Simulation of the simplest statements

    I continue to comment on the article on projection modeling .

    Consider the statement "the red car is driving."

    Note that the language does not have an exact indication of how to interpret this statement. Indeed, the “car” and “red” and “rides” can be interpreted as: a specific 4-D volume (specific car), type 4-D volumes (type of vehicles - machine), 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 indicate part of a large canvas.

    I will make the assumption that in this thesis we are talking about a specific machine. That is, not any machine and not some, but a specific machine. This means that for her we can get an object into 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, there will not be a separate object in the database modeling the specific red. There will be one object in the database modeling the type of colors - red colors. And there will be a link to this object, indicating that the type of this color is red.

    Rides - does not mean a specific movement, but the type of movement. That is, for this specific 4-D volume, there will not be a separate object in the database that models a specific movement. There will be one object in the database that simulates the type of movement - it goes. And there will be a link to this object, saying that the type of this movement is going.

    In the specific case, we interpret this statement as follows: the car is concrete, red is the type of flowers, therefore it is abstract, it goes - the type of movement and therefore also abstract.

    Possible misconceptions


    Such an interpretation plays a trick on us. We begin to think that color and rides are abstract concepts. And this is a fundamental mistake of many modeling standards. In fact, the shaft rotation function 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, we think by inertia with the machine: the engine is concrete, and the type of movement (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, by inertia, thinks about the type of functions and about the type of operations.

    To find out how the interlocutor thinks, I ask the following question: let there be one operation of turning a bolt, and there is another operation of turning another bolt. Are these two different operations, or one? It is often answered that this is one and the same operation, but its execution is different. This answer is a legacy of the same problem - not distinguishing between the type of operations and operations of this type. The two operations, of course, are different, but they have one type. And, since in the speech we are talking about turning a bolt in the sense of the type of action, it turns out that there is only one operation! And all this porridge is directly transferred to the standards of activity modeling, whether it’s BPMN, ISO15926, systems engineering, or ISO 9000. Therefore, when I say that a function is specific, the operation is specific, the length is also concrete, that they can be seen and felt, for many this causes confusion.

    In projection modeling, an object, an adjective, an action, and a function can be seen and touched. These are concrete 4-D volumes, and adjectives, verbs, and nouns are descriptions of the projections of these 4-D volumes into space or temporarily. To understand this, one must learn to distinguish this red from that red, these 10 meters from those 10 meters, this operation from that operation, this car from that car.

    Another misconception is associated with the language pattern described above. It is generally accepted that the shaft rotation function is a property of the motor, or red is the property of that machine. This is because we say a motor in the sense of this particular motor, and rotation in the sense of the type of movements, and not in the sense of a specific movement. If we define the function as the projection of a 4-D volume over time, then rotation becomes a concrete and independent object of accounting. Then the motor and rotation connects a common 4-D volume, the projections of which they are.

    What we do not simulate


    I am often asked if the projection model allows me to describe relationships such as "I own a machine." The projection model does not model activity. The model of activity can go on top of the model of activity, but in the model of activity there is no subject who would accomplish something or possess something. There are only facts. For example, in the operation for turning the bolt participated: machine tool, Petrov and the workpiece. 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. This is exactly the same as in descriptive geometry, when a cone is drawn, it is not indicated what it is made of and how it is processed. However, you can add this information and get an activity model on top of an activity model.

    Also popular now: