In article <36518c93.0 at news.victoria.tc.ca>, mentifex at scn.org (Mentifex)
writes:
< snip >
>That verb-problem stands out because we see rather readily now
>how we can at least find nouns to go with perceived objects. Ac-
>ually, the verb-problem grew out of a narrower problem from sev-
>eral days ago,
< snip >
The trouble with verbs is that they do not have a simple referent in
present-accepted logic. In applied logic, via Boolean-sequential
machines, there is only one primitive verb: STORE. (STORE shoves a
value into a designated memory location at the command.)
Every other verb or verb phrase muct be constructed from strings of
combinations of "objects" and the operators AND, NOT, and STORE.
In this technology, there are objects and conjunctions of objects, which can
be stored (and accessed). There are counting mechanisms which can index
(hence address). Our preoccupation with objects and addresses indicate that
the domain of operation is strictly the space-domain. There are not verbs,
except STORE, simply because there is no time except present time.
There is no time because we do not have temporal-symbols, -operators,
-operations or -logic elements. Without proper time (not clock time) in our
machines,time is arranged to inhabit a fourth spatial domain and is treated
as an object having certain labels. Verbs connote action and without time
there is no action. Hence there are no simple verbs (except STORE) in our
Boolean-sequential language. Hence we do 'time' poorly, and real-time
even worse.
In my opinion, a real-time operating system is a contradiction of terms,
in that if an OS is relied upon to perform all, including time-critical,
process functions, then it is not a real-time system. This is based upon the
observation that if one stops, in a real-time process, to look up or to fetch
anything, or to perform any other function, one is truly out of real time. If
the machine operation is linear-sequential, by my definition, it therefore
can't be real time.
The only justification I can think of to call any OS an "RTOS" is that those
particular systems may allow one to be as close as one may get to true real
time while using Boolean-sequential logic (which, in truth, is not very close
to real time at all). That "everyone uses RTOSs" does not reverse the fact that
they are very poor substitutes for true real-time operation. The universal
factory automation that was eminent thirty years ago has not yet happened,
although the available computing power has since increased more than a
million-fold. It is still more cost-effective to manufacture most products
manually and semi-automatically. Because this is the actual case (just look
around in industry) there must be something lacking in the current automation
technology.
All is not lost, however, because a remedy exists:
Some real-time logic applications having to do with process representation and
control will be improved if we can imbue a logic with a sense of time, a direct
temporal sensitivity. The logical sense of time should parallel, in some
fundamental way, the logical sense of space that can be stated in the predicate
calculus and propositional logic and which is ordinarily implemented for use in
Boolean logic and its gates. (The logic of time, however, should not be
translated through a spatial domain, as is now common, through
Boolean-sequential logic.)
The ordinary logics all have less functionality than we could have available,
once we admit the missing directly-connected temporal functions. I have
identified and reduced these to practice in hardware rather than in software.
An expanded suite of logic elements, in my estimation, should have true
temporal functions, operations, etc. all able to operate in real
time and upon real-time variables. This is in contrast to the practice of
relying upon artificial clocks and translating temporal variables to and from
spatial domains, which is the method used in control technology today.
I have developed such a logic over a period of many years, which may be used
for process specification, representation, and control. The logic of which I
write is truly real-time in nature, so one may "speak" the logic in
nearly-natural language. One may use this logic for applications that run in
real time, as it operates in a fundamentally parallel-concurrent fashion,
unlike the linear-sequential systems in common use. It is hardware-based and
has additional symbolic logic operators, operations and corresponding logic
elements which, when used in conjunction with the conventional Boolean
operations, can perform control functions in both space and time, often without
clocks, instructions, or software. It is also quite fast in comparison to
existing digital control schemes.
I would like to submit papers for conferences or journals to introduce the new
logic. I feel my seminal work should first be reviewed by someone with stature
in one or more applied computer science and applied logic disciplines. I may
also be in need of some collaboration on my argument and advice on the papers.
Ann alternative approach would be to patent my methods and hardware with many
patents, then use the patent position to gain market share. In either case, a
cogent review is desireable.
I am seeking significant guidance from industry or academia, or both. Can you
help me directly, or refer me to the appropriate person or office where I may
seek such aid? I welcome any comments or advice. Principals may receive copies
of abstracts and my written works for examination.
Please pass this on to anyone you think might have an interest.
Respectfully,
Charles Moeller, Sr.Engineer
email: CMoel888 at aol.com
