“When a Mathematical Reasoning can be had it’s as great a folly to make use of any other, as to grope for a thing in the dark, when you have a Candle standing by you.”

— John Arbuthnot, Of the Laws of Chance, 1692.

Miser Project conception starts from reasoning with and in certain mathematical structures. That foundation ~~brings to bear~~ __applies__ mathematical thinking in establishing a model of computation and subsequent reasoning about programs and their dependable employment for practical purposes. It is not necessary to digest all of the mathematics in order to develop and use the eventual software, provided there is trustworthy assurance of suitable quality, an objective of the mathematical route: *someone* has done it and that undertaking is transparent and trustworthy.

I strongly recommend the wider and practical context presented in Edward Ashford Lee’s recent book, *Plato and the Nerd*. For the Miser Project, “theory” __and__ “context” are often used in place of Lee’s use of “model” __and “paradigm.”__ The Miser Project use of “model” is reserved for a mathematical- logic situation around interpretations of theories, ~~perhaps~~ a ~~third~~ flavor of modeling (or theory-building) ~~with respect to~~ __that exposes__ the marvelous utility of computers as instruments of human purpose and experience that Lee addresses.

The Eugenia Cheng book, The Art of Logic: How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn’t looks critically into affairs of the world from a mathematician’s perspective. More profound than the narrow application of mathematics in the Miser Project conception of computing, Cheng’s video on “How to Think Like a Mathematician” reveals some connections with the structures portrayed in boole.txt and the demonstration of representations and interpretations related to ‹ob›.

In the course of the Miser Project and demonstration of computational power and limitations, some specialized concepts are depended on. They are elaborated here.

2019-04-02 Intermediate Refinements:Additional diagrams and adjustments to smooth the narrative, reflecting suggestions by colleague William L. Anderson.~~Deletions~~andinsertionsare identified in aid of further review.

2019-02-11 Initial Public Draft:Lengthy article navigating some concepts that will arise continuously in narration of the computational model and its representation in computational processes. For reference and review as background to further articles.

Preliminaries

**Content**

- Recap: Computation-Model Stage-Setting
- Structure, Interpretation, Representation, Computation, and Manifestation
- Review: More About Structure
- Concerning Representational Ambiguity
- Choreography of Computation
- Manifestation and Tacit Awareness

**1. Recap: Computation-Model Stage-Setting**

At this point, these articles address ‹ob› = 〈Ob,Of,Ot〉having a domain of discourse, __Ob__, that is a flavor of abstract data structure, strictly on theoretical terms.

With regard to computational interpretation, effective-computability is taken as a condition on deductions that are available given a particular mathematical representation of a function or predicate. ~~So far,~~ The transition from an effectively-computable representation in any structure to an operational computational process of any kind is suggested, ~~not demonstrated~~ __with interpretation in ‹ob› as the path to demonstration__. We have not escaped from mathematical entities so far in this series of articles, apart from one programming-language mock-up of an ‹ob› computational interpretation.

Interpretation of other structures and their effectively-computable primitives via representations in ‹ob› sets the stage for computational interpretation satisfying the ‹ob› computational model. Such transition from other/higher levels to ones tied to the lower-level computational model demonstrates ~~generality~~ __applicability__ of computational interpretation.

It is posited that the interpretation-in-‹ob› approach is sufficient for computational representation of the same effectively-__calculable__ ~~computable~~ mathematical functions as any other recognized model of computation. Demonstration of such universality (i.e., Church-Turing computability) and common limitations of that universality is one Miser Project objective: making this aspect of theoretical computing accessible in practical, demonstrable, __and understandable__ terms for ~~the understanding of~~ computing practitioners and other interested parties.

The ‹ob› model of computation, although very simple, is a sufficient foundation for computational-interpretation by stored-program operations that manifest layers of abstraction. By stored-program is meant taking obs themselves as scripts for operations on obs taken as operands. Such scripts can direct derivation of obs to be taken as further scripts, illustrating how computer programs (e.g., compilers) are used to generate (compile) further computer programs from descriptions in their data (e.g., programming-language texts), extending the __practical__ reach of computer applications.

Narration of the ‹ob› model of computation is the subject of the next series of blog articles. The model is founded on two function representations: one by **obap.ap( p, x)** and one by

**obap.eval(**. The operands,

*e*)*p*,

*x*, and

*e*, are obs. Given definite obs for operands, any determined result is a definite ob. Dependable manifestation of the computational model in implemented operations of a digital computer rests on empirical determination that the computer’s performance yields valid computation-model interpretations. All of that will be explored.

