Simulation of the simplest statements
I continue to comment on the article on the projection modeling .
Consider the statement "red car rides"
Note that in the language there is no exact indication of how to interpret this statement. After all, the “car” and “red” and “rides” can be interpreted as: specific 4-D volume (specific car), type of 4-D volumes (vehicle type — car), any of the possible 4-D volumes (any car ), part 4-D volume (part of a large red volume). The last case is rather exotic, but it happens when a large red canvas is divided into parts. And then one red can denote part of a large canvas.
')
I will make the assumption that this thesis deals with a specific machine. That is, not any car and not some, but a specific machine. This means that for her we can get an object in the database that simulates this machine.
Red - means, not a specific red object, but the type of objects - red. That is, for this particular 4-D volume in the database there will be no separate object simulating a specific red. There will be one object in the database that simulates the type of colors - red colors. And there will be a link to this object, indicating that the type of this color is red.
Riding means not a specific movement, but a type of movement. That is, for this particular 4-D volume there will not be a separate object in the database simulating a specific movement. There will be one object in the database that simulates the type of movements - it goes. And there will be a link to this object, which says that the type of this movement is driving.
In the specific case, we interpret this statement as follows: the machine is concrete, red is the type of colors, therefore it is abstract, it goes around - the type of movements and therefore it is also abstract.
Such an interpretation plays with us a cruel joke. We begin to think that color and rides are abstract concepts. And this is a fundamental error of many modeling standards. In fact, the function of the shaft rotation is not abstract, it even has a parameter - the rotation speed, which depends on time. But the type of functions “shaft rotation” is an abstract concept. And, when we say that the engine rotates the shaft, then by inertia with the machine we think: the engine is concrete, and the type of movements (rotation) is abstract. Because of this confusion, it is difficult to immediately understand the theses that I introduced in projection modeling. The definitions give the concepts of a specific function, a specific operation, and the reader out of inertia thinks about the type of functions and about the type of operations.
To clarify how the interlocutor thinks, I ask the following question: let there be one operation of turning the bolt, and there is another operation of turning the other bolt. These are two different operations, or one? Often they answer that this is the same operation, but her performances are different. This answer is a legacy of the same problem - nondiscrimination of the type of operations and operations of this type. Two operations, of course, are different, but they have one type. And, since in speech we are talking about turning a bolt in the sense of the type of action, it turns out that the operation is one! And all this porridge is directly shifted to the standards of activity modeling, be it BPMN, ISO15926, systems engineering, or ISO 9000. Therefore, when I say that a function is concrete, the operation is specific, the length is also specific, that you can see and feel it, This causes confusion for many.
In projection modeling, an object, an adjective, an action and a function can be seen and touched. These are specific 4-D volumes, and adjectives, verbs and nouns are descriptions of the projections of these 4-D volumes onto space or time. To understand this, one must learn to distinguish this red from that red, these 10 meters from that 10 meters, this operation from that operation, this machine from that one.
Another misconception is connected with the language pattern described above. It is considered that the function of shaft rotation is a property of the motor, or red is a property of this machine. This is because we speak the motor in the sense of this particular motor, and the rotation in the sense of the type of movements, and not in the sense of a specific movement. If we define a function as the projection of a 4-D volume on time, then the rotation becomes a specific object that is independent of the motor. Then the motor and rotation connects the total 4-D volume between which they are projections.
People often ask me if the projection model allows us to describe relations like “I own a car”. The projection model does not model activity. The activity model can go on top of the activity model, but there is no subject in the activity model who would do something or own something. There are only facts. For example, the machine tool, Petrov and the workpiece participated in the operation on turning the bolt. I do not model the interpretation of such participation: whether Petrov sharpened, or the machine - it does not matter. Only facts are modeled, not their interpretation. It is exactly like in descriptive geometry, when a cone is drawn, it does not indicate what it is made of and how it is processed. However, this information can be added and get activity model on top of the activity model.
