Continuation of the story about the models. Complicated cases

Introduction

In the last article, Modeling Events and Operations, I showed how you can project the same 4-D volume into space and time, and how you can interpret these projections. But for understanding the projection modeling of this is not enough. Today I will talk about other methods of projection and their interpretation. Each projection, each pair of projections, three, four, and so on can be interpreted in many different ways. I cannot retell all interpretations. I just show you how some common tasks are solved.

Example 1

Let the same 4-D volume be projected onto the space as an object. I have already said that this projection can have different interpretations from different points of view. In the last article, I proposed to consider the projection of 4-D volume onto space as a car and as a red object. But you can imagine another case where different projections of different 4-D volumes have the same interpretation. For example, one subject marked the boundaries of his plot, and the second disagreed with him. Both identified different volumes, but treat them the same way.

Example 2

Let the same 4-D volume be projected onto the space as an object and as a structure. Let me remind you that a construction is a set of objects (communications are also objects. I note that the number of ways to interpret objects is not limited, the number of constructions interpretations are the same. But if we are talking about an object and its construction, then these interpretations must be consistent with each other. Once I set myself the task of describing the criteria for this agreement, but I didn’t cope with it - there was no time. However, this is an interesting task to think about. Example: the projection as an object is interpreted as a bolted connection, and the projection in view e design has the same name, but looks like 9 objects: space, bolt, nut, first metal plate, second metal plate, bolt position in space (link), nut position in space (link), position of the first plate in space (link ) and the position of the second plate in space (connection).

The criterion of consistency in this case will be the common name for the two interpretations - the bolted joint. But the first bolted joint is the interpretation of the object, and the second is the interpretation of the structure. A careful observer should note that the connection between the interpretation of the object and the interpretation of the structure in the subject’s head. That is, in fact, there is no object and HIS constructions, but there is an interpretation of two projections. But words have magical power. And most analysts begin to believe that these two projections are not connected in the mind of the subject, but in nature. That is, the fact that a building consists of a foundation, walls and a roof becomes for them a real fact that exists independently of the consciousness of the subject.

Example 3

Let the same 4-D volume be projected onto space as an object and temporarily as a function. Then, subject to agreement of points of view, it is said that this is an object and its function. Sometimes, an object and its property. For example, if the projection of a 4-D volume onto a space has an interpretation of the clock, and for a time - a function of demonstrating time, then it is said that the function of a clock is to show time, or a property of a clock to show time. It is clear that this is not a clock show time. Clock and function - our interpretation of the 4-D object. Here the same error occurs as in the previous case. There was an object and its construction, and here an object and its function. As I wrote earlier , the desire to see the figure everywhere makes the analyst think that a clock (an inanimate object) can do something (a property inherent only in animated objects). Other similar interpretations of these two projections look like this:

• Watches have the property to show time.
• The use of watches is that the clock shows time.

One can go on and come up with a lot of collisions caused by these interpretations, but one can say more simply: because of this, we still do not see a coherent and consistent system of definitions concerning activity modeling, because of this, the OOP often has disputes over who to attribute this or that method. From the point of view of projection modeling, such statements are meaningless. It is as if the shadow from one lantern would generate the shadow from the second, or the benefit of one shadow was that it creates another shadow. Believe me, it is also difficult for me to force myself to think correctly, as you now understand my words.

Example 4

A function is a projection on time in the form of an infinite number of events (operations, scenarios). But we can project for time not one function, but several, and even with the connections between each other. This will be a functional structure. As I wrote earlier , an idea of ​​the functional structure can be obtained by looking at the diagram in IDEF0 notation. The difference between the model in IDEF0 notation and the model in projection modeling is that in the projection model the projection is separated from its interpretation, and the flows are replaced by their generalization in the form of classes common to related functions of events.

Now we can consider the projection of the same 4-D volume onto the space in the form of a structure. Take not any projection, but one that satisfies the following conditions: for each structural element, we find a 4-D volume, which we then project on the element of the functional structure. Thus, we establish a mutual correspondence between the objects of construction and functions in the functional structure. Such a correspondence can be interpreted as follows: this construction implements this functional structure. From the point of view of logic, it is better not to talk about "implementation", but we still have no other words in the language. Let's go further. We project the same 4-D volume onto the space as an object. We remember that this can be interpreted as follows: construction - is the decomposition of an object. We project the functional structure on time as a function. The resulting function can be interpreted as a synthesis of the functional structure, and the resulting object and function can be interpreted as an object and its function. Now the most fun. In system engineering, no distinction is made between the object and the design. Both are called system. And further it is said that only that which has emergence can be considered a system. We take the object from the constructions above, we take its function, we take the functions of the elements of the functional structure and compare them. If the function is not equal to the functions of the functional structure, then we say that emergence has arisen - a new function. But now, after such a long journey, you can answer the question: how are these projections connected? Answer: they are interpretations of the projections in the subject's head. That is, to determine the emergence property, we needed 4 projections and their interpretations. In system engineering, one word “system” and the term “system property” are used for this, which for some reason is not equal to the term “system function”. Personally, my model seems more convincing and slim. In addition, in my model, the object is not required to have emergence. There is a construction, there is an object, there are functions of the structural elements and functions of an object. Interpretations of these functions may be different. In some interpretations there is an emergence, in some there is none. Therefore, I personally do not see the point in this term.

I am far from thinking that I have considered all possible projections and their interpretations, but I tried to demonstrate how much simpler from my point of view, the problems of modeling are solved if we separate the projections and their interpretations.

Until now, we have considered the projections of real 4-D volumes. But, solving practical problems of modeling, we are forced to build models of not only real objects, but also imaginary ones. I will give an example of such a construction.

Example 5

What is a project? Now for the installation of complex structures has become popular to use the so-called, augmented reality. This is when something is projected into place in real space that is perceived by the subject as a virtual reality. That is, in the mind of the subject a real 4-D volume is replaced by an imaginary 4-D volume. The task of the artist to create such a real 4-D volume, which would coincide with the imaginary. An imaginary volume is a project, a description of this volume is a description of a project. That's how easily we got the definition of the project.

findings

Earlier, I wrote that there are two points of view on modeling equipment that generate two types of objects: physical and functional. But what have we missed? We missed the project. This is the third point of view, but not on the real world, but on the imaginary one. A project is a virtual reality, built to give the subject an idea of ​​what to strive for. Let there be an element of this project - a project of a specific functional object. This project says what requirements a functional object should satisfy. Assume that a transformer substation is under construction. Let there be a place for a transformer, which is not yet occupied by any piece of iron. The builder looks at this empty space and sees augmented reality - an imaginary transformer. If he sees this, it becomes easy for him to put a real physical transformer on this place so that the imaginary reality and real reality coincide, and the physical transformer could fulfill the role of a functional one.

Now back to the definitions of system engineering. As far as I know, system engineering does not make a distinction between a project object and a functional one. That is, no distinction is made between the real world and the imaginary. In my opinion, this is wrong. Because of this, there is a collision in the definition of the life cycle of a functional object. In accordance with system engineering, a functional object begins to exist in the designer’s head when the idea of ​​its creation arose, and ends when it is physically destroyed. In fact, the project object begins in the designer’s head and ends there. The functional entity starts from the moment when the equipment is started and ends when it is stopped. A physical object begins when created and ends when destroyed. The connection of the project object with the functional led to the fact that the beginning was taken from the project one, and the completion from the functional one (or even physical one, I do not understand well here). IMHO, you need to separate the project object from the functional (imaginary world from the real) in order to enjoy the beauty.

Thank!