### 2. Structure, Interpretation, Representation, Computation, and Manifestation

Some informal notions are adapted and restricted in the context of the Miser Project. These specialized concepts assist in capturing the essence of computation and its practical application. This framing is not ~~intended to be~~ the only perspective. It is offered as one useful way to appreciate computation. Briefly, in rough progression.

**Structure**

mathematical characterization of theoretical entities in terms of domains, primitive notions, and applied logical theories

*Interpretation**mathematical:*arrangements by which one mathematical structure is modelled in another using a mathematically-demonstrated correspondence*linguistical:*interpretation of a text in a (standard) semantic domain, including computation-model interpretation of programming-language texts*empirical:*~~successfully-engineered~~__engineering__of mechanized operations confirmed to satisfy a model of computation; realized computational interpretation*social/scientific:*identifying objects in physical/social reality as evocative of theoretical entities, and sometimes*vice versa*; taking such determinations as pertaining to relationships in contingent reality

*Representation**mathematical:*~~the~~formulation of mathematical functions in a given structure’s theory language, effectively determining the nature of the functions as theoretical entities;*notionally*, equivalent formulations of the same function can be taken as having the same functional interpretation*conceptual:*the entities and functions of one structure that serve as interpretations for those of another, thereby representing that other structure;*ideally*, the represented individuals are readily discerned upon inspection of (computationally) derived representations (i.e., definite representations are traceable back to the__intended__interpreted entities__in a particular context__)*reflective:*a representation may provide multiple entities that are equivalent as valid interpretations of a single entity in another structure (e.g., the propositional algebra simulation by ob.p01.bp in contrast with the subsumed ob.NE.bp interpretation of ‹bp› in boole.txt).

*Computation**conceptual:*__performance of (algorithmic) procedure__representation of some entity*p*such that*x*, the operand/data, is transformed into a representation of*y*,~~such that a~~__satisfying__specified functional relationship*y*=*f*(*x*)~~is satisfied~~*informal:*the result of a computation, spoken of as the represented entity (e.g., “the square-root of*x*”, “the estimated fastest route from city*A*to city*B*today”, or, “interactive achievement of the end-game in*Tomb Raider*”)

*Manifestation**general:*perceptual object of attention recognized in some other object or activity*operational:*act of producing/presenting objects or activities taken as so evocative*interactive:*with computer systems, the appearance evoked in the representation of computational results/operation on some medium (e.g., the perceived images on the surface of a computer-operated graphical display)*tacit:*objects perceived as being manipulated via interaction with a computer system operating in keeping with manifestation fidelity

### 3. Review: More About Structure

Expositions of mathematical structures such as ‹ob› = 〈Ob,Of,Ot〉circumscribe particular theoretical entities in a mathematical-logic framework. The general pattern is ‹*s*› = 〈*Sd*,*S*f,*S*t〉.

*Sd*signify the*domain of discourse*, the collection of entities all of a single kind that are the subject of variables, such as*x*,*y*,*z*, in expressions of the structure (with universal quantification, such as with ∀*x*∀*y*∀*z*, usually implicit)*S*f signify*all*of the functions and predicates with operands and function yields in*Sd.*Individual functions become know by their representation using*S*t.*S*t consist of the expressions that establish primitive notions, axioms, and function representations using a mathematical system of logic. The subject matter is always*Sd*and explicitly-represented elements of*S*f. Certain functions and predicates may be taken as axiomatic, with all others expressible in terms of those.

For the Miser Project, *S*t is typically an application of First-Order Logic, usually with = (FOL=). This is the case of ‹ob›.

Distinguishing mathematical structures in this manner allows examination of multiple structures and connections among them. To be explicit about a structure being appealed to in a given discussion, prefixed names such as ob.c, ob.NIL, bp.top, bv*n*.comp, and ob.bvx.cf provide clarity in identifying the “host” structure and the entities being __interpreted as representations there__.~~represented via such interpretation.~~ So far, in addition to ‹ob›, the Boolean Algebra structure ‹ba› and its kin ‹bp›, ‹b*n*›, and ‹bv*n*› have been explored. The curious representation, ob.bvx, of *any* Boolean Algebra on a denumerable domain will invite further attention in the computational interpretation of number theory.

Structures evoke theoretical entities. There is no suggestion of material or natural existence. Rather, the *S*d and *S*f arise entirely in language *S*t and live entirely in mathematics, so to speak. Whatever conceptual notions one might harbor about the subject of a structure, consideration and discussion of the properties of such entities is confined to what can be reconciled entirely via expression and deduction in applied-logic theory *S*t, along with any informal statements that restrict/inform the constructions and valid deductions.

