I am about to commit some significant changes to my current working copy: local branch master checksum ID of 402ba642a6. Central to Clique Space(TM - although this link to a blog entry published in late June of 2012 is showing its age) is this thing I call the Sovereign. The changes I talk about here implement the the Sovereign's prime purpose.
If one wants to design a system that could potentially act as a medium through which individuality can be projected if not also manifest, the notion of individuality would have to be well defined and delineated. This had been a prime necessity that mothered the concept's invention way back in 2004. Back then I had only the most incidental of notions (I knew it would involve digital signatures created from something that would never be transmitted between Client Devices) of how this feat would be pulled off.
The fact in 2004 was that there was so much about the mechanism of Clique Space that was opaque to my intellect - so much that I could not hold in my mind that I had to start implementing it before I could figure out all of the concept's subtleties. I could see that although the data model (thrashed out a little before publication in the patent of 2008) disclosed the possibility of realisation of the concept, more than fourteen years of deliberation had to be endured before the question of sovereignty could be approached in any substantial way. Sovereignty is the central notion for Clique Space - a notion without which Clique Space would simply not make sense.
The patent first published in January of 2008 used the name Account. At that time, and although the notion of delineating that which was and was not self was considered important, these notions were still a very nascent. As the years advanced and the concept evolved (through terms such as "Repropsyche"... don't know what I was on there, "Absurdum"... indeed I must have been losing hope at this point, and Axle ... a name I trialled because I began to understand how truly central this Element would be), I settled on Sovereign. This fact was disclosed in a blog entry made in December of 2012.
The something that is never transmitted has evolved to become what I now call "that which is sacred". I take this to note that if there is a way to introduce quasi-religious terms into one's software, then this, as far as I can tell, appears to be it. It appears to be a systematic formalisation of the necessary ideal of the sacred, monopolised by religion for most of human experience hitherto, to make manifestation possible. Perhaps this feature is also responsible for inspiring religion in those who are manifest... who knows? I'm no believer, but I find the intersection I appear to have to navigate in Clique Space to be curious.
That which is sacred is stored in a Client Device as a message digest of something that can be input to a digest algorithm. I have used SHA1 in the implementation, but have noted to myself that this algorithm has weaknesses that render it unsuitable for general use. The SHA1 algorithm has proven convenient for my implementation. That which is sacred is never disclosed between Client Devices; it is something that is probably known to the manifest individual (it would certainly serve the interests of the manifest individual to know what it is), but is certainly not known to anyone else because shared knowledge of this value could render the subject vulnerable to a breach of their sovereignty.
The Identity, like the Sovereign, is a component (an Element as stipulated in the patent) that has survived from the concept's genesis, although it too was renamed from the less poetic Active Affiliation. Identities are used to project one's presence onto things in the world. Identities are known as identified Elements because Identities (as well and Participants) are identified by a 20 byte string known as an identifier. It was the coincidence between the length of the identifier and the length of an SHA1 digest that motivated me to use SHA1 while implementing the proof-of-concept; it wouldn't be much work at all to change the length of the identifier when another algorithm is selected, but I decided it was too much work for me to worry myself about now.
The Identity's identifier is combined with that which is sacred using a bitwise exclusive-or operation. This yields an input to the SHA1 pseudo-random number generator which is used to generate a key pair. The private and public keys are assigned to a structure known as a co-Sovereign key, and this key is stored inside the Identity instance. The presence of a co-Sovereign key inside an Identity instance signifies to the Client Device that the given Identity is a Sovereign Element.
Another structure known as a contra-Sovereign key, containing only the public key, is created. This structure is stored as a quale which is assigned to the Identity's key property and communicated inside transmitters between co-engaged Client Devices over synapses formed by the process of engagement. The mechanisms that permit all of this were designed and constructed after the patent was published, as part of the fourteen year journey in the wilderness of concept's development thus far. There are plenty of previous blog entries to regale the interested reader.
A Client Device that receives an Identity key's surrogate will reconstitute the quale and assign the quale to the Identity key's property under a new disclosure if this is indeed a new disclosure. If a new disclosure instance is added to the property, the Client Device will compute a presumptive co-Sovereign key for this Identity. If the public key of this (currently presumptive) co-Sovereign key matches the public key of the disclosed contra-Sovereign key, the co-Sovereign key is stored within the Identity instance; the quality of sovereignty has been proven to be actual and not merely presumptive.
Hence, an Identity's Sovereign Element status can be communicated between two Client Devices. In a similar way, Connections also have sovereignty in that Connections represent Client Device communication access points. A Sovereign Connection represents a co-sovereigned Client Device or rather a unit of mechanism that manifests a particular individual known as the Sovereign to both devices. A biological neuron is an instance of the mechanism of cognitive function in a similar way that a similar machine is an instance designed with the purpose of participating in cognition as a Clique Space aware Neuron (an instance of a subtype of Client Device). A Connection represents an individual Client Device (or perhaps merely one way of contacting one Client Device - one Client Device could have more than one Connection) so activities like synapse formation in Clique Space can occur.
It's all going well. I think my concept is demonstrable to those who might be able to understand its function and can see its application while a practical demonstration of an application is still a ways off. Perhaps I'll find someone who will see Clique Space for what it can promise. Perhaps some day soon.
This is my 200th blog entry.... yay! Two hundred blog entries (most of which appear to have been made in 2010 - 2013 because I was doing a lot of "heavy duty thinking" back then) in over nine years!
Saturday, November 17, 2018
Sunday, July 29, 2018
Naked Neurons, other types of Neurons.
It's been a while since my last post. I'm still alive; I'm still doing this thing I call Clique Space(TM).
