Threesology Research Journal
Artificial Intelligence and 3sology (56K)

http://threesology.org



AI and 3sology pages:

Artificial Intelligence and 3sology Introduction
pg1 pg2 pg3 pg4 pg5 pg6 pg7 pg8
pg9 pg10 pg11 pg12 pg13 pg14 pg15 pg16
pg17 pg18 pg19 pg20 pg21 pg22 pg23 pg24
pg25 pg26 pg27 pg28 pg29 pg30 pg31 pg32
pg33 pg34 pg35 pg36 pg37 pg38 pg39



With so many instances of duality cropping up in different philosophical perspectives, it's a wonder no one has adopted the notion of "Philosophical Binaryism" as a means of incorporating all ideas containing a dual structure under a single roof. But then we would also have to adopt a philosophy of "Enumerated Sequentialism" as a means of incorporating all ideas revealing a type of internalized developmental successiveness to denote a recurring progression, such as syllogisms do... from a Minor Premise to→ a Major Premise to→ a Conclusion... or the Monad to Dyad to Triad integrated complexification and delineation. Too many people forget or do not take the time to acknowledge that computers are contrived philosophically-based "things" which have seduced some into a relationship as if the thing is a type of god in its infancy that needs to be instructed along a path of growth that is best for it and for those and that which it will eventually govern... like the child of a King who must have the best instruction available to them for proper development. And like most children subjected to parents who do not have a large body of information or experience... and rely on their own experiences and observations to mete out some semblance of a parental role... the development of computers into an AI is thus just as tenuous as a toss-up. "Top down" and "Bottom up" approaches is just another binary (dichotomy) advancing an unrecognized mind/body approach.


While the next page 38 will offer an example of making a parallel between the input/output of an electronic's circuit to biology, let us offer a selection on non-binary logic, as it is described by a company advancing a particular perspective thereof. It is necessary to reemphasize that the following selection offers the reader a particular perspective, it should not be viewed as "THE" non-binary logic perspective. The word "Ternary" is sometimes used to describe an alternative to binary (with an assigned definitive designation), and yet does not necessarily prescribe a functionally distinct "three-pattern" utilization. Like ancient peoples who used the third number word "many" to describe three or more, present day peoples appear to use the word "ternary" in this same perspective.


Ternarylogic LLC (http://www.ternarylogic.com/)


Advanced computing? No matter how complex a program or application, how large the memory or how fast the internal clock of a processor or digital circuit, in essence we are still dealing with a computer being a relatively simple switching machine. The building blocks of these switching machines are the simplest of simple switching devices: binary switches. This is curious, as virtually no process in the real world (including mathematics) is a binary process. Almost every concept we deal with has multiple possible states.


If you are one of those people who have an innate curiosity and wonder how things can be done differently, you have come to the right place. You probably have heard many times that current digital technology is binary. Why not ternary, you may wonder. Or why not a 256 state logic? What would non-binary logic mean or look like? Find out here and on related web sites.


Ternarylogic LLC is an R&D company that develops Intellectual Property (IP) in non-binary machine logic and switching technology.


Our inventions are related to novel ways of using non-binary switching functions.



Non-binary Switching and Machine Logic

What is this non-binary switching?


Non-binary switching relates directly to an apparatus or device that processes (or switches) signals. The signals are represented by non-binary symbols. The non-binary switching machine does not perform logic or any conceptual or abstract function, it merely processes signals. The logic, often called Boolean logic, associated with switching functions, is merely a description for humans to understand how the switching devices operate.


Humans have been searching for a long time for ways to automate mathematical and arithmetical expressions. It is evident from the history of computing that merely having an expression is not sufficient to have it implemented and executed by a machine. Even known numerical methods, such as 'regula falsi' for finding roots, or Taylor series approximation, could only be performed by humans, not by machines.


The trick, it turned out, was to express the steps of calculating methods in switching or logic functions which were effective descriptions of the switching performance of actual devices, such as electro-mechanical relays. This was an invention by Claude Elwood Shannon as part of his M.I.T. thesis in 1937. It is important to realize that even with the description, the devices such as relays do not perform logic. They merely switch. The switching devices also do not perform any symbol processing: they only change state and generate signals. Without any meaningful human interface, one would not be able to determine what a switching machine is actually doing, besides switching from one state to another state.