### 4. Interpretation: Variations on a Theme

Matters of interpretation arise in varied forms with respect to the Miser Project.

Mathematically, “interpretation” is used with regard to a correspondence between one structure, ‹*A*›, and another, ‹*B*›. Typically, there are four parts:

- Correspond each element of ‹
*A*›’s domain of discourse with a distinct member of ‹*B*›’s domain. Given*x*in ‹*A*›, signify its interpretation in ‹*B*› by.**I**x - Represent functions and predicates in ‹
*B*› that are__interpreted as representations of corresponding__~~identified as corresponding interpretations of the~~primitives of ‹*A*›. - If the theory of ‹
*A*› is an application of FOL=,__represent__~~interpret~~“*x*=*y*” of ‹*A*› with ‹*B*› predicate*b*..**I***a*.is-eq(**I***x*,**I***y*),__or simply__**I**__x =____I__*I*__y__.

When

*b*..**I***a*.is-eq(**I***x*,**I***y*) ⇔**I***x*=**I***y*

in*B*t of ‹*B*›, the interpretation is said to be an implementation of ‹*A*› in ‹*B*›; otherwise, it is said to be a simulation of ‹*A*› in ‹*B*›. The use of(in bold or script) is made specific in terms of ‹*I**B*› representations when it is necessary to distinguish among multiple interpretations of ‹*A*› in ‹*B*› - The interpretation is
*valid*when all deductions in structure ‹*A*› are mirrored by deduction of the corresponding interpretation in structure ‹*B*›.

Valid interpretation of ‹*A*› in ‹*B*› need not capture all features and entities of ‹*B*›. Validity achievement only signifies successful interpretation of ‹*A*›.

An intended interpretation of a structure might be invalid. In that case, the offered interpretation may be defective or the structures ‹*A*› and/or ‹*B*› ill-suited to the intended purpose. Resolution of the matter is external to the structures themselves.

__The diagrammatic use of arrows, above, is suggestive of constructions in mathematical __category theory__. That is inessential here; informal use of interpretation, including for non-mathematical purposes, is sufficient for computation-model formulation. Consideration of category-theoretical approaches is deferred.__

Texts or other concrete forms of expression satisfying a formal grammar can have specified interpretations as entities in a structure having computational interpretation. That form of interpretation will be demonstrated with the parsing of expressions that are interpreted in terms of ~~some construction, such as~~ ‹ob› computation-model operations.

Interpretations are also made between entities of mathematical structures and domains of non-mathematical character, such as observations in nature, predictions of scientific theories, and many practical and artistic situations. Acceptability is an empirical matter and depends on the particular circumstances and disciplines, such as (always-provisional) scientific confirmation at some scale of appearance.

Representation and manifestation are often intertwined with interpretation.

### 4. Concerning Representational ~~Equivalence~~ __Ambiguity__

Mathematical representation of functions has been illustrated with examples for ‹ob› and also for functions that serve as the interpretation-in-‹ob› of functions in other structures, such as those prefixed ob.p01.bp and ob.bvx. It is generally the case that there are many representations of a single function, based on the principle of extensional equivalence: when *f*( *x* ) = *g*( *x* ) for all *x*, *f* and *g* as defined represent the same function. In these cases, the equivalence is rather sideways, signifying interpretation as the same entity amidst all the functions of the same structure.

“Representation” is used __in one other sense__ here with respect to conditions on the structure ‹*B*› in which interpretation of structure ‹*A*› is established. Representation is akin to establishment of a portion of ‹*B*› that encompasses the interpretation of ‹*A*› but without restriction to uniqueness (although uniqueness is not ruled out). Many entities, the representatives, of the representation of ‹*A*› in ‹*B*› may be interpreted as the same entity in ‹*A*›, including the designated interpretation of that entity in ‹*B*›. __It is careful to speak of the intended interpretation of aspects of ‹ B› as a representation in this manner__.

Representation in this manner is not arbitrary; validity of representation hinges on preservation of interpretation validity among all substitutions of equivalent representatives. Valid representations are entirely interpretation preserving.

__An intended representation is entirely in ‹ B› and, generally, the same entities and ‹B›-represented functions are not excluded from employment in any number of other representations, whether in respect to ‹A› or some other structure__.

