Simulation of events and operations

Introduction

Suppose we observe the process of turning parts. Let us ask ourselves: who sharpens the part? The answer may be: Ivanov, turner, foreman, friend Petrova. We can say that this is one and the same person, but then we understand that the turner is not a person, but a role, a foreman and a friend too. So who sharpens the detail?

Suppose there is an event "apple ripened." Before this event, the apple was green, after this event the apple turned red. Question: how was the apple in the process of making the event itself?

In this article I will answer these two questions from the point of view of projection modeling .
')
As I said, two projections on time and on space give an idea of ​​the simulated space-time volume. There are three ways to project a 4-D volume at a time:

1. in the form of an event (operation),
2. finite set of events (operations) (scenario),
3. infinite set of events (operations) (function).

An operation is just that which is in a time interval: “from” and “to.” If the accuracy of our measurements does not allow to distinguish “from” and “to”, and they merge, then we get an event with the date “when”.

On the other hand, 4-D volume is projected onto space. There are three different ways to project a 4-D volume onto a space in the form:

1. object that
2. finite set of objects (structures),
3. infinite set of objects (heaps).

If the 4-D volume is projected onto the space as an object, then it can be interpreted as follows: the car was painted.

4-D volume is projected onto the space in the form of a structure, then it can be interpreted as follows: Ivanov machined the part from the blank.

If 4-D volume is projected onto the space in the form of a heap, then it can be interpreted as follows: a consignment of goods has been released.

As I said, the projection modeling is not involved in the interpretation of events, but it forms the basis for modeling the interpretations. His task is to correctly model 4-D volumes, so that then on top of this model it is possible to construct an interpretation of these volumes. This means that any interpretation of the event, such as for example: a detail was received from the blank, goes on top of the fact that the 4-D scope of the operation contains a 4-D volume, treated as a detail, and a 4-D volume, treated as a blank. Why is this done? Because the same operation can be interpreted in different ways, the same parts of it - too. Two subjects can converge in the fact that the part, procurement, machine tool and Ivanov participated in the operation, but they can differ in its interpretation. One will say that Ivanov has machined the part on the machine, and the second will say that this machine has machined the part under the control of Ivanov.

Another example: one could say that it was a sale operation. Another may say that the operation was a purchase. One sold an amphibian, and the second bought a boat. Everyone has an operation and its participants in the information system, but in order to trace the fate of an object treated by one as an amphibian, and the second as a boat, one must be able to simulate a 4-D volume separately from its interpretation.

It is always possible to build a treatment model on top of a 4-D volume model, but it is impossible to build a 4-D volume model based on the interpretation. To build such a model, one must learn to separate the 4-D volume models from the model of their interpretations. With this skill, modern analysts have a big problem. Moreover, for some reason it is considered bad form to do it. The result is a model that reflects only one point of view. When it is enough, the model is built correctly, but when it is necessary to take into account more points of view, the task becomes intractable.

In the article Modeling the assets of an enterprise using projection modeling, I recalled an example from practice when it became necessary to build models simultaneously from two different points of view: from the point of view of physical objects and from the point of view of functional objects. Let me remind you that the need to take them into account arose from the fact that the same term in different areas of activity means different objects. Transformer for operation and transformer for accounting of material accounting - different objects. The difference is that in a transformer for material accounting it is a pile of iron, not necessarily included in the circuit. Such a transformer is called a physical object, or a piece of equipment. To operate the transformer must be connected to the circuit. Such a transformer is called a functional object. From this there is a consequence. If we simulate an operation, then its 4-D part from different points of view can be interpreted differently: as part of a physical transformer, or as part of a functional transformer. That is, the same 4-D volume can be interpreted as a physical transformer or as a functional transformer.

In system engineering, they cope with this task using two pre-established points of view (although, in my opinion, this standard is extremely confusing and contradictory). But when two points of view become insufficient, system engineering succumbs. For example, if it is necessary to say that a node simultaneously performs three functions: it measures temperature, movement speed and rotational speed of a motor shaft, then it cannot be said that from one point of view a 4-D volume can be interpreted as a functional object called a thermometer, on the other - as functional object called speedometer, and the third - as a functional object called a tachometer. Therefore, we are forced to go further.
So let's get down to business.

The treatment of projections in the form of events

First we take the projection onto space as an object. That is, we have 4-D volume projected onto space as a single object. How can one interpret such a projection?

Suppose that it is necessary to simulate the event "the car is repainted from red to white." How to simulate this fact? To begin with, some 4-D volume participates in this event. This volume is interpreted by us as part of the 4-D volume of the machine. So, the first interpretation of 4-D volume is a machine. Another interpretation is that this is a white object and the third is that it is a red object. This is very similar to Schrödinger's cat. Until the event passes, we don’t know what color the car is, and it is both red and white in our view.

Stroking on this model, is it possible to deduce from the data about the event, what color will the car be after the event? No you can not. To understand what the car was before, and what it will be after, we need a script: operation before, event and operation after. The operation says that the car was red. The operation afterwards indicates that it is white. Then, knowing the script, we can deduce the fact that inside the event the car changed color.

