Skip to main content

Availability, partition tolerance, and self-organizing maps

To construct a map, there must be an expectation of the environment. The CAP theorem lays out an abstract view of how agents can interact in an environment. The common utilization of a semantic interpretation of a response is what enables a map to be built. As an example, if the expectation of a response is that the responding entity must respond if it is non-failing, then a map can be built whereby the atomic expansion of the map happens all at once or not at all. Similarly, if the expectation of a response is that the responding entity may never reply at all, then a map can be built whereby the shrinking of the map happens partially all the time.

In a sense, the semantic interpretation that is used to construct the map depends on the probability of error. If the probability of error is very low, then it is a reasonable expectation that every entity must respond if it is non-failing. If the probability of error is very high, then it is not a reasonable expectation that every entity must response if it is non-failing. The meaning of "error" here means anything that transcends the semantic interpretation of a response.

From an engineering perspective, the probability of error is often a compound variable, and from the perspective of the CAP theorem, it is a reflection of how thin the data is spread over a computing substrate. The larger the spread of the data over a set of distinct agents, the more the probability of error compounds. Fundamentally, there is always a relationship between the atomic probability of error, the number of distinct agents, and the compound probability of error. In a sense, the CAP theorem is closer to biology than computer systems, because there is always some atomic probability of error that leads to an expectation of interpretation, which leads to an organization of a map.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Guitar improvisation from May 23, 2025

OPINION - On the axiom of choice

I find it distasteful that non-mathematicians think that Gödel's work introduces a level of subjectivity to mathematics. I agree that one can construct an arbitrary number of mathematical universes via selecting an arbitrary set of axioms. But I disagree that they are somehow all equivalent in value or structural consistency. I personally believe that there is one mathematical universe (or category of universes that are structurally equivalent via something like an isomorphism) that has the most structural consistency and can give the human mind the most insight. I personally believe that there are axioms that are representations of structural properties of physical reality. And I believe that there is a set of axioms that aligns perfectly with the physical universe, and subsequently allows the human mind to comprehend its logic to the fullest extent. I believe this because the way that the human mind understands logic is already a consequence of physical reality. Our ability to un...

Time, partitioning, and synchronization

Any time measuring method inevitably runs into the issues of partitioning and synchronization. Partitioning deals with the issue of dividing a larger measure into smaller measures, and combining smaller measures into a larger measure. Synchronization deals with the problem of how a set of devices can self-correct if some of them are corrupted. The two are fundamentally related because often a choice in one determines a choice in the other. A measure is often defined by a set of synchronization points, such as the radioactive decay of an element or the frequency of a crystal oscillator. Synchronization points can often be defined as a measure of a change in space, such as the revolution of a planet around a star, or the change in energy state of an oscillating structure. Fundamental to both is the notion of change. A synchronization event can only be defined if there is a unit of space in which a change is observed. And either the magnitude of the space is large (such as the movement of...