This evening, I feel somewhat relaxed. I have a working copy (only a little more than two weeks' old) still to be committed to my code base. This working copy is the first revision where I have moved the main method out of the Neuron and into two new projects. The first is called the "Naked Neuron", and the second, the "Clothed Neuron". The first represents an ongoing specialisation of the Neuron, while the second is somewhat of a hypothetical (even rather useless) specialisation of the Neuron so that I can conduct further tests on the efficacy of the Client Device project more generally. My motivation for writing tonight came from an observation that perhaps I see a reasonably stable implementation of the way in which Neurons can be specialised.
Apart from the fact that Neurons can contribute fully in cognition (glia are denied this privilege because they cannot engage their neighbouring Neurons as respondents), a naked Neuron has no capacity to do anything else. A naked Neuron can act as nothing more than a relay between otherwise clothed Neurons who may not share a direct engagement. Naked Neurons know how to communicate in Clique Space as initiators and respondents, but have no other ability; apart from Clique Space itself, a naked Neuron has no capacity to contribute to "thinking" by virtue of the fact that naked Neurons do not model any other medium.
Clique Space acquires a thinking capacity because some Neurons can be specialised: some can perhaps be made to respond to photons hitting them; some can be made to contract like muscles; some can, when stimulated by other Neurons, perhaps produce some sensations that yet other Neurons specialised in some other way can react to. Glia (I cannot consider a naked version of these ever to make sense) can be specialised to maintain a nice environment for themselves and their Neural brethren. They can perhaps help by dilating nearby nutrient vessels when they detect their neighbouring Neurons undergoing heavy cognition, or perhaps glia help speed signal flow by enclosing the axons of their Neural neighbours in a sheath of myelin.
A Clique Space Neuron software implementation can be specialised by extending the inbound Connection class (NeuralInboundConnection) exposed as an abstract class in the Neuron project. This class can be extended to capture stimuli that are generated though some other medium present on the specialised Neuron's host hardware. These stimuli must be recorded as qualia - the units of cognition - that must also be accompanied by instances of a surrogate - a serialisable proxy of a quale - so qualia related to a given stimulus can be sent as a signal from one Client Device to be reconstituted as quale in another. Signals are individually wrapped in envelopes, and collections of envelopes are bundled in transmitters before transmitters are exchanged as part of a synapse's activity cycle.
A property also needs to be created and stored (usually) as a native property of the extended version of the inbound Connection. This property allows a Neuron to form and communicate a belief that a particular stimulus (the object - perhaps associated with a sense datum quale different to the object quale) has been received by the a given Neuron, and is being asserted by a given Identity.
This very quickly put together summary of Clique Space constitutes a semantically rigid language of thought that I have no reason not to believe would ultimately derive of a synthetic mechanism the ability to exist.
Perhaps... I have no idea really and odds on this is probably bullshit. Even so, it appears to have worked for me so far.
This evening, I feel somewhat relaxed. I have a working copy (only a little more than two weeks' old) still to be committed to my code base. This working copy is the first revision where I have moved the main method out of the Neuron and into two new projects. The first is called the "Naked Neuron", and the second, the "Clothed Neuron". The first represents an ongoing specialisation of the Neuron, while the second is somewhat of a hypothetical (even rather useless) specialisation of the Neuron so that I can conduct further tests on the efficacy of the Client Device project more generally. My motivation for writing tonight came from an observation that perhaps I see a reasonably stable implementation of the way in which Neurons can be specialised.
Apart from the fact that Neurons can contribute fully in cognition (glia are denied this privilege because they cannot engage their neighbouring Neurons as respondents), a naked Neuron has no capacity to do anything else. A naked Neuron can act as nothing more than a relay between otherwise clothed Neurons who may not share a direct engagement. Naked Neurons know how to communicate in Clique Space as initiators and respondents, but have no other ability; apart from Clique Space itself, a naked Neuron has no capacity to contribute to "thinking" by virtue of the fact that naked Neurons do not model any other medium.
Clique Space acquires a thinking capacity because some Neurons can be specialised: some can perhaps be made to respond to photons hitting them; some can be made to contract like muscles; some can, when stimulated by other Neurons, perhaps produce some sensations that yet other Neurons specialised in some other way can react to. Glia (I cannot consider a naked version of these ever to make sense) can be specialised to maintain a nice environment for themselves and their Neural brethren. They can perhaps help by dilating nearby nutrient vessels when they detect their neighbouring Neurons undergoing heavy cognition, or perhaps glia help speed signal flow by enclosing the axons of their Neural neighbours in a sheath of myelin.
A Clique Space Neuron software implementation can be specialised by extending the inbound Connection class (NeuralInboundConnection) exposed as an abstract class in the Neuron project. This class can be extended to capture stimuli that are generated though some other medium present on the specialised Neuron's host hardware. These stimuli must be recorded as qualia - the units of cognition - that must also be accompanied by instances of a surrogate - a serialisable proxy of a quale - so qualia related to a given stimulus can be sent as a signal from one Client Device to be reconstituted as quale in another. Signals are individually wrapped in envelopes, and collections of envelopes are bundled in transmitters before transmitters are exchanged as part of a synapse's activity cycle.
A property also needs to be created and stored (usually) as a native property of the extended version of the inbound Connection. This property allows a Neuron to form and communicate a belief that a particular stimulus (the object - perhaps associated with a sense datum quale different to the object quale) has been received by the a given Neuron, and is being asserted by a given Identity.
This very quickly put together summary of Clique Space constitutes a semantically rigid language of thought that I have no reason not to believe would ultimately derive of a synthetic mechanism the ability to exist.
Perhaps... I have no idea really and odds on this is probably bullshit. Even so, it appears to have worked for me so far.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)