This is counterintuitive, but logic says it is. For a long time I could not understand Criss Partridge, in the place where he wrote that in the operation for ripening an apple is both ripe and unripe. Only now, having passed this way on my own, I understood what he was talking about!

So, the fact that the car changed color from red to white can only be derived from the script. To derive this fact based on the event is impossible. And this contradicts the widespread statement that an event is a change in the state of something. Change is a script, not an operation or an event.

But even knowing the script, it can be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, to deduce the fact that the car has changed color can be, but you can not say why it happened. The answer to the question "why" rests on the interpretation of the event - painting. We treat the event as a painting and, based on this interpretation, we conclude that the color change occurred due to painting. But the event should be told, painting what? And here is the fun feature that you should pay attention to. We remember that that part of the space-time, which is treated in the event as a machine, can be interpreted as a red object. Question: what is painted in the event? The answer will be: the role. That is, the role is the designation of 4-D volume, which can be interpreted differently depending on the point of view. Can be interpreted as a car, can be as a red object. To do this, Role1 is created for the operation, and it is said that the interpretation of the operation will be: Paint Role 1. Now, substituting any interpretation instead of Role 1, we will get a new statement. So it turns out that the detail sharpened Ivanov, the turner and the foreman.

In this simulation of the event painting the car ends. If we leave the event and its interpretation, will we have enough knowledge to say that the car has changed color? No, not enough, because the painting operation could have failed. The fact that it was completed successfully becomes clear only on the basis of knowledge gained outside the event - from the script.

All participants in the operation begin their participation at the same time and end at the same time. This also seems strange. For example, the fact that the workpiece and the detail begin their participation in the turning operation simultaneously with its beginning and end simultaneously with its completion seems ridiculous. The fact that in the operation to turn on the light, darkness and light begin their participation at the same time and end at the same time - as well. Intuition resists this thesis. But let's see what intuition tells us. She says: in the operation to turn on the light, darkness participates first, light later. Light and darkness cannot intersect! That is, intuition appeals to the script! She says: let's consider a scenario in which darkness is first, and then light. That is, let's clarify the model in order to dissolve the darkness and light on different sides. But, specifying the model, we still stumble upon an event in which light and darkness exist together. Such a race for accuracy can last forever. For those who love mathematics: you can imagine the time sequence, which a series of specifying models gives us, which in the limit will converge to a specific time value. This value can be called the cross section between light and dark. Hello to the Dirichlet sections!

Notice, we looked at the projection of one 4-D volume at a time and already so many incredible and counterintuitive consequences! I assure you, this is just the beginning. I just raised the curtain a little! An incredible amount of different modeling capabilities opens up if you follow the logic.

Definition of the role concept

You can continue to give different interpretations to various combinations of projections, but now I want to stop and go back a little. I want to share another beautiful fact, the following from the previous arguments. I want to tell you about the functional role.

The definition of the term role is as difficult as the definition of the term function. Recently, I was confronted with the opinion voiced at the Systems Engineering Forum that the term function is a basic and indefinable concept. If this is the case, then with this definition we cannot even decompose the function! And this is very bad. I presented such a definition of a function, as a result of which you can do everything you want with a function: consider it from different angles, decompose, synthesize larger functions on its basis, and so on. In this article I will explain how roles appear in the function. This will allow us to work with roles in the same way as with functions: as we wish.

There is a role in the interpretation of the event. Roles are assigned names. The most common names for roles are names borrowed from activity theory. The theory of activity states that in each activity there must be a subject whom the activity calls the “performer”, the object of the activity: what the work is done on: the material, the result of the activity: the result, the instrument of the activity: the tool. Sometimes they also remember about the purpose of the activity: the goal. This approach to the name of roles is a good help in creating information models. There are few types of roles, they are unified, they can be found for almost any operation. The trouble is that they are borrowed from the theory of activity. And the activity describes the mental function of the subject, and not the activity of mechanisms. And the use of the indicated names of roles is possible only when we consider the activity in which the subject is present, even from the point of view of activity. When we need to describe the activity of mechanisms, or describe activity not from the point of view of activity, the theory of activity ceases to be applicable. If we persist in our desire to pull the condom on the globe, there are models in which the mechanisms carry the properties of animated objects: they can do something, control, act, and so on. This deception is understood by few people, and the reasons for this deception are even less understood. I just told you about him. I am extremely interested, did anyone understand him? I'd like to hear the answer from those who understood it.

Sometimes the pre-established roles from the theory of activity become insufficient to describe the activity. Then people come up with specific roles. For example, the contractor of the turning operation is called the turner, the executor of the function of controlling the plant as director. So there are many other roles. Around us are many operations, many functions. The same 4-D volume can simultaneously participate in different operations and functions. Therefore, intersections occur when the head of department and turner are one person. Just one 4-D volume is treated simultaneously as a participant in one function, and as a participant in another.

Thank! In the next article Continuation of the story about the models. I will tell you about complex cases about more complex models.