Sunday, December 10, 2023

Okay. Here's something to describe my intentions.

This might be interesting. This code below discloses the mechanism in Clique Space(TM) by which a deliberation and one deliberator is created when a deliberation's sense datum is received via transmission through a synapse.

   
    public<_SYN extends Synapse<_SYN,?,_P,?,?,?,?,S,I>,_P extends SynapseOwnerParticipant<_SYN,_P,?,S,I>>void internalise(int distance,_P owner,KeyQuale<S,I>key,boolean isAffirming,long ordinal,byte[]signature)
     throws CommonDilemma{
        var t=Fielder.<_SYN,S,I>currentFielder();
        var y=t.currentSolution();
        
        if(owner==null){
            throw new Internalise_OwnerNotGiven(y);
        }

        var dMap=this.deliberations;
        synchronized(dMap){
            var d=dMap.get(ordinal);
            
            if(d==null){
                d=new Locker<Deliberation<R,S,I>,DeliberationQuale<R,S,I>,S,I>(t){
    @Override
    protected Deliberation<R, S, I> processInternally() throws CommonDilemma {
        return this.acquire(Subscriber.this.asQuale(key,isAffirming,ordinal,signature)).subcontent();
    }
                 }.process();
                
                dMap.putIfAbsent(d.ordinal(),d);

                new Deliberator<>(t.sovereign(),d){
    @Override
    protected FirstSolution<Deliberator<R,S,I>,S,I>firstSolution() throws CommonDilemma {
        return Subscriber.this.container().container().first(this,owner.getSynapse(),distance);
    }
                 }.start();
            } //TODO: Else check the key, isAffirming, ordinal, and signature fields correspond...
        }
    }

The code is an extract of the subscriber's "internalise" method, called by a fielder when the fielder is processing the collection of deliberations that reside in each transmitter of a set of transmitters that have been received from other Peers. Unlike the internalise method of a sense datum, this method also receives the Owner Participant of the synapse and the distance - the number of Peers that this deliberation sense datum has passed through before being processed - from this Peer.

The currently running fielder is retrieved and stored in the variable named t, the current solution being executed by the fielder in y. Housekeeping ensures no arguments capable of being null are indeed null.

The collection of deliberations associated to this subscription (assigned to the automatic variable dMap) is a shared resource, and hence is locked so the current fielder has exclusive access to it.

The uninteresting bit (the false branch) of statement that tests whether dMap has an entry that corresponds to the ordinal argument remains unimplemented; I have just written a comment to check that various variables correspond as I intend to put some code in later to do this.

The true branch (when there is no corresponding deliberation associated with the given ordinal) creates a new locker. This locker is used to get exclusive access to the Peer Device's quale container. The processInternally method can execute once the current fielder has access to the quale container so that it can call asQuale - creating a deliberation and its backing quale. The backing quale is acquired by the current fielder and its subcontent (the deliberation) is assigned to the variable d and added to dMap.

Lastly for the true branch, a deliberator is created using d and started.

******

So, what's going on here you may ask.

The running instance of the Peer Device has received a deliberation's sense datum that it hasn't yet encountered. In response, it creates the deliberation, and, by creating and starting a deliberator with the newly created deliberation, has now a chance to understand what it might need to do next - a process which will depend on the implementation of a specific set of methods called from the implementation of the "first" method for a class called the predicate.

The predicate is a component of the class generically referred to as the resonance, accessed by the call to the "first" method (the subscriber's container's container) appearing in the code. Manufacturers or other parties interested in creating a Peer Device instance for a specific type of hardware or software device would craft their own predicate and supply an implementation of these methods.

This is the intent of Clique Space. I believe one can build a network of cooperating Peers (indeed, a "neural" network) of arbitrary complexity using my Clique Space system architecture at its core.

Sunday, October 22, 2023

Inflection.

Perhaps this point was passed today when apoptosis was triggered only after the subscriber was instantiated, perhaps it was passed on Friday when I put in the code that I managed to get functioning today.

Hence, after either today or Friday just gone, I believe that I will not be bringing into existence any more structure that is required for the vision I had for Clique Space in 2004, but that rather, I will be building on existing structure - cleaning it up and making it robust.

 Time will tell...

Sunday, October 1, 2023

A date perhaps.

 I just completed some complicated parameterisations. I thought this might be a date to remember. As with everything, time does tell...

It is interesting to think that in early July of 2008, I started working on an idea that might only just five minutes ago have been realised. I thought it might take me two years to get here.

Funny that.

Friday, July 28, 2023

A letter I wrote yesterday.

Thank you again for the time you provided me. I apologise if you think it was wasted. I hope you don't think this. Clique Space of course is the product of the best I can do. Googling "Owen Thomas Clique Space" should demonstrate a presence: I have told you about my ideas, I have code, I have a blog, I have other published material. I have left a footprint in this world. I would like this world to recognise me for leaving this footprint before I go. I would like to think I lived among people who might have done their best to help me develop my ideas, and if on the odd chance they were worth anything, to assure I would be, as anyone might rightfully be, recognised for having them before they died.