The 'logic' description of the circuitry was recognized by Dr. Blaauw and Dr. Brooks, co-architects of the System IBM/360, to be a design layer that describes the function of the physical realization, without having to specify the actual circuitry. It means that every expression used in an implementation description has a physical realization.


Non-binary switches are devices that provide on an output a signal that represents a non-binary symbol. The non-binary symbol is merely a human representation for the signal. The non-binary switch does not process symbols, it processes signals and it does not produce symbols, it produces signals.


Non-binary machine logic is the description of physical devices that operate in accordance with non-binary switching devices. Any symbol that describes a switching state is arbitrary. While often using the symbols 0 and 1 in binary switching, one may as well select A and B, or any other representation. The selection of 0 and 1 reflects the human need to 'see' signals as representing symbols in a finite field GF(2). Such a description is not required for a switch to work, it is only required for humans to understand its functionality.


Non-binary machine logic as applied by Ternarylogic is thus a reflection of realizable physical devices and switching tables and not a mere description of conceptual or abstract logic.


If you are new to the concept of non-binary switching, you should probably download and read this brief paper on the subject: on why and how it is different from binary switching. And why switching is not human logic, but rather machine logic.


The Patents


Ternarylogic LLC owns a portfolio of over 60 inventions with non-binary switching. Copies of the issued patents are available for download here.



How difficult is it to work with non-binary machine logic?


If you are familiar with binary logic and related truth tables, working with non-binary machine logic is amazingly simple. As with many engineering problems, insight will come by first articulating a non-binary logic machine problem that is followed by solving the problem.


The article "Shift Register Based Applications with MVL Switching Functions" by Peter Lablans, uses issues around non-binary shift registers with feedback, to explain, find and apply non-binary switching functions to create shift register based devices. It does not replace the book, the presentations and Matlab programs. However, the article is probably easier to read than the related patents and will provide sufficient insight on a high level.


The shift register examples lend themselves to a relatively easy visualization that may be more difficult to achieve in other non-binary applications, such as non-binary machine arithmetic and non-binary switching latches.



Calling a non-binary switch a "ternary" switch (perception) where the word "ternary" (or some other "three" word) is used to describe any alternative to a two-patterned arrangement, organization or orientation; is in some instance little more than an elaboration of a binary. However, the problem with a "binary" situation like that of a "trinary" situation is to first establish what we mean by such distinctions. In my own research of the "threes phenomena" I have encountered representations of a "three" but a "two-pattern" actually exists. For example, as discussed on page 4, the so-called "Trigrams" are actually "Bigrams":


Bigrams (7K) True Trigram


True Trigram (1K)

The problem arises when the initial design did not incorporate three distinct lines, and later users of the bigrams unwittingly did not recognize their own maturing cognition towards a three perspective, as over-shadowing the two-patterned design with a three-patterned perspective by calling them trigrams. The usage of the word "trigram" represents a cognitive change in perception, and does not actually describe an instance of a "three" in functionality, on in appearance. Whereas there are three separate placements of one and two lines, there are not three separate placements of three numerically quantitative lines. The usage of one and two line presentations is a binary setup. Adding another one or two lines in a separate placement does not actually constitute a trigram... it is a bigram that has been elaborated and it is this elaboration which is being called a trigram... but the internal structure never exceeds two. Such a situation no doubt occurs in other subjects using subject-inclusive symbols and ideas. In addition, where a "three-pattern" actually exists, those inclined towards a "two" perspective will necessarily alter a three example into a two-part structure in order to make it consistent with their inclined cognated perception.


