This is soooo speculative. Believe at your own peril (protective goggles don't help).
At present this document is even more disjointed than my usual stream of semi-consciousness. I'm juggling several concepts while frantically attempting to fit them together. The major sections below may change places (or vanish completely) if I ever discover the "One True Direction" in which I need to wander.
At present we are not actually making sausage here, we are just
dismantling the precursors and trying to reassemble the resulting
components into something that still can't fly.
Instrumentation can be used mathematically if the terms used can
This isn't actually different than any other language, but I am exploring ways that the use of math and logic can be made more a part of the ethos of the language.
What follows are explorations of areas that I believe can impact
the use of formal semantics.
The universe has two components, things and Predicates. We divide
things into actors (Yang, Subject, Entity) and targets (Yin,
Object). Predicates can be active (Verb, Change) or inactive
Usually we think of the subject changing (or defining) the object, but it is possible for the subject to change itself and for the object to be changed by an unknown subject or by the environment (or by the universe, if fate exists). If the subject changes itself, the object may be present and changed or NOT present and NOT changed or either of the other two combinations. If the object is NOT present and still changed it is the result of either telepathy or coincidence or an error in estimating the impact of the change.
The result of this wool gathering is the following rules for Instrumentation sentence construction.
|Subject, Predicate and Object all present
||Subject changes or defines the Object|
|Subject part of Predicate (using 'person' from verb)||same
|Subject missing (because predicate isn't a
||Object defined by unknown subject or
| "Because dog."
|Dog is reason for current situation.
Pig became something greater (like bacon).
|Predicate missing (see examples below)
||Subject defines or equals the Object: zero
| "Hamburger dog."
|Dog is made of (or full of) Hamburger.
Hamburger is made of (or for) a dog.
|Object missing||Subject changes or defines itself
Below, we have several frameworks and techniques that model,
manipulate and communicate information and thus, control the real
world events, entities and objects described by that information.
| Harmonic motion
||Amplitude * Cos(theta)|
| Pythagorean Theorem
||A^2 + B^2
||Equals if (theta = 90)||C^2
| Law of Cosines
||A^2 + B^2 +2AB*Cos(theta)
The mathematical formulas shown above tend to have multiple
'Operators'. I picked the Operator that I believe to be the most
important to be the major
predicate (#7700). Algebraically, any operator can be
considered the major predicate.
The subject and the object can be difficult to identify in a natural language. In Instrumentation the subject is the thing that acts or the thing that causes changes or the thing that describes or has a relationship with the object. If a relationship is mutual or bidirectional, the subject and object can be reversed or combined. For example:
Dog likes pig. Pig likes dog.
Dog and pig are friends.
The third sentence is most efficient. The first two sentences would both be needed to describe the complete relationship while the third sentence can stand alone.
If these were formal axioms in some domain axiomatization (for a
system of inter-operating applications or an expert system or a
knowledge base), all three might be required or the relation ship
between 'like' and 'friend' might be defined elsewhere.
|The dog is blue
||blue .| dog is feature of||#648D #ED20A6|
|The dog is sad
||sadness .| dog describes||#EDD #C320A6|
|the sad dog barks
||dog .| sad .| dog noise it just did (once)
(Hypodescription block not installed yet)
|#20A6 #FDD #B52000
|dog and pig are friends
||dog .| pig and .| friendly they are still
||#20A6 #7108A6 #BF01AF
|A^2 + B^2 = C^2||side exponentiate .| 2 .| most small .| plus
side exponentiate .| 2 .| average .|
side exponentiate .| 2 .| most large .
(no 'Hypotenuse' term, yet)
|#6C1264 #401 #B607 #620000
#6C1264 #401 #46
#6C1264 #401 #6907
(Comment: "bla, bla, bla")
The standard binary counting pattern may be an inefficient way to traverse the collection of terms found in any block. I've been practicing the Butterfly mnemonic while running through the associated finger positions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) and it's easy to remember, but I think there is a better pattern.
The reason that this is important is because Instrumentation can be viewed as a collection of banks of sixteen and blocks of 256 (which is 16 X 16) things. If you can run through a group of sixteen contiguous indexes efficiently with one hand, it should be easier to view all of the terms in a sub-table or all of the links in a level of the index when searching for the perfect word.
