Home ->
Solitarywaves ->
Computation

Rock Garden, Ryoan-ji: japan-guide.com

2020-1-31

Computation
Computation by Term Rewriting

Let me define computation from a rather confined or narrow viewpoint. This is a physical view of computation in which calculations takes place to either increase or decrease order. The "control" of order is achieved with the expenditure of energy or time on the physical computation.

Computation is a physical process that depends on the reduction of physical states by some force of physical action. The physical law of entropy provides the basis for enabling ordered computation to occur.

Let me, again, define computation specifically in a digital computer from an even more confined viewpoint. Computation in a digital computer is a microcosm of entropic processes in which there exists a relationship between the state variables of the processes. This is a key idea. In physics, you can define relationships between the variables used in the description of the process.

Now, in the world of digital computation, you can do almost anything your imagination can program. So you can do what "pure" functional programmers have done to simplify and efficiently optimize their code. By defining "closed monodial" structures or categories they have systemized a way of using graph reduction or rewriting to do their programming with.

The pattern presented here in this article on digital computation is that computation is fundamentally about constructing and deconstructing the description of processes. It's basically a mechanistic method of simplifying a description by creating order or tending towards "negative" order (disorder).

Whenever you're creating a comprehensive description of a process you might try using some category theory. [1] Programmers building a specialized database might design the framework's foundation using category theory. The Indian grammarian Panini worked on a kind of category theory that's closely related to programming a substitution grammar. Panini's Karaka theory [2] is also like a logical foundation or ontology for his substitution grammar. This makes me approach Panini's grammar as a meta-programming functional language because it is intrinsically transformation oriented. In the Lisp programming language this orientation to perform tranformation in functions takes the form of side-effects. [3]

Substitution grammar consists of term rewriting elements. More generally speaking, computation consists of (1) the ditigal computer machine, M, (2) the software, S, which includes the language interpreter and the application program, and (3) the external agent, environment, or observer, O, interacting with the machine, M, and software, S. So the system's description, D, is composed of the set of elements {M, S, O}. These set of elements are dependent on each other in terms of state variables in the observer's environment, O. The substitution grammar must carry state information in state variables within the context of the observer, O.

Ontologically, in the vocabulary of the metaworld, a substitution grammar consists of "content" and "form", or respectively; "constituent components" and "composition rules"; parts and relationships; variables and functions; or terms and rules. [4] It's generally true that the greater the number of terms, the lesser the number of relational rules between terms. [5]

Term rewriting is essentially a general programming methodology (on the verge of being extreme) which inherently uses a reductionist algorithm. [6] The principal problem with a reductionist methodology is that you lose the efficiency of understanding the description, D. That is, in terms of entropy, you tend to too much disorder away from information compression. In human terms, you lose the aesthetic feeling of beauty in the description.

References

[1] John Baez and Mike Stay, "Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone", 2009, ARXIV:0903.0340v3  Rossetta Stone

This is one of those encyclopedic articles that's good to read more than once. It covers Feynman diagrams which is used in String theory. But what's relevant is the coverage on category theory, a little Heyting algebra, and especially on section 4 about computation. Section 4.3 on linear type theories ends with a discussion on term rewriting. Most the formal theoretical stuff in this article is way above my head. I try to intuitively sense what might be of value to me. I know there's a treasure here because of the integrative nature of this article.

[2] In Karaka the verb is of primary importance in a phrase. The noun or subject alone is secondary. Karaka, or more generally Sanshrit, is a functional language. (In the mystical eastern traditions including Zen, the seer disappears inside of action or energy. The attributes related to the subject are merged or dissolved away into a singular kind of action or movement which attains primacy in the mind.)

[3] Side-effects tends to be explicitly controlled in "pure" functional languages like Miranda and Haskell.

[4] Ibid [1] (John Baez and Mike Stay), Table 1, Rosetta Stone.

In term rewriting the object is term and the morphism is the rule.

[5] Satosi Watanabe, "Pattern Recognition", 1985, p. 393

In general it is true that the larger the number of components, the smaller the number of composition rules. But, there is an optimum, which is obviously dictated by the total memory capacity we need to store the entire general laws, apart from the requirement that the entire theoretical structure be elegant and simple. The obvserver, on the other hand, has to start his operation by providing the specific data. The first task in this process is to identify the components, and the next is to find out how these components are put together. This second part is already the beginning of the "parsing" process, which consists of assigning appropriate composition rules to this group of components.

It is significant to note that both Satosi Watanabe and Alan Bawden (AIM-WP-311) refers to the notion of the "external" environment of the description as the "observer".

[6] Ibid [1] (John Baez and Mike Stay)

The idea of a combinator is very old: in fact, it predates the lambda calculus. Combinatory logic was born in a 1924 paper by Schonfinkel, and was rediscovered and extensively developed by Curry starting in 1927. In retrospect, we can see their work as a stripped-down version of the untyped lambda calculus that completely avoids the use of variables. Starting from a basic stock of terms called 'combinators', the only way to build new ones is application: we can apply any term f to any term t and get a term f(t).