One of the many games I played in childhood, was called "Red Light, Green Light", which was a version of "Mother May I". In both variations, a person is chosen to stand at one end of a given play space and turn their back on the rest of those involved in playing the game. The person chosen would then say "Green Light!" which was the switching mechanism which permitted the others to try to run up and touch the person giving the command. However, the person is permitted to turn around and simultaneously say "Red Light!", which was the switching mechanism directing the players to stop. If the person caught someone in motion towards them, the person had to return to the place where they started from. However, the point to be made is that we did not play "Red light, Yellow light, Green light". We played a two-color and not a three-color game, though street lights had three colors. Yet, in retrospect, the origin of the game might be traced backed to a time when street lights had only two colors. The situation in the game of "Mother May I" was similar, except that the person did not need to turn their backs on the players and the players had to ask for person to take a certain number of steps towards them. Ordinary steps were not typically permitted. One would have to ask whether or not they could take so many animal related steps, and exhibit what might be considered the type of step a given animal would make, be they a duck, dog, alligator, or whatever. Taking too many steps or not getting permission was cause for having to return to the place one started. No doubt different groups of kids may have had their own variations. But all games portray different types of binary switching mechanisms, though we customarily call them rules.


Let's take the well known game of baseball as an exercise in explication of the binary/trinary situation. The pitcher and batter act as a binary switch which sends the baseball (as an electrical charge, or single electron) into motion. Sometimes the batter is functionally adept at hitting the ball, which causes other players (circuits) to become charged with different levels of activation. In short, a baseball game with all attendant players, workers, and audience... be they nearby, at a distance listening to a radio broadcast of the game, or will hear or read about it sometime in the future; all are types of activations initiated by the various switches accompanying the game. While some are almost immediate, others may occur days, weeks or even years later... as types of residual energy being displaced. While two separate teams make up a binary profile, so do individual occurrences such as between the pitcher and catcher, the pitcher and the batter, a baseman and a runner, the crowd and the concessions, etc... Yet, there exist numerous patterns-of-three such as three strikes, three numbered bases (and one non-numbered home base or home plate), the pitcher-batter-catcher trio, three outfield positions, three home plate boxes (catcher's, left handed batter/right handed batter), three basic types of gloves (1st baseman's, fielder's, catchers) and three coach positions (dugout, 1st base, 3rd base)... not to mention the use of three-lettered abbreviations to render descriptions of "stats" (statistics) about plays and players such as "RBI" for 'runners batted in'.


BaseBall field (51K)

All the dimensions provided are a type of elaboration of the underlying basic switching mechanisms. It is like organized fighting being labeled a "Military Theater" in an attempt to give the impression of sophistication for acts of killing and destruction carried out in the name of some government-directed activity. If a religion is involved, it takes on the labeling consistent with the vocabulary of those attempting to advance some intellectually righteous motivation and approval. Business activity is no different. Neither is education instruction or the construction of computers. Each adopts a vocabulary of those heading up leading positions, perhaps only because those in charge or involved in the construction, need to make up words to give some semblance of sense to their ideas, because their vocabulary is otherwise limited. They model they are working with, if it does not include the language from another subject area, then they may well have to make up a word because their idea(s) is/are truly original and they are not, in such an instance, trying to add some elaborate scenery or makeup to an otherwise simple view. When a model for an idea does not exist (or is not readily known), then the developer is forced to create their own. For example, in describing the idea for a New Government with one word, the label "Cenocracy" might be devised: (Ceno= "new" or recent, and cracy= rule or "government").


In many instances, new words may not be developed but ideas brought on by personal experiences. Take for example the case of the American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (September 10, 1941 - May 20, 2002) whose interest in baseball was portrayed in his views of "punctuate equilibrium" and "walls" being described to portray biological events. If one has spent any time at a baseball game, they would become quickly aware of frequent periods where events in a game go into a state of neutrality because of a lack of action. And then, all of a sudden, the long periods of waiting for something exciting to happen in the game become interrupted (or "punctuated") by a fast action play... such as someone hitting a home-run, someone stealing a base, or some noticeable activity occurs in the crowd itself. "Walled" events discussed by Gould in his work, are similarly related. Clearly, punctuated events can occur in evolutionary occurrences just as can long periods of little or no change. An unexpected cloudburst has been experienced often enough to give witness to the reality of such occasions, just as can "right, left, or center wall" events, when viewed as a metaphor for distance, direction, stopping and starting. Such ideas are pretty simple stuff to appreciate, even though many of Gould's peer group rejected his ideas as he portrayed them.


