Semantic analysis of one response (was Re: Autocoding project proposal.)

[Timothy Rue]

On 26-Jan-02 23:39:24 Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
>Timothy Rue wrote:
>>
>> >I think Timothy has an idea that would make computers
>> >much easier to use, but he's making one or more of the following
>> >mistakes:
>>
>> >1. Thinking his idea is new and that most of us haven't had
>> >   roughly the same idea already, when in fact we've all thought
>> >   similar things or read about them, sometimes decades ago.
>>
>> show me verification of this claim you are making?

>Hard to do until you tell us what this you are talking about actually
>is.

>> >2. Thinking it's an idea that can be turned into an implementation
>> >   with relatively little work, when in fact it is something that
>> >   requires not only an enormous amount of work but even advances
>> >   in computing in areas which have proven slow to advance (e.g. AI).
>>
>> a shell with nine commands?????

>Ah!  That's the shortest, clearest description of it I've seen here,
>although unfortunately it's _so_ summarized I'm not sure it
>has much useful information (but it has a little).

>Let's see... two parts... a "shell" (undefined in this context, but
>let's assume you mean the same as shell generally means to a
>programmer these days), and "nine commands"....

>I've thought of "shells" before... used some, wrote some.  So it
>must be the "nine commands" part that is so important.  You're
>quite right, I haven't thought of doing a shell with only nine
>commands before.  Must be the precise combination of nine which
>is so important...

>The problem is, the descriptions of those commands on your web
>site are, among other things, incredibly vague, and even
>inconsistent.  In fact, just the first one "Activate Interaction"
>is described as "Alternate Interface" on the page which purports
>to explain it.  Why should anyone be thinking of helping you,
>if you can't even spend the time to get a *one line* description
>of one of the basic commands of your shell correct?!

The minimum optimum number of symbols used to label something is 2.
In order to handle exceptions/conflicts it is important to be able to
change such labels when needed. The choice of which two symbols are used
initially for the commands was a matter of chosing such symbols that can
be associated to words and/or phrases that can be somewhat descriptive
of the command. These two symbol sequences are not Acronyms, but can be
preceived as such. But for example, SF = Sequence stufF isn't in the use
form of an acronym but expresses "sequence" beginning to end.

Another example of redefining these two sequences is that of the character
set used in the movie "The Matrix" where:

AI = Switch --- alternate Interface - change

PK = Apoc --- place keeper - timeline

OI = Tank --- Obtain Input - Output to Input - Battle device used to
              obtain property via outputting - Out of reality into the
              matrix, and vice versa --- Not born in matrix - external

IP = mouse --- InPut From - that's not all the body needs....

OP = Dozer --- OutPut to - a device to push outward

SF = Neo --- Sequence stufF - oNe step at a time on the path

IQ = Morpheus --- Index Queue - Look up the meaning of... a dream (bible
                  reference). Without Morpheus we are lost, without
                  meaning.

ID = Trinity --- IDentify - Trinity's task was to identify her love Neo.

KE = Cypher --- Knowledge Enable (inherently inclusive of disable ability)
                - To put constraints on Morpheus and Trinity.

VIC = Nebachadnezar --- Tool used by ........ end user (we all use the
                nine commander in all we do.)

The three Agents = input, processing and output. Smith was processing,
till Neo took over.

Anyways, back to what you were saying about vague descriptions of the VIC
commands.....

This link is an example that contridicts your claim.....
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/AI.html

>> >3. Thinking most of us have even the slightest idea what he's
>> >   trying to say when he talks, when in fact his words are so
>> >   abstract, obscure, meandering, or just plain semantically and
>> >   grammatically unrecognizable that most of his time writing
>> >   is wasted.
>>
>> Maybe you should try the general and detailed description of the commands
>> along with the code for IQ and it's test files.

>No thanks.

Exactly!!!! you do not want to see that link. How many more blew pills do
you have?

>....I've just come to the conclusion that either my brain
>is simply not able to soar at the heights yours works at, or you
>are a con-man or amateur psychologist or something, pretending to
>have discovered a basic principle on par with the meaning of life
>and attempting, oh so hard, to share it with us lowly mortals, all
>so you can enjoy the attention or observe the reactions or something.
>I found this all entertaining for a while, but I'm tired now.

Maybe you should lay off the blew pills then? You do know anyone can
become an agent, even without knowing it? (fooled by rethoric of industry
double speak.)

>> It is common knowledge that reading about how computers work is not enough
>> to really inderstand. You gotta do, in order to cause a feedback loop
>> required in really learning.

>If you're implying I cannot understand what your thingie is supposed
>to do until I actually try using it (and it hasn't actually been
>developed yet, right?  Wasn't that the whole point?), then you can
>forget that idea.  I've got better things to do, when you could
>simply explain it in one paragraph and save us all from wasting
>our time on something that we don't even know what it is...

Very interesting! Makes me think of all those statementa saying people
don't understand yet somehow these same people manage to give advice on
why this or that comment is relative.....

>> There has been a great deal of relative and useful information I have
>> given in these autocoding threads. So much so that I intend on extracting
>> it to a new web page. Seeings how this is the only help I'm going to get
>> here.... inspiration to focus another Q&A paper.

>Wonderful!  Write another white paper.  Don't actually *do* anything
>like, say, build a working example of part of your framework, or
>write up an example like Phil's nice example for Herbivore... (have
>you even looked at that example yet?  Have a go at writing one
>for your own thingie... it can't be that hard for someone as smart
>as you obviously are.)

IQ - Morpheus is working in a stand alone version. Heart of the City, be
lost without....... kill or deny IQ, right?


---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
   *~ ~ ~      Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue      What's *DONE* in all we do?  *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:timrue at mindspring.com      >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/  ^<--------<----9----<--------<