refer to non-linear dynamic systems theory in a forum such as this you may as well express your thoughts in Zwahili. The place is infested with Newtonians who couldn't see reality if it jumped up and bit them on the ****.
Regards Leo
Leo,
Thanks for responding, but I was seeking approval from the forum to begin dialog on this topic.
I am not referring to “non-linear dynamic systems theory,” but a Reactive Algebra of my own invention.
If you are familiar with Allen’s Temporal Intervals (ITL), you probably realize that his temporal relations of occurrence can only be determined in computers by first recording the events of interest as they occur and by subsequently comparing those records or frames against a series of previously-recorded reference frames or typical models or labels—that is, statically—in space. An alternate static method assigns numbers or time-stamps to the beginnings and endings of the intervals as they occur. Arithmetic procedures can then be performed on the resulting sets of intervals’ numbers to determine to which of the thirteen models a given series of happenings is most similar. These and other algorithms can be performed by human reckoning or automatically by computer using standard logic and arithmetic operations. All such static procedures, however, can be performed in typical fashion only after the actual events have occurred, rather than concurrently with the happenings. These static procedures must refer to captive lists of interval models or arithmetic criteria in order to determine to which of the most likely interval relationships a given set of occurrences belong.
In contrast, my reactive algebra can express the relationships of similar interval pairs in symbols, each of which have corresponding hardware logic element arrangements that can identify them in real time, as they happen.
There is a lot of background information I would like to air and discuss before demonstrating the reactive algebra, in the vein of an education on the topic.
Regards, Reactor