So this is going to give you the second talk with prologue, right?
So, I do things regarding annotations and something which always fascinates, sorry, I've got an echo effect.
There's a bit of one, am I too loud?
Okay.
So, I was always intrigued by Mendelweb and discovering that how he formed an order for the periodic table was to take the elements of which they were aware of,
and use what he referred to as a game of chance for dropping things.
And last year I discovered this graphic, which puts an emphasis on the fact that he wasn't just doing chemistry, but actually dealing with a historical analysis.
So, this is showing why the chemical aspects are dealt with, that it's actually a historical aspect of things various.
And this is something which I've always played with regarding information systems, seeing this flow of activity and objects, and that there's this perpetual journey.
And in terms of how I've tried to look at how linguistic communities and what something is, is to break it down into thematic points,
and iteratively just add more dimensions and deal with that.
And I've tried to do that in terms of notation which admittedly has been the most complicated of things to communicate and deal with.
And I'm going to be sort of touching upon not as deeply as I'd like the concepts around constraint logical programming, which is to deal with,
having the idea of relations working within a closed world model, but these being numbers, and which when you have either a goal or part of the goal,
but the prologue system will work out all of these sub-options as numbers, and either having that as sort of a guiding or widen abstract or whether there are specific conditions or requirements,
which cause kind of a disjunction and fretting or multiple strains of numbers for dealing with things.
So this is a graphic which I came up with many years ago for sort of providing more of it.
I'm going to increase the font, yes, yes.
So I'm going to sort of walk to the board, it's still kind of get bigger.
It's going to get, I've got a very minimalist set up at the moment.
I had a system craft as bankruptcies, so I might have to just mineralize myself dealing with things, but this is, in fact,
a transition of the chemistry table into a 40 keyboard layout.
So if this is, yes, the people have seen my talk to my works is maybe not surprised by the level of make of a menu I can do with my work.
So if you imagine that this is the home row, and you have the other forms there, so in effect I have a logical form in which you have free guiding positions there and free there,
and they in effect form the main cog for what something is, but over time I realized that there were more sort of,
there were more areas of things, I created emphasis points regarding what, what, whether something is a recipient, something is more objective,
thing or whether something is destroyed or with written across, as well as more of a kind of sexual organ, which by convention normally have one in terms of that.
So we're going to play, I like talking over people and talk, some people might resent it, some might find it tolerable.
So if you recognize any of these letters followed by QWE or two, or these things, you can actually just heckle out and I will add colours on the board,
because normally I have white screen and when something goes wrong, then I add it for focus and dealing with things.
I think schemas are actually a bit of a bit of a distraction and they're forcing the things to you to pay attention to things you know,
rather than the things which you're deliberating upon.
So this, I'm going to touch upon briefly, is just a way of using in TXR, the pastor, a way of turning nonsense on a keyboard to other people,
but me as a deliberation of either what I'm facing or what I expected to be or how I'd want to achieve it.
Larger.
So they look like that, and so you have all of these various points in terms of that, and this one is actually dedicated for observing these annotations,
and outputting it in a various point.
So you can end up, I've been using a system between two and sixteen characters, which gets to, it's something, in effect I'm hitting the point of trillions now,
as an index range, and because of how I've been dealing with things in terms of waiting based upon the periodic table type thing,
in effect the larger number is the greater level of complexity.
So unlike RDF with wiki data, where they find it very funny to do hitchhiking galaxies type things with number 42,
and then whatever number 43 has nothing in common, it was just the next thing they thought of, that I have the point in which I intersect.
And so I should just give a small example of, I'm going to kill all this.
We're going to see some X-Rander things, from there, but there we go.
So this is, look, bigger.
So, yeah.
So we've got the R-R-Q-R-E being echoed there, and that just becomes a multi-dimensional array, in which it's, this would be the R-E,
and this would, this would be the R-Q, and this would be the R-E, and this would be some of the supplementary information across.
And so what I, what I have with regards to the, what I have with regards to the prologue is the idea that I can actually do path walking by,
for having a generalization of various things.
So I have the concatenation of subsets of things, just as you would have with molecular structures and things being combined.
But water requires two facets or various things like that, and just as you would have with things in which you have to combine things or form things,
or things which are a union or things which need to be separated upon.
You have this kind of great, great ecology and movements of things.
And this is, let's see, we'll get to actually some prologue.
I've got a bit distracted, compiling my compiling a prior prologue.
And I've told them that the last meet-up in November, that's, I would have to build a lighthouse in order to construct it,
be given that it's packaged in rust, but unfortunately I hadn't considered how deep the foundations would be.
But I had to go through two and a half thousand packaged scripts just to verify and feel confident regarding that.
So that in later stages I'll know that it isn't the geeks packaging, which is to blame, but somebody at the rust end I'm assuming.
And it meant that probably some of my examples would be a little tried and cumbersome regarding things.
For instance, it's given me flexibility to have a great generalisation.
So I can have an infinite level in terms of entities, so I could hit sort of Morse code style,
sketching if it needs be.
And because you would have, just like you would have in a hash, you could have all of these themes represented as just a single array,
just as notches on a cog, which spins around, that you can actually have the commiserate thing in terms of that.
And what I have regards to what I have regards to that is that based upon the input and expectations there would be a unique number in terms of that.
And you could have somebody working on a whole different mental apparatus in terms of that.
And that could be made and defined as equivalent.
This is something which prologue is naturally very comfortable at doing.
This thing is equivalent to that thing.
And you could have somebody at a different mental model with a different index range.
And you could have that in terms of jumping across and dealing with things.
And I've been doing that in regards to the geeks packaging and putting in my annotations, for instance, as comments.
You'll be pleased to know that I haven't been actually attacking the geeks packaging details, at least today.
But so you can all rest for another year.
But I have the point that, for instance, somebody working on a, on a, on a, on a, on a, on a, on a, this same packaged definition.
And if they have the same inputted parameters about skipping tests or, or skipping the build.
That, in effect, if they were in a system where they were having a connection of the instance of my knowledge management that they could go this, this annotation in this context is equivalent.
So, and by, by inference, there would be an injection of this semantic chain, which could have different possibilities.
And I think I'm, I'm pleased that prologue is able to satisfy like that.
And I feel guilty that, that I've, I've mentioned it in terms of that in terms of the billing, but for me it was something very justified.
Unfortunately, the, the solutions I came up with with regards to refactoring some of my work made it a little too trivial and redundant to, to deal with because it felt a little too clean.
So it would be, I would go through procedurally things which, it would be like fresh air breathing upon you.
It wouldn't, it wouldn't do anything.
But, but, yeah, we, but, yeah, this is an example of, of, of the type of constraints.
That's just, that is, that is, that is, that is, that, these are very fundamental simple blocks.
And nobody, nobody, nobody really gets to talk and false and saying, why don't you put a hash in terms of it and do something which you could do at that primary school.
But this is, has some very strong fundamentals.
Marcus Trisker is somebody who I should acknowledge and I will be putting some good notes at some point around the time of these videos putting up.
So I'll, I'll have some due course and provide some pointers of some people who are cleaning, concise and aerodite regards to the fundamentals of this.
And so you can get into a situation where these, these concepts will be explained much more clearly and coherent in terms of your own programming.
And, um, mind set, thank you.
The, uh, nobody's, nobody's heckled an annotation yet, but that's fine.
First, uh, next year there will have a game show and, uh, it's, uh, there'll be prizes and everything.
But the, uh, but, yes, like so this, this is, this is, this isn't stuff to trigger.
But you see, have over here, this is one of the innovations I've done is that I concluded that, uh, I didn't actually need to represent the, the, the, the, the limitas as, as different things.
So there is actually, and, uh, invisible to the limit of there.
Somebody may have guessed that because you, uh, because you normally have, uh, you have, you have the, the, the, the crux, the sort of new clips in terms of that.
Some of these are repeated, which would have a representative form.
And it's, this is stuff which, uh, which you could just run in, in Gork pretty much for generating this.
And, and, and you could, uh, you could have this coming in and out.
The, uh, prologue will have the, uh, one abstract machine one.
So that even though there is this range, which gets very painful for dealing with,
once you have the identified forms of something which is in existence,
that would be one zero, uh, snap back, and which you could then generalize and move up and down in terms of that.
Questions?
There we go.
It's a simple as that, so you could say, you're, uh, don't leave the home roads.
It's all good.
Yeah, you're playing it safe this year.
And then questions.
Oh.
This is so effing fast.
This is, this is, like, my, my things don't move like that.
And just like yourself, I have a moonlander.
So this is, this is just within reach.
We're holding down buttons and we're reaching the influence.
It's a blink of an eye.
No, actually, they, they can strike the constraint logical stuff.
Means that I can do what at zero, one, two, three or, or whatever.
And then we're at Nintendo D thing, and which I can use the constraints for generating,
in effect, whole signature linguistics.
I like shaving, which is, uh, pulling out the Latin alphabet for the English language.
And I've been experimenting with this.
I've decided to keep the, the pound of clean on that.
But that's, uh, this is like, imagine like an e-max binding system based upon,
like mood and some scrolls.
And the numbers can deal with that.
Draw on a piece of paper, take a photo and these are just simple numbers.
This is, uh, so yeah, we'll be, look, yeah, holograms, uh,
Chris shows, uh, sprawling prizes.
Do you have like the savings directly here?
Okay.
Oh, we don't get to it.
Do we, do we have any more questions?
Well, like, uh,
invention is, is, is, is born by, uh, is, is born by categorization.
And this is, uh, if you're not able to perceive things in the more correct nuance way,
then, uh, then you're not able to see the things which, which are always there.
And like, uh, just reading into paradigms, there's, uh, it's very interesting regarding these kind of juncture points regarding how, uh,
you need to combine certain things and, and people are specialists.
And, and I'm, I'm somebody who's had a very wide and disputed life, which this allowed me to deal with things.
And, and yeah, I, I, I, I resent silos, and this is one of my ways in, in overcoming it.
And I appreciate that there is still ways to go regardless of this, but this is a very long funnel.
And this stuff will be, uh, like, water for ducks back with enough iterations.
It's, uh, duck speak.
Thank you, Jonathan.
Oh, all right, whoo whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo, holy.
I'm more like usual.