No Structure Exists Alone…

Notation:

I = λ(X | O, B, C)

• I = Information (relative)
• λ = Operator (evaluate)
• X = Structure (object)
• O = Observer
• B = Boundary (scale)
• C = Comparison (user defined criteria)

Bayes’ Theorem/ Conditional Notation

P(A|B) = (P(A) P(B|A))/P(B)

• P = Probability
• A = Event
• B = Condition of event

This is a very old very well used way to illustrate a simple concept, the official wording for it is “The Probability of A, Given B”. This is something we all learn in the first week of Calc.

Conditional Notation is one of the most widely used mathematical concepts. I was exploring known “mathematics” to try and create something. The wording of all of this is confusing. “OBC Information Framework” is just a though experiment. Where P = (A|B) and Bayes’ Theorems are “mathematical or probability laws”? I am not even sure. What I do know:

Bayesian statistics is sort of from Conditional Notation, here is the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics

“Expanding” Conditional Notation

I = λ(X | O, B, C) I expanded B & added a λ

(For no good reason)

Example of Applied Use:

Comparison of an Apple and a Hammer:

• Observer = Human
• Boundary = Woodland Field type setting
• Comparison = Durability
• Unit (expanding C) = Days

Apple: Information = λ(Apple | Human, Woodland Field, *Comparison*) | C = Durability

Hammer: Information = λ(Hammer | Human, Woodland Field, *Comparison*) | C = Durability

Now calculate (I) and…

Apple is = to “Sort of”

Hammer is = to “Pretty Much”

That’s the big idea here, wow, groundbreaking (I know this is kind of boring).

The point is we are able to “show our work” and ask questions about the individual pieces.

Boundary (B):

Boundary is a an important part the Notation. Without it there is less meaning. Even if most of the time it is self explanatory. It still must be “set”.

The relevance of the information is sort of determined by the “Boundary”. For example, the value of an object could be irrelevant to the context of its “usefulness to accomplishing a task”, because lets say we already own them, and do not need to evaluate “price”.

Explaining (C):

Break out (C) into at least 3-4 pre defined attributes, again, they could be changed, added, anything, just must stay the same across (X)s. I recommend making a table like here:

(C) =

• Time
• Usefulness
• Visual Appeal

I filled out this table just quickly, the values are not meant to illustrate anything factual. A hammer I just say will last 200 days before it becomes rusted and not really a hammer anymore.

We can add other items to the list and it just adds to the data. It can show trends, like how this specific set using time can be misleading. So lets adjust it

We noticed Time is “too different”, so just remove it, Or maybe it is just not relevant to us, to the other factors we are looking at.

Now, lets add, weight (higher score = less weight, to be consistent with other values):

You see. All we are doing is thinking about things, how they fit together. To build a clear picture. The questions created are as valuable as the values!

Comparison is not Optional!

This Notation is to be applied to multiple objects at once, hence the funny λ symbol.

Let’s do an example for a business problem:

Objects:

• Dell computer
• Lenovo Computer
• Apple computer
• Hand build computer

I = λ ( (Dell Computer | College Student, 5 year life cycle, *C*) || (Lenovo Computer | College Student, 5 year life cycle, *C*) || (Hand Build Computer | College Student, 5 year life cycle, *C*) ) | *C* = “Build Quality, Repairability, Cost of ownership”

(C) = Higher score is better in total and individual attributes. (Example, Cost of ownership: lower cost = higher score).

This is where it gets real… Lets change (B) = 10 Year Life cycle & (O) = Sysadmin

See how (C) changes? the objects didn’t change the Observer and the Boundary did…

Another Example:

This is the one that kind of started me down the rabbit hole. I was trying to “define conditions of life” as one does at 8am on a Saturday…

I was narrowing it down to “persistent structures” That wording. that there is an environment, and there are all these “structures” within it. Some of them are what you could describe as “persistent”.

So It was that concept, I thought, if you could “quantify the persistent structures” you could start to look for trends. I was looking to apply it mathematically to chemistry or astronomy or business.

Ill just show you:

X = “Random Objects”

O = “Myself”

B = “Known scientific phenomenon”

C = “Conditions that allow a persistent structure”

• General Persistence
• Observed Adaptability
• Rate of controlled change

I = λ (Object | Myself, Known Science, (Persistence, Adaptions, Change))

We have just concluded a rocking chair is more “persistent” than a dead pumpkin. Where is my Nobel prize hahaha.

Jokes aside. I was looking for a way you could sort through spaces and look for where critical values appear.

That IS NOT the topic of this blog. Just an example and sort of the thing that lead to the creation of the Notation.

LOFTY EXAMPLE:

X = “Periodic table of elements”

O = “A Bacteria”

B = “An Outdoor Pond”

C = “Properties of Value”

• Ability to form membrane structures
• Usefulness in (O) biological processes
• Availableness

See, I wanted to use a computer to start “sifting through” things to see if you could essentially “calculate” the origin. That sounds crazy but Math does that sometimes.

I had a theory there could be “threshold values” hidden in environments. If you charted enough objects with the right comparison you could find the point where perhaps, molecular structures begin to self order like we see in DNA.

There must be a “point”. This tool came from the want to find the origin “point”. What I ended up finding (or thinking about) was there really is no “point” just an Observer, Boundary, Object, and a way to Compare it.

Conclusion:

Thinking tools, what the heck even is a “thinking tool”. To be honest I do not know how I got down this rabbit hole of trying to turn ideas into “Notations”.

I just wanted to publish it on my blog. So I could be done thinking about it.

The idea that every “thing” we “see” is really only “there” because an observer is there to see it, in some way, shape, or form; it, making itself distinct from the rest of the environment “somehow”.

If you think its just silly nonsense I would love to know why, because part of me thinks it is. haha.

IDK WHAT THE WORD “NOTATION” EVEN MEANS TO BE HONEST

#ramble

Peter Roe