Hi Pavithra, (John, Pat,
Ian, et al)
Your post has some interesting musings.
Suppose there are two such System backups,
S(t=T0) and S(t=T1), each
complete with copies of the exe and the history of inputs and outputs. I
describe the details of this supposition below where I further define the two
snapshots T0 and T1. We
still need to access some snapshot T, called S(t=T) for any T in [t0..t1].
Since time t is monotonically increasing
in both 3D+1 and 4D, the system S(t=T) can
interpolate to any t between t0 and t1 in M*Log(N) real time
and resources. Just use a binary search for t in [t0,t1] by starting with
the appropriate { T[high], T[mid], T[low], T[t] } and propagating constraints
to navigate within the
System graphs { G(T0), G(t), G(T1) } to recursively
produce still another snapshot of interpolating snapshots.
Each snapshot can be either stored, if
future reuse is expected, or recalculated when future use actually does occur. The
point is that retrieving an arbitrary system S(t=T) can be retrieved faster
than real time with enough substructuring and planning.
Jon Awbrey’s old topic re simulating faster
than real time: the 3D+1 view can be converted to a 4D view more efficiently
than the 4D view can be independently constructed. Use M
memories and N processes. Then Resource consumption = M*SizeOf(Snapshot
memory) storage plus N*TimeTo(calculate interpolation).
The point is that a 4D representation can
be constructed from a 3D+1 presentist system with specifically engineered
capability to do so in logarithmic time with linear storage, or in linear time
with logarithmic storage. Navigating between the two tactics can provide
an arbitrary limit of time and/or storage within an elastic interval, as I proved
in my dissertation.
So with enough time and storage in the [T0, T1] interval, there
exist resourceful strategies and tactics that can reconstruct any snapshot Tt in [t0, t1]
at least as fast as a real time system can navigate to Tt from T0, T1, or
interpolations of arbitrary fineness within them.
JMHO,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pavithra
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011
4:17 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
presentism
|
From an engineering or systems points of view, I think it is the
elegant way of saying "System Administration" view. You
can take a snap shot of the whole server at a point in time, save as backups
or hot backups that can be reinstalled to create the server, the way it
was when the backup was made. ( that point in time) with all its systems and
applications , data the it was at that point in time. ( with all your 2D,
word documents text documents .., 3D objects, apps and virtual reality apps etc)..
That gives the ability to re create the whole environmental for a point in
time, ( not one record or particular apps but the whole server) and view
it like God can view 2005-Florida the way it was in his mind. Yet
all this is static, not dynamic.. ( One has to re create the server,
from the backups with a particular date and view it..)..
Suppose you save in one zipped
folder links to:
1. a snapshot T0 of the backup data, plus
2. a copy of the executables, plus
3. a copy of history - all the data
inputs to the program and outputs from the program
since the last snapshot.
It seems to me that the zipped folder T0.zip, e.g., comprising 3 URIs to all of the above
3 parts of the same snapshot in time, or actually containing copies of the
actual data, as appropriate to the application load, provides the capability to
process from that snapshot to another later one, specifically T1, where by construction T1>T0 for whatever ordering maintains the rows of T0 and T1. Then represent the new snapshot as T1.zip, with the appropriate structure
equivalent to that of T0.zip.
A system can therefore be defined to continue the iterative
process, even to subdivide it into finer and finer intervals between
snapshots from [T0 .. T1].
--- On Tue, 2/8/11, sean barker <sean.barker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: sean barker <sean.barker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] presentism
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 1:44 PM
Ferenc
Speak for yourself. Nearly twenty years ago I designed an IT architecture
that could only be rendered in 3D - fortunately we had a 3D CAD system
readily available. In 3D systems, it is not the immediate 2D view that is
important, but the ability to change viewpoint in 3D, and so create a 3D
mental model. A 2D image only presents a single view, in practice, engineers
really do think in 3D, and work by relating the 3D back to 2D views. I've
tried thinking in 4D, and, although it's not that hard, it's only
occasionally useful (although a few years back we did have someone working
on 10-D visualisation).
Sean Barker
Bristol, UK
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
Sent: 08 February 2011 11:36
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ontolog-forum] presentism
***
WARNING ***
This message has originated outside your organisation,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
John: No. The brain constructs 3D models by relating sensory info from
multiple modes. The view from both eyes is the obvious example, but vision
is also correlated with somatosensory inputs from all parts of the body.
Ferenc: All I am saying that when we share our mental imagery then we use 2D
representations, whether verbal or graphic. Even when we create pictures in
perspective (seemingly 3D) in paper or on buildings, we use a flat surface,
including our 3D television, etc.
Of course, the informnatio n that we collect comes from various agles, real
or generated synthetically, just like in holography. This does not man that
you can store real things "in depths" without dificulty. Look at
all the big
automated storehouses, they use a surface for storing objects, they would
not pub objects beind each other to make access awkward.
Nevertheless we alway say that we examine th underlying problems, the issues
behind the surface, etc. indicating we cannot imagine another arrangment but
gong further ahead and knocking on the walls.
Ferenc
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find
a flick in no time
with theYahoo!
Search movie showtime shortcut.
|
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|