Consider the statement "red car rides"
Note that in the language there is no exact indication of how to interpret this statement. After all, the “car” and “red” and “rides” can be interpreted as: specific 4-D volume (specific car), type of 4-D volumes (vehicle type — car), any of the possible 4-D volumes (any car ), part 4-D volume (part of a large red volume). The last case is rather exotic, but it happens when a large red canvas is divided into parts. And then one red can denote part of a large canvas.
')
I will make the assumption that this thesis deals with a specific machine. That is, not any car and not some, but a specific machine. This means that for her we can get an object in the database that simulates this machine.
Red - means, not a specific red object, but the type of objects - red. That is, for this particular 4-D volume in the database there will be no separate object simulating a specific red. There will be one object in the database that simulates the type of colors - red colors. And there will be a link to this object, indicating that the type of this color is red.
Riding means not a specific movement, but a type of movement. That is, for this particular 4-D volume there will not be a separate object in the database simulating a specific movement. There will be one object in the database that simulates the type of movements - it goes. And there will be a link to this object, which says that the type of this movement is driving.
In the specific case, we interpret this statement as follows: the machine is concrete, red is the type of colors, therefore it is abstract, it goes around - the type of movements and therefore it is also abstract.
Possible misconceptions
Such an interpretation plays with us a cruel joke. We begin to think that color and rides are abstract concepts. And this is a fundamental error of many modeling standards. In fact, the function of the shaft rotation is not abstract, it even has a parameter - the rotation speed, which depends on time. But the type of functions “shaft rotation” is an abstract concept. And, when we say that the engine rotates the shaft, then by inertia with the machine we think: the engine is concrete, and the type of movements (rotation) is abstract. Because of this confusion, it is difficult to immediately understand the theses that I introduced in projection modeling. The definitions give the concepts of a specific function, a specific operation, and the reader out of inertia thinks about the type of functions and about the type of operations.
To clarify how the interlocutor thinks, I ask the following question: let there be one operation of turning the bolt, and there is another operation of turning the other bolt. These are two different operations, or one? Often they answer that this is the same operation, but her performances are different. This answer is a legacy of the same problem - nondiscrimination of the type of operations and operations of this type. Two operations, of course, are different, but they have one type. And, since in speech we are talking about turning a bolt in the sense of the type of action, it turns out that the operation is one! And all this porridge is directly shifted to the standards of activity modeling, be it BPMN, ISO15926, systems engineering, or ISO 9000. Therefore, when I say that a function is concrete, the operation is specific, the length is also specific, that you can see and feel it, This causes confusion for many.
In projection modeling, an object, an adjective, an action and a function can be seen and touched. These are specific 4-D volumes, and adjectives, verbs and nouns are descriptions of the projections of these 4-D volumes onto space or time. To understand this, one must learn to distinguish this red from that red, these 10 meters from that 10 meters, this operation from that operation, this machine from that one.
Another misconception is connected with the language pattern described above. It is considered that the function of shaft rotation is a property of the motor, or red is a property of this machine. This is because we speak the motor in the sense of this particular motor, and the rotation in the sense of the type of movements, and not in the sense of a specific movement. If we define a function as the projection of a 4-D volume on time, then the rotation becomes a specific object that is independent of the motor. Then the motor and rotation connects the total 4-D volume between which they are projections.
What we do not model
People often ask me if the projection model allows us to describe relations like “I own a car”. The projection model does not model activity. The activity model can go on top of the activity model, but there is no subject in the activity model who would do something or own something. There are only facts. For example, the machine tool, Petrov and the workpiece participated in the operation on turning the bolt. I do not model the interpretation of such participation: whether Petrov sharpened, or the machine - it does not matter. Only facts are modeled, not their interpretation. It is exactly like in descriptive geometry, when a cone is drawn, it does not indicate what it is made of and how it is processed. However, this information can be added and get activity model on top of the activity model.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/345328/
All Articles