The chart below shows a series of binary numbers, arranged so that only one bit changes from each state to the next. The "8421" column shows which keys are depressed (either the ones or the zeros, it doesn't really matter to me). This means that only one finger moves on each transition. I expect that this will speed things up, although I may need a new mnemonic before I can test my hypothesis.
||8 4 2 1|| Hex
|1||0 0 0 1||1||unique||Multiplex|
|2||0 0 1 1||3||(-2 = 1)||Pretentious|
|3||0 0 1 0||2||(-2 = 0)||Butterflies|
|4||0 1 1 0||6||(-4 = 2)||Dizzily|
|5||0 1 1 1||7||(-4 = 3)||Turning|
|6||0 1 0 1||5||(-4 = 1)||Neatly|
|7||0 1 0 0||4||(-4 = 0)||Wings|
|8||1 1 0 0||C||(-8 = 4)||Kings|
|9||1 1 0 1||D||(-8 = 5)||Zooming|
||1 1 1 1||F||(-8 = 7)||CHeerful|
||1 1 1 0||E||(-8 = 6)||Joyous|
||1 0 1 0||A||(-8 = 2)||Flutter-byes|
||1 0 1 1||B||(-8 = 3)||Glimmering|
||1 0 0 1||9||(-8 = 1)||Vertiginous|
||1 0 0 0||8||(-8 = 0)||Right|
|0||0 0 0 0||0||unique||Sight|
The "8421" column does not represent the only possible sequence that fulfills the "only move one finger" rule. Since the four sub-columns of bits can be swapped around, there should be 24 (or 6! [factorial]) possible orders (such as 1248, 8241, etc.). Also, the pattern is circular so you can start at any point and move in either direction and you will still cover all of the combinations in the same number of steps.
This means that there are (24 X 16 X 2 =) 768 possible
progressions. I haven't looked at all the progressions to see if
any of them are duplicates, but I imagine a few might be.
I chose the sequence above for expositional reasons. The "1"
sub-column changes twice as often as the "2" sub-column which
changes twice as often as the "4" sub-column which changes twice
as often as the "8" sub-column. This make the pattern much easier
None of this, however, makes the pattern above the best pattern
for an efficient and mnemonic human chord progression. Much
testing is needed.
I could increase the address space available for casual
conversation by treating the first three levels as a single number
instead of two numbers. The current space available is 64
(Creation+Description) kibi-terms plus 256 (Syntax) terms, it
could be increased to 16 mebi-terms.
I decided to use two spaces in the design because it limits the
size of the casual vocabulary to something roughly equivalent to
the vocabulary of the average educated human. It also limits the
amount of memory needed on the user's phone.
This 'articulated' interaction can also create a conceptual
structure in the user's mind where the 256 terms of the
articulation layer form pivots around which the basic vocabulary
rotates. The Syntactic block thus provides a simulated "degree of
freedom" while it actually holds the rest of the sentence
together. (or perhaps that is just my fantasy)
I also decided to to use the visual structure to partition the
glyph (instead of using consecutive indexes for morphologically
related terms) because I believe that it will help memorization. I
believe that it is easier to remember that the Intention spoke
creates verbs than it is to remember that "#800000" creates verbs.
The first (and still unused) method would partition the memory
space according to the breakdown of most used, most needed
linguistic components in the nine
target languages. I haven't used this method because I don't
have that data available (possibly because I haven't actually
looked for it).
I have attempted to model the most efficient distribution of
"needed linguistic components" within the limits of human
understanding. I have attempted to put as many of the most common
terms used within
logic, Set theory
and social interaction as will
fit in the available space of the Syntactic Block. I am sure
something is still missing, but adjustments are not a problem, so
I'll fix the valid needs when I know what they are (and what to
"Needed components" are still being identified, but hopefully the noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, etc. address spaces are large enough and in proper proportions to accommodate the (inevitable?) rise in the numbers of users ('inevitable', because those numbers can't get much smaller).
A future improvement to the vocabulary placement within the address space could be the re-distribution of the commonest terms to the chords (key combinations) that are easiest to type.
I do believe that my design should be compared with the
vocabulary component distribution of the nine target languages and
that any apparent optimizations should be attempted and tested
(note to self: design communication optimization tests).