Though many of us are familiar with the binary distinction of fast pitch/slow pitch and soft-ball/hard-ball, with "hard-ball" being alternatively used to describe a serious situation applied to any activity just as does the boxing metaphor of "taking the gloves off"; what goes unnoticed is that such references are rather simplistically analogical (portray easy to understand analogies). If we look closer at the functionality of a pitched fastball, we can again recognize the binary of high and low pressure, but only if it is schematically outlined as in the following image:


curve ball (25K)

For those readers who by adopted habit are inclined to view sports balls (particularly billiard balls) as atomic particles, they may also necessarily alter the phenomena of "air pressure" to other values such as magnetism, vacuum, and speed. From the perspective of switching, as in computer switching, a pool cue, tennis racket, baseball bat, ping pong paddle, player, etc., act as mechanisms for activating or transferring the action (or place-value) of the electron (sports ball). While the scales of distance, size of balls and players involved may be large or small, similarities can be accessed as preliminary models... which can provide the image of a footing for a better model to ensue... if need be. For example, in the early history of adopting a model for the atom, electron discoverer Sir Joseph John Thomson (Dec. 18, 1856 - Aug. 30, 1940) used a "plum pudding model":


The internal structure of the atom, however, became clear only in the early 20th century with the work of the British physicist Ernest Rutherford and his students. Until Rutherford's efforts, a popular model of the atom had been the so-called “plum-pudding” model, advocated by the English physicist Joseph John Thomson, which held that each atom consists of a number of electrons (plums) embedded in a gel of positive charge (pudding); the total negative charge of the electrons exactly balances the total positive charge, yielding an atom that is electrically neutral. Rutherford conducted a series of scattering experiments that challenged Thomson's model. Rutherford observed that when a beam of alpha particles (which are now known to be helium nuclei) struck a thin gold foil, some of the particles were deflected backward. Such large deflections were inconsistent with the plum-pudding model.


Source: "Atomic physics." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

Thompson model (54K) Rutherford model (83K)

In the above image of Rutherford, looking at it from a sociological perspective, the electron is a sort of "fringe" element existing in an orbital sphere around the larger binary organized social center... all of which constitutes a trinary (or ternary) complement. In the previous Thompson model, there was a type of "solid" but liquid pool in which the electron "fringers" were imbedded. Instead of a tightly meshed web structure (like the webbing of a screen or piece of material) as seen in the Thompson model, the model took on the image of a mesh-work with larger spaces. The solid look became a mostly transparent look, like the evolutionary fashion of bathing suits; in which the body was almost totally covered in the wardrobe styles of the past, to the present day accepted usage of bathing wear that is little more than underwear under the guise of a different name. The solid idea takes on a greater transparency without actually showing us anything new (since the binary formula or male and female figures remains). String theory in physics replicates this same adopted binary approach of alteration between large and small, or particle and wave, or solid and transparent, or zero and one, or strong and weak, or in and out, or good and evil, or rich and poor, etc. Interestingly enough, the presence of various three-patterned atomic entities has led some to suggest the need for an actual third alternative, which is called Supersymmetry:


(Sting Theory) in particle physics, (is) a theory that attempts to merge quantum mechanics with Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. The name string theory comes from the modeling of subatomic particles as tiny one-dimensional “stringlike” entities rather than the more conventional approach in which they are modeled as zero-dimensional point particles. The theory envisions that a string undergoing a particular mode of vibration corresponds to a particle with definite properties such as mass and charge. In the 1980s, physicists realized that string theory had the potential to incorporate all four of nature's forces—gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, and weak force—and all types of matter in a single quantum mechanical framework, suggesting that it might be the long-sought unified field theory. While string theory is still a vibrant area of research that is undergoing rapid development, it remains a purely mathematical construct because it has yet to make contact with experimental observations.


String theory was an intuitively attractive proposal, but by the mid-1970s more-refined measurements of the strong force had deviated from its predictions, leading most researchers to conclude that string theory had no relevance to the physical universe, no matter how elegant the mathematical theory. Nevertheless, a small number of physicists continued to pursue string theory. In 1974 John Schwarz of the California Institute of Technology and Joel Scherk of the École Normale Supérieure and, independently, Tamiaki Yoneya of Hokkaido University came to a radical conclusion. They suggested that one of the supposedly failed predictions of string theory—the existence of a particular massless particle that no experiment studying the strong force had ever encountered—was actually evidence of the very unification Einstein had anticipated.