__For example__, in boole.txt~~, the~~ (section 2.3) __the__ ob.NE.bp representation of ‹bp› in ‹ob› is strict with respect to interpretation of the ‹bp› domain entities ⊥ and ⊤, along with corresponding function representations of the ‹bp› primitive notions (axiomatic functions). In contrast, the (section 2.5) ob.p01.bp representation preserves the ob.NE.bp interpretation while having *every* ob represent one of ‹bp› ⊥ and ⊤. The ob.p01.bp functions corresponding to ‹bp› primitive notions properly simulate the interpretation. The function ob.p01.bp.comp( *x* ) and agreement on canonical form are revealing in respect to interpretation ob.NE.bp consistency and interpretation preservation of the ob.p01.bp representation.

The boole.txt (section 3.4) representations ob.bvx of ‹ba› demonstrate that the same ob can serve in many representations. It is not intrinsically-apparent which representation (whether ob.po1.bp, ob.bvx, or something else entirely) is intended. When particular canonical forms are observed, it is more suggestive yet not conclusive. (Nevertheless, ~~gifted~~ __accomplished__ computer-software maintainers are excellent at inference of the purpose of program aspects and identifying consistent repairs for representation breakdowns. That’s based on domain knowledge and the context in which the software is applied as well as cues in the code.)

It is valuable to express derived obs in a form that signifies what they are intended representatives for, what they represent other than merely obs as themselves, in specific situations. ~~Such discrimination of representations and related cases involving tracking of interactive-operation states and ephemeral entities are beyond the ‹ob› model; they’ll be investigated once the “pure” ‹ob› computational model has been explored.~~ For now it is noteworthy that obs themselves do not reveal intended representations and that serves computational representation quite well ~~as a~~ __in the__ computational-model ~~foundation~~ __formulation__.

### 5. Choreography of Computation

Computational processes are abstract beings that inhabit computers. …

A computational process … cannot be seen or touched. It is not composed of matter at all. However, it is very real.

— Building Abstractions with Computers, Chapter 1 in

“Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs,” ed.2

Mathematical structures can be thought of as static: “standing still.” There is a domain of discourse, such as Ob, and (functional) relationships; deductions can remain to be established. Just the same, nothing moves. It is as if it is all there in the first place (whether or not there’s any actual “there” there).

“Computational interpretation” has been insinuated as the movement from the mathematical stability of a structure such as ‹ob› to some mechanical process that is carried out, different than the deductions and qualification as effectively-computable, yet consistent with that computability. Something moves, something processes.

Although computational procedures can be animated in a manner that allows the process’s stages to be observed, that is not so easy in writing about it. And that’s not so great in an elaborate computation with representations far removed from the nature of the (familiar) entities being simulated. We need an useful depiction that somehow suggests the essence of computational processes.

The depiction of a computational mechanism in operation will be illustrated with a diagrammatic pattern, whether animated or not. The rotating gear and flash of power is a pattern for depicting computational performance put into ~~operation~~ __action__. This could be a human performance, although our focus is on digital computers and their computational procedures.

Consider that the performing machine operates on some (relatively) tangible form of input to be processed, yielding production of an output result that depends on nothing else than the input and the performance of the machine. Here the ** I**,

**, and**

*M***signify the particular input format, mechanism, and output format. The subscripted**

*O*

*e*_{in}and

*e*_{out}refer to specific instances of an input encoding and an output encoding.

Input and output formats need to couple properly with the nature of the computing mechanism and its performance. Conformance of the input-output formats with provisions of the mechanism are signified by sockets that couple the input-output with the respective aspects of the mechanism symbol. In this simple input-processing-output diagramming, it is a condition that the specification of the mechanical-operation process have the input and output characterized in the same terms — levels of abstraction — as the input and output formats are described.

The idea of encoding is critical in grasping what the computation amounts to and also how we consider the use of the computation by representing (encoding) entities of interest.

At the level of the device, ** M**, the

**symbolism is short-hand for the function by which every input,**

*M?:I→O*

*e*_{in}has a determined output

*e*_{out}in accordance with an assumed procedure’s performance at that level. This is itself likely to be an abstraction above the physical mechanism, whatever its form.

__The procedure has a description which the machine’s operation exhibits fidelity to in the sense that the procedure predicts the output of the machine for a given input.__

In making use of the device, above, there is also a superior level of abstraction. Consider interpretation of some** e_{in}** as representations of values,

**, of some kind**

*x***, with interpretation of the derived**

*X***as representing values,**

*e*_{out}**, of kind**

*y***. With respect to those**

*Y*__representations__, the input and the derived output are taken as satisfying the functional relationship symbolized as

**.**

*F:X→Y*__That is, the procedure enacted by the device is reliable for satisfaction of that functional relationship between its input and its output__.

**qualifies as a representation of a chosen**

*e*_{in}**.**

*x*To operate computations on the pattern above, an user must select a machine that provides a suitable ** M** and its

**operation, then derive inputs that represent chosen members of**

*M?:I→O**in order to achieve an output that is representative of*

**X**__the correct result__in

**.**

*Y*If ** M** is

*programmable*in some manner, there is more variety of choice for intended usage. Computational interpretation of

**obap.eval**(

*) allows representation of expressions that can be considered to express*

**e****and**

*F***together in satisfying**

*X***with the computed output.**

*F:X→Y*

Variations on this pattern arise as Miser Project conceptualization progresses. The key feature is distinguishing what a computation *is* (such as the eval procedure and the chosen input) versus what a computation *is for *(purposive use) and how that figures in representation validity and powerful layering of abstractions/representations. The gaps between what the computations are versus what they are used for will increase along with greater utility, usability and invisibility of the machinery.

### 6. Manifestation and Tacit Awareness

There is a point with computers where the experience of using the computer is __recognized as__ manifestation of something that is evoked by the exhibition of computational-processing activity.

It is easier to see how we manifest something in looking at something rather static, such as words on a page. In reading, the automatic tendency is to discern a sense of the text without much examination word-by-word, unless this is not your language or there are other circumstances that bring attention to the individual words.

That is different than looking at individual words in isolation and then the individual letters and then the marks on which the letters are built.

Consider that when we focus on the sense that occurs to us, that is the object of focal attention/awareness. Subordinate attention/awareness is on observation of the substrate, the individual words and perhaps the sense of those in isolation.

When the sense is stripped away completely, at a level so subordinate that there is no suggested sense (as in the enlarged tip of an electronic rendition of “w”), we can discern how at the level of the electronic device’s operation, the manifestation of letters, words, and sentences – statements – is achieved. In this case, the manifestation has been engineered such that miniscule electronically-generated features are organized to present the text that is chosen to carry a communication.

When text is in your natural language and you are practiced at reading it, there is difficulty in not automatically grasping some sense of the text. It is easy to conclude that meaning is found on the page, separate from us. Effort is required to strip away the focal and bring awareness to the subordinate; the tacit reaction is reading the text, even for a single word. It is valuable, in understanding computers, to appreciate who is making that leap.

__Having examined the three images, above, and understanding the text here, how automatic is it to identify the third, fragmentary image, as “W”?” Put another way, don’t think of “W” there. It could, after all, be a fragment of “Y” or “X”. It could also depict a section of a girder, of a strut, or of some other material object.__

__Finally, suppose, instead, that the images above were replaced with Japanese calligraphy and how difficult it would be for a Japanese-illiterate reader to recognize anything but unintelligible markings at all levels of magnification. An odd case could be made with Egyptian hieroglyphics where there are recognizable figures yet without tacit meaning as communications available to most of us.__

Tacit recognition is important in how manifestations are evoked with so much fidelity that the manifestation is perceived as being manipulated and preserved by computer interaction. The accomplishment is a wonder of engineering of subordinate processes to achieve such fidelity without interference (except when it doesn’t). __This applies in almost every use of electronic digital devices, whether for audio or video, text, or images. Its origin goes back to telegraphy and before that, printing, and before that, writing, and before that, maybe cave paintings and, of course, speech.__

In the example of electronic documents and modern word-processing software, the levels of representation and interpretation that are navigated are typical. The interactive manifestation is unrecognizable in the file format that is used for saving and interchanging a representation of the document. Computer software enacts some form of internal document model by which the interchange format and the manipulatable manifestation are coordinated. The process does not intrude on perception of the manifest document and the author/user perception of the conceptual document and how it might appear in print or some other fixed medium.

Even simplified word-processing models are beyond the immediate reach of the ‹ob› model of computation. There will be appeals and demonstrations of manifestation, starting at lower levels of computer operation before higher-level ones are considered.

One case of tacit __(mis-)__understanding will arise early. It is easy, for computer programmers, to recognize a formula that has some mathematical appearance as expression of a computation; this mistaken attribution is encouraged by the borrowing of mathematical notation for programming-language purposes. Since ‹ob› and the model of computation are unfamiliar in a programming context, that confusion is avoidable for a time. With familiarity using the Miser Project coding notation (oFrugal) for computation of obs, tacit understanding will likely kick in and we’ll need to keep that harmless.

Onward.