I guess actor recognition would be composite message recognition. On Apr 9, 2013 10:42 AM, "John Carlson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> So it's message recognition and not actor recognition? Can actors > collaborate to recognize a message? I'm trying to put this in terms of > subjective/objective. In a subjective world there are only messages > (waves). In an objective world there are computers and routers and > networks (actors, locations, particles). > On Apr 8, 2013 4:52 PM, "Tristan Slominski" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Therefore, with respect to this property, you cannot (in general) reason >>> about or treat groups of two actors as though they were a single actor. >> >> >> This is incorrect, well, it's based on a false premise.. this part is >> incorrect/invalid? (an appropriate word escapes me): >> >> But two actors can easily (by passing messages in circles) send out an >>> infinite number of messages to other actors upon receiving a single message. >> >> >> I see it as the equivalent of saying: "I can write an infinite loop, >> therefore, I cannot reason about functions" >> >> As you note, actors are not unique in their non-termination. But that >>> misses the point. The issue was our ability to reason about actors >>> compositionally, not whether termination is a good property. >> >> >> The above statement, in my mind, sort of misunderstands reasoning about >> actors. What does it mean for an actor to "terminate". The _only_ way you >> will know, is if the actor sends you a message that it's done. Any >> reasoning about actors and their compositionality must be done in terms of >> messages sent and received. Reasoning in other ways does not make sense in >> the actor model (as far as I understand). This is how I model it in my >> head: >> >> It's sort of the analog of asking "what happened before the Big Bang." >> Well, there was no time before the Big Bang, so asking about "before" >> doesn't make sense. In a similar way, reasoning about actor systems with >> anything except messages, doesn't make sense. To use another physics >> analogy, there is no privileged frame of reference in actors, you only get >> messages. It's actually a really well abstracted system that requires no >> other abstractions. Actors and actor configurations (groupings of actors) >> become indistinguishable, because they are logically equivalent for >> reasoning purposes. The only way to interact with either is to send it a >> message and to receive a message. Whether it's millions of actors or just >> one doesn't matter, because *you can't tell the difference* (remember, >> there's no privileged frame of reference). To instrument an actor >> configuration, you need to put actors "in front of it". But to the user of >> such instrumented configuration, they won't be able to tell the difference. >> And so on and so forth, "It's Actors All The Way Down." >> >> ... >> >> I think we found common ground/understanding on other things. >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:40 PM, David Barbour <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Tristan Slominski < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> stability is not necessarily the goal. Perhaps I'm more in the >>>> biomimetic camp than I think. >>>> >>> >>> Just keep in mind that the real world has quintillions of bugs. In >>> software, humans are probably still under a trillion. :) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> fonc mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>> >>> >> >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:40 PM, David Barbour <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Tristan Slominski < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> stability is not necessarily the goal. Perhaps I'm more in the >>>> biomimetic camp than I think. >>>> >>> >>> Just keep in mind that the real world has quintillions of bugs. In >>> software, humans are probably still under a trillion. :) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> fonc mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >>
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
