Thats ok, then development will stay on my own gitlab instance and official mirrors nonetheless are hosted by tuxfamily. I just released v0.2 and would like to package it and push it to debian repos. However I have no idea how to do it right. Is there some guide? The output will be multiple packages:
- libcausal-cpp.deb - libcausal-cpp-dev.deb - libcausal-cpp-examples.deb (examples shall stand alone, since they are nice to just play with... gol implementation n stuff. probably also splitting them up once and putting them into packages like causal-gol.deb) - causalviz-cpp.deb (analyzes causal structure and renders it into graphviz dot graphs... in v0.2 defunct) And in future also: - libcausal-d.deb - libcausal-dev.deb - libcausal-examples.deb BR Ralph ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:25 PM, Anton Gladky <[email protected]> wrote: > I have just added you into the Debian Science Group on salsa. > > Usually salsa is used to maintain the packaging stuff, but the upstream is > hosted mostly > on github/gitlab and similar. > > Best regards > > Anton > > Am Mi., 2. Sept. 2020 um 10:20 Uhr schrieb Ralph Alexander Bariz > <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Anton, >> >> Since I'm using Debian(in truth Parrot OS, a Debian Testing based >> derivative) its just natural, that I want to take care to get it into Debian >> repositories. Also I want to get it away from my quite insecure own gitlab >> instance, having it on Debian Salsa Git would be perfect. Also I'd like to >> pass ownership, or at least get some push from somewhere else making it >> impossible to (get forced to) re-license it. Who knows where home-office >> rules of theese times lead to, just want to be sure it stays AGPL. Also for >> sure I'd like to join the team. >> >> BR Ralph >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 9:35 PM, Anton Gladky <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ralph, >>> >>> thanks for the introduction. Could you please shortly formulate how the >>> Debian Science Team can be useful for you? >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Anton >>> >>> Am So., 30. Aug. 2020 um 14:13 Uhr schrieb Ralph Alexander Bariz >>> <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> My name is Ralph Alexander Bariz. I've written a, I think quite usable, >>>> proof of concept for a runtime which should introduce a new kind of >>>> algorithmic dedicated to the graph oriented modeling and execution of >>>> complex non-linear systems. >>>> Please see >>>> https://gitlab.ralph.or.at/causal-rt/wiki/-/blob/ralph/debconf/debconf.odp >>>> Please see the C++ POC Implementation >>>> https://gitlab.ralph.or.at/causal-rt/causal-cpp >>>> I request to move over the whole project group to salsa >>>> https://gitlab.ralph.or.at/causal-rt >>>> My salsa username is "udet". >>>> >>>> Below I've written, for people interested in the why and probably a way to >>>> some kind of new discrete and, error-resistant discretely, executable >>>> physics, the thesis. I would also like this post to be seen as an official >>>> pre-publication of this thesis. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Preface: >>>> I'm system analytics and architect, no mathematician. So this wont contain >>>> a lot of numerical math what probably also is not necessary but instead >>>> the results of a structural analysis of what Germans call "Wirklichkeit". >>>> >>>> While this journey begun with working out a methodology to model and >>>> execute symmetric interaction simulations on GPU's utilizing definite >>>> integrals I was not convinced it could allow to model and execute the >>>> aimed complex systems observed to be real. >>>> It continued passing by actor model systems which were more what I seek >>>> for but still very data oriented while lacking for a definition of "the >>>> how". >>>> >>>> At that time I came into contact with Werner Heisenberg's and Hans-Peter >>>> Dürr's "last assumption" defining a virtual entity they called "Wirks". >>>> This, for me, was the key to understand what we seem to have missed all >>>> the time. Here a discrepancy between the German and the English language >>>> got very obvious. While a certain understanding of "the how" seems to be >>>> deeply integrated into German language, the English language seems to >>>> completely lack it. This discrepancy gets most obvious when thinking about >>>> the classic definition of causality in both languages. While the English >>>> language defines causality as the implication cause -> effect, while cause >>>> and effect are both about the "what", the German definition is >>>> "Ursache"(cause) -> "Wirkung" while "Wirkung" is not about the "what" but >>>> about the "how". Also one might note, the English "reality" covers the >>>> German "Realität" but not the German "Wirklichkeit" while the reality is >>>> about the set of all being and the "Wirklichkeit" is the set of all >>>> happening. >>>> When trying to model this thought of a "Wirks" there came up a few >>>> implications which made such a model very attractive not only in context >>>> of Max Planck's assumption of a discrete energy and spacetime but also >>>> seems to connect the strings in context of thermodynamics and the simple >>>> question, why there is entropy but also allows to neatly and exactly >>>> define a model of time and why density(mass and extent) of a system >>>> influences the flow of time within this system in relation to another >>>> system of another density. Also it seems, that such a model allows to >>>> understand certain effects observed in quantum-mechanics and why space is >>>> not a that certain thing as we use to treat it as. Causal dynamics has >>>> implications to the concept of "calculus" and neatly defines the symmetric >>>> corner-cases where it is useful but clearly points out why in "real" >>>> asymmetric/complex and not dominated(like domination of suns mass where >>>> error can but cut as negligible) cases it cannot be applied. >>>> >>>> In the following lines I will not handle the concrete "proof of concept" >>>> implementation for classic computing I have done but use one of its >>>> example's to support some of previously broached claims. Still it has to >>>> be clear, this POC implementation is NOT complete neither correct. Also >>>> please mind, here I define causal dynamics as the thesis observed and >>>> deduced but not as the thesis making philosophical sense. There is an >>>> extended thesis assuming that all systems are continuous in their nature >>>> and its aspects are discretising on interaction but since there, for me, >>>> is no