Although no one had succeeded in merging general relativity and quantum mechanics, preliminary work had established that such a union would require precisely the massless particle predicted by string theory. A few physicists argued that string theory, by having this particle built into its fundamental structure, had united the laws of the large (general relativity) and the laws of the small (quantum mechanics). Rather than merely being a description of the strong force, these physicists contended, string theory required reinterpretation as a critical step toward Einstein's unified theory.


The announcement was universally ignored. String theory had already failed in its first incarnation as a description of the strong force, and many felt it was unlikely that it would now prevail as the solution to an even more difficult problem. This view was bolstered by string theory's suffering from its own theoretical problems. For one, some of its equations showed signs of being inconsistent; for another, the mathematics of the theory demanded the universe have not just the three spatial dimensions of common experience but six others (for a total of nine spatial dimensions, or a total of ten space-time dimensions).


Supersymmetry and cosmological signatures


The experiments at CERN will also search for evidence of supersymmetry, a mathematical property discovered within string theory that requires every known particle species to have a partner particle species, called superpartners. (This property accounts for string theory often being referred to as superstring theory.) As yet, no superpartner particles have been detected, but researchers believe this may be due to their weight— they are heavier than their known counterparts and require a machine at least as powerful as the Large Hadron Collider to produce them. If the superpartner particles are found, string theory still will not be proved correct, because more-conventional point-particle theories have also successfully incorporated supersymmetry into their mathematical structure. However, the discovery of supersymmetry would confirm an essential element of string theory and give circumstantial evidence that this approach to unification is on the right track.


Even if these accelerator-based tests are inconclusive, there is another way that string theory may one day be tested. Through its impact on the earliest, most extreme moments of the universe, the physics of string theory may have left faint cosmological signatures—for example, in the form of gravitational waves or a particular pattern of temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background radiation—that may be observable by the next generation of precision satellite-borne telescopes and detectors. It would be a fitting conclusion to Einstein's quest for unification if a theory of the smallest microscopic component of matter were confirmed through observations of the largest astronomical realms of the cosmos.


Brian R. Greene

Source: "String Theory." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

What the mind of man has now devised is a three-patterned association of particles called:


  • Sub-particles (elementary particles)
  • Particles (electrons, neutrons, protons)
  • Super-particles

Metaphorically, they present us with an image of three University degree levels (Bachelor's, Master's, Ph.D), or three public school divisions (Elementary, Middle-school/Jr. High, High school), or three clothes sizes (small, medium, large), three clothes application (under wear, regular wear, over wear such as an overcoat)... though there are many other three-patterned structures which might be provided. Retrospectively however, the three University degrees are preceded by the three public school divisions, suggesting that perhaps the human mind collectively works in a "layering" orientation, and is therefore drawn to such a structure. If we humans don't design a layered structure such as in the construction of resistors... though we may use terms such as hierarchy, levels, overlap, sandwich, coupling, compaction, pages, sheets, rings (such as tree rings), sedimentation, etc..., then we look for such in our respective interests, be it geology, physics, sports (rostering), accounting (tablulation), education (grade levels, grading system), history (time scale), cooking (meal preparation, courses, choices), diplomacy (bargaining exchanges), etc...


Whereas we have the idea of a particle and its anti-particle which presents us with a pattern-of-two, such as quarks occurring in groups of three (baryons) or groups of two with antiquarks (mesons)... with three color (red, green, blue) states and three anti-color states, but other examples of two and three arrangements can be identified. At present there are 8 independent gluons, but the jury remains out on whether the total number of verifiable particles will end up being 64 or 256. If it is 64 we've got another chess-board on our hands (though 61 for genetics when we don't add the stop and start amino acids); and if it is nearer towards 256, we have decided quad-core layering effect (that is if each layer contains 64 placements.) This would be like stacking four checker or chess-boards on top of one another with a means of inter-acting inter-dimensionally. With respect to layering, we'll come back to it on page 39.




Subject page first Originated (saved into a folder): Thursday, November 13, 2014... 5:50 AM
Page re-Originated:Sunday, 24-Jan-2016... 08:51 AM
Initial Posting: Saturday, 13-Feb-2016... 10:59 AM
Updated Posting: Saturday, 09-Apr-2016... 11:45 AM

Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com