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.

(通知しない) (不必要) ログインしてください。


I like this idea. Could be combined with business cloud. One of my ideas:

それで、これらの線に沿って考えて、私はここ0ooで収集するものを抽象化しようとしました。 基本的に

  1. Category _Function class _ 、例:目標、カテゴリ、質問
  2. メソッド 関数プロトタイプ 、例:アイデア、発明、変換
  3. システム 機能インスタンス 、例:計画、プロジェクト、エージェント、組織、チーム、人、機器、ツール、リソース、機器
  4. Task _Function call _ 、例:Task、Request、Order。
  5. Place _Function parameter _ 、例:場所、住所、アカウント。
  6. 結果 _Function response _ 、例:システムログ、イベント、レポート、実行されたタスク、操作、作業結果、デモ、転送、トランザクション、ログ、ブログ投稿、プレスリリース、製品、サービス展開されました。



So, thinking along these lines, I tried to abstract the things that we collect here at 0oo. Basically:

  1. Category: Function class, e.g., Goal, Category, Question
  2. Method: Function prototype, e.g., Idea, Invention, Transformation
  3. System: Function instance, e.g., Plan, Project, Agent, Organization, Team, Person, Equipment, Tool, Resource, Instrument
  4. Task: Function call, e.g., Task, Request, Order.
  5. Place: Function parameter, e.g., Location, Address, Account.
  6. 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:

2. OPERATORS (i.e., functions)
5. OPERANDS (i.e., parameters)

    : Mindey
    :  -- 
    :  -- 



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.

// OPERANDとVALUE、つまり5番目と6番目が1つにマージされます//


// 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.


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.

    :  -- 
    : Mindey
    :  -- 




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.

    :  -- 
    : Mindey
    :  -- 




[skihappy]、あなたの注意を引くものは、あなたが構築しているシステムの「プリズム」を通り抜けているような気がしますが、あなたはそれについて明示的に言及していないので、読者はあなたが話していることを理解できません。 、正確に...だから、少なくともあなたの文の主題に明示的に言及できますか?たとえば、次のようないくつかの文を言ってください:

_ "(いくつかの表現と機能)を持つ知識グラフを構築するには、Aが必要であり、それを取得するには、BとCが必要です。"、_


// 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.

Ok。私は執着する傾向があります。私はあなたの考えを読み直しました。あなたは、すべてが機能の配置である構造に分解され、各機能が文書化されていることを提案し、構造を調べることによって物事がどのように構築されているかを見ることができます。 Funcsは簡単に文書化できます。これらの機能がどのように構造に適合するかは別の主題です、あなたはそう思いませんか?ただの最初の考え。しかし、私は知識を層を備えた賢明な構造に編成しようとするアイデアが好きです。そこでは、機能スコープをトラバースして詳細に焦点を合わせることができます。 それは良い考えのように思えますが、それは既存の慣行とどのように違うのでしょうか。サンプルを用意してください。あなたはアトミックピースの知識を分割することについて話していると思います。それぞれに説明があります。そうですか?

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?

    : Mindey
    :  -- 
    :  --