hint available yet, that this could be the case, but even seemingly >>>> one that this might not be the case(entropy) I will not touch this thought >>>> at this point. >>>> >>>> Definitions: >>>> >>>> - A "Processor" is an environment allowing the execution of a causal >>>> systems >>>> - An "Aspect" is a piece of Information in context of a system >>>> - A "Wirks" is the necessity of information to change >>>> - A "Tick" is a pattern allowing a processor to process a certain "Wirks" >>>> within a causal system >>>> - A "Wirkung" is a branch of "Wirks" implying each other >>>> - A "Wirklichkeit" is an integral set of "Wirkung" influencing each other >>>> >>>> Axioms: >>>> >>>> - Principle of "demand": nothing happens without triggering interaction as >>>> it is required in sum interaction >>>> - Principle of "inertia": nothing happens without a sufficient cause >>>> (investment of energy by trigger of interaction) >>>> - Principle of "exclusivity": no concurrent involvements of a single >>>> "aspect" can happen >>>> >>>> Deductions: >>>> In our view "time" seems to be something passing by as a whole. We do not >>>> naturally understand why time can be "slower" or "faster" in relation to >>>> observers "time" and why it seems to be connected with "space" even both >>>> seem to be very different. Principle of "exclusivity" brings up an >>>> understanding of "time" as a causal order influenced by the amount of >>>> interactions happening on an aspect and "space" being just the consequence >>>> of this order. While this might at first glance make sense for dense >>>> systems it seems not to explain the observed dilatation for accelerated >>>> systems. When thinking about "speed" in such a context, we need to see >>>> what speed does. So it seems naturally to me, when an object of a certain >>>> speed is moving its interaction partners are changing due to that directed >>>> quantity of speed when assuming a homogeneous density distribution of >>>> whats in front and whats behind. But when closely thinking about the >>>> problem I have to acknowledge the amount of interaction of an accelerated >>>> system might increase on acceleration and there fore lead to an inverted >>>> effect as on unaccelerated moving away from lesser dense systems towards >>>> more dense systems. This assumption allows to understand the speed of >>>> light as the point where a system is interacting with everything available >>>> what leads to observed wave behavior of light and other particles >>>> accelerated to near light speed. Also this allows to understand why there >>>> cannot be a "higher" speed. There is no more than "everything" available. >>>> As there is no spatial but only causal direction any more. The requirement >>>> to invest more and more energy for gaining higher and higher speeds is due >>>> to the principle of "inertia" in context of every single interaction. A >>>> system requiring to interact with "everything" also requires the energy >>>> for doing so. However propagating(what I'm not necessarily doing), that >>>> unlimited energy is required to accelerate a system of mass to speed of >>>> light would, in this context, imply an unlimited amount of possible >>>> available interaction partners what conflicts with the thought of a finite >>>> reality, a begin and an end. >>>> >>>> Due to "demand" everything is uncertain unless information is required in >>>> interaction, at that point overall demand defines probability. >>>> We tend to see things in an absolute way wondering about effects observed >>>> in quantum mechanics. In a system perfectly isolated from any interaction >>>> partner which is not interacting with observer, however it seems natural >>>> to measure what is expected by observer why observed system might seem to >>>> be certain before measurement. So the assumption making quantum mechanics >>>> that unintuitive is the assumption uncertainty would be the exception and >>>> observer is unrelated to observation. But at this point it seems, >>>> uncertainty is the default and probability is strongly defined by >>>> requirements of the sum of all observers but when all other observers are >>>> interacting with observer looked at it seems certain all the time. >>>> >>>> Here space gets really messy. It seems that there is nothing like a >>>> "space". No framework stuff is existing within but just a mesh of demands >>>> for causal interaction. So assuming space gets bent inside a star would >>>> imply it is the same "space" which somehow gets altered. But, to me, it >>>> seems more, that there is nothing in common between our "Wirklichkeit" and >>>> those within some star like our sun except the interfacing surface of it. >>>> We are not part of the inner mesh of "demand" within a star and there fore >>>> could only tell properties observable from the outside. The inner of a >>>> star however stays uncertain to us and might, if there is no demand >>>> playing a role unknown to us, fit the expectation of outside observer >>>> basing on happened observations until intrusion and direct measurement but >>>> never will violate made observations. One could say, the "Wirklichkeit" >>>> will come up with a way to ensure consistency across all observations and >>>> if its not possible to ensure then observation wont be possible. >>>> >>>> Example of an oscillating system: >>>> When imaging a system consisting of oscillators in a matrix interconnected >>>> by springs, one could also speak of a granular membrane, we can apply >>>> exactly such a causality. This causality would be defined by an oscillator >>>> passing it's impulse to their neighborhood using Hooke's law implying them >>>> to also pass their impulse to their neighborhood. When applying some >>>> impulse to one of those oscillators this leads to a wave which, under the >>>> assumption of system being symmetric, is as perfectly circular as >>>> granularity of systems allows while, for obvious reasons, it gets more and >>>> more circular towards radius getting infinite. This example has two >>>> possible manifestation. The one is discrete and there fore limits the >>>> smallest size of impulse by (overall difference in impulse)/(number of >>>> neighbours) > 0 and there fore leads to impulse getting lost(entropy/heat) >>>> when ΔI/Nn = 0. The other is continuous and does not know entropy what >>>> seems not to be real. The probably most interesting observation would be >>>> certain effects known from quantum mechanics like interference's without >>>> requiring any real or even transcendent constants and purely using integer >>>> domains for parameters and result.