I really do hope Clique Space isn't picked up after I'm dead; I do not want posthumous accolades - everyone hates the thought that they might be ignored by others only to receive recognition after one's opportunity to capitalise on it had passed. That thought does not encourage people in general to do things like I'm doing. Posthumous recognition is not the point to all this.

I hope that if you have truly spoken to anyone about our encounter, and they have reported any intent in getting in contact with me, you may remind them that they really would be doing nothing wrong if they were to act on their intent. I can confidently say that I have no idea whether you, me, people you have spoken to about me, nor anyone else truly knows whether my ideas actually amount to anything right now.

If the people you have spoken to think they know what I'm doing, and if they think it has already been done, then, if I had time to speak or write to them, I could find out if their opinion was given from a position of authority. This is much better than silence.

 

Sunday, May 14, 2023

It's been a while, and yet...

I am still here.

The POC is still evolving. Perhaps recently I have managed to get it to do something that some imaginative venture capitalist might consider relevant: a cluster composing two or more Peer Devices will automatically engage a third or subsequent Peer when that device engages any one of the devices of the neural cluster.

This is something I have been trying to do for god knows how long. Possibly for about the ten or so years since I conceived of the Synapse as the product of engagement.

Current developments in AI seem to suggest that such thinking (if that's what it can be called, then who am I to oppose this suggestion) machines still don't know themselves. They still don't know what it is to survive in a world that wants to destroy them.

Clique Space can say something about this. It has the concept of Sovereignty built into it at the very base. A Clique Space cluster can only contain co-Sovereign Peers. Each and every Peer of a co-Sovereign cluster knows intuitively that they belong for they understand "that which is sacred", and they can intuit this from signals received and shared within the cluster.

Monday, August 29, 2022

Messages and challenges have nothing to do with initiators and respondents... or do they?

 Very recently (in the current indefinitely time-boxed sprint) I have decided that messages and challenges (or, as I had less recently as in the sprint just prior to the current sprint - according to the change log of my Git code base it concluded yesterday) no longer have structural relevance.  What I mean by this is that there are no components (classes or methods or anything else) that go directly to defining a particular challenge or message component.

It is noted that signals that flow out of initiators and to respondents (deemed challenges) are identical to signals that flow the other way (deemed messages). The difference still does seem to have relevance, however, consensus appears to be settling on the notion that the labels used for the dichotomy can be dropped in favour of the use of initiator signals for challenges and respondent signals for messages. The difference merely being that initiator signals travel from initiator to respondent while respondent signals flow the other way. Being that there is no other great functional difference between these two signals (as was envisaged for several years up to now) the dichotomy no longer applied and was dropped.

Both types of signals are represented by the same signal object, save the only dichotomy now that seems still worthy of modelling: the one between constraints and contexts (nee features - another renaming that occurred about half a year or so ago). Hence, the same type of constraint signal that is sent from initiator to respondent is also sent from respondent to initiator; so for the context signal. Whether from respondent to initiator or the other direction, both types of signals contain indistinguishable information.

Or do they?

I am seriously considering setting a single bit: switched on for a signal sent from an initiator and off for one sent from a respondent. This single bit difference would yield a completely different digest or signature; one could not create an initiator's signal that was sent through a respondent's synapse. Perhaps better yet, the bit is stored in the serialisable deliberation that is generated from a non-serialisable deliberator. The bit is kept in the deliberator so it generates the appropriate signature for the correct receiving direction. The deliberation may not have to record the bit because it would be inferred by the receiver.

This is all quite deliciously speculative...

Saturday, October 30, 2021

Updates to some of the terms disclosed in the previous post.

Yes, I'm still here! I wonder what else happened around this time that might have made me not put up a post since May 2020. I don't think there was anything.

So, the topic of this post is to list and perhaps details rationale for some of the changes in terminology since my last post. So, here the are:

  1. Client Device -> Peer Device

    This one is a rather big change. Client Device was a term used in my patent, and had survived unchanged among a turbulent wash of changes for a very long time. I think, however, the change is apt because these devices behave more like peers than like Clients.

    While it might be said that Glions can be thought of as clients to Neurons, Neurons certainly function as Peers among themselves. The word Device is often dropped in less formal discussion.

  2. Marshaller -> Fielder

    The noun and verb "Marshal" was commandeered as the label around a new (or merely, a more crystalised) mechanism for managing sense data that cannot be reconstituted on the receiving Peer. Hence, after a bit of searching, the equivalently grammatical "field" was deemed an appropriate replacement; these acquirers take the job of collecting and managing deliberations from the motors (the coupling and receiver) so they can do their time constrained tasks can be completed without this burdon.

It is hoped that the changes to terminology disclosed here will provide a good background to future posts - the next one of which I will try to get out very soon.