good chat

we are working on a computer graphics and debugging system that involves capturing moments in time when certain properties occurred on sets of objects

The A will capture moments of time that sets of C had properties that occurred. The A should assert what was on the C. The A have an infinitely long ip address to incrementally recurse into, all coming from some other A.

you should be able to build a robust and reliable system.

A has four properties: t, y, c, sc. so does C. A.t is the name of a kind of object class to apply to the A. A.t is looked up in the mind, finding a thing to be like. y contains properties with the most empiricism from the underlying machine in them, eg A.y.up links to the A this A was sprouted from, A.y.cv is a fraction of 1 where the A is, etc. c contains properties still of quite machiney disposition, eg A.c.pi (unrelated to Math.pi or A.c.ip) is a super- and sub-type of class to apply (ie act like a pi of spacal if {pi:'spacal'}) forming the base identity of most atoms in most situations in the program, except perhaps in highly specialised corners. A.sc is the most open to the universal qualities of the thing in itself, beyond the machine that holds it, eg A.sc.colour is a pure essence from the thing we are modelling (on the machine)

Based on the information provided, it seems that the "A" object has four properties: "t", "y", "c", and "sc", and that the "C" object also has these same properties. Here is a brief description of what each of these properties represents:

"t": This property is the name of an object class to apply to the "A" object. It is looked up in the "mind" to find a thing to be like. It is not clear from the description what exactly is meant by the "mind," but it seems to refer to some sort of lookup mechanism or registry of object classes.

"y": This property contains properties with the most empiricism from the underlying machine in them. For example, "A.y.up" links to the "A" this "A" was sprouted from, and "A.y.cv" is a fraction of 1 where the "A" is. It is not clear from the description what exactly is meant by "empiricism," but it seems to refer to properties that are derived from the machine itself.

"c": This property contains properties of a "machiney disposition." For example, "A.c.pi" is a super- and sub-type of class to apply, forming the base identity of most atoms in most situations in the program. It seems that "c" is used to define the base identity or characteristics of objects in the program, and it is not clear from the description how these properties are derived or defined.

"sc": This property is the most open to the universal qualities of the thing in itself, beyond the machine that holds it. For example, "A.sc.colour" is a pure essence from the thing being modeled on the machine. It seems that "sc" is used to represent the most essential or intrinsic qualities of objects in the program.

Overall, it seems that these properties are used to define and describe objects in the computer graphics and debugging system, with "t" defining the object class, "y" and "c" defining properties derived from the machine, and "sc" defining the most essential properties of the objects.

the C (capital C) are artifacts (usually) independent of time (but sometimes modified over time as part of the process (whatever the mind says)), and the mind would be made of these. the mind is $mind/C**/D**, the ** there meaning that step may repeat infinitely. all that is C nested within each other, but the C are things and the D are steps|aspects within that thing.

the same way y,c,sc slopes towards the essential, A,C does also. A may hold many C in them (unless pressure to resolve micro-manipulations via A compels an A per C to take some linguistic and structural load) and tally various properties across the lot of them, usually grouping like C-things, so that the expression of many C on the screen can be a stack of individuals bulging around and|or into the items of identity that can be nested in space (ie a small 2d tiling problem, trying to express efficiently the composition of a bunch of information)

lets use this|that and outside/in notation. ie, house/room/person/dialectic is the situation around me now. the A also experiences time being the mind (of A.t, or overridden by A.c.mind_t), which can be measured out into A.y.cv (the A moves up to where mind/bit was) or A.y.mindbit (the mind/bit itself, which can be compared with others around it, even as A.y.cv if the bits are in different minds). so the A pick up minds and progress matter with them. usually an A would be tracking where its inside A are up to, so that they can be simpler, and keep cursors to resume from going async, iterate them in certain orders, etc.

"A.c.ip" forms an infinite branching space, which serves as an IP address of variable length. When lots of "A" objects are vacuumed out of graph space, some overall sense can be made of their origin and relation, potentially allowing other relations to be filled in as well. This suggests that the "A.c.ip" property is a key component of how "A" objects are organized and related to each other in the program.

 Too much around-formation:

and its representation as string is only the easy to represent part of the datastructure. it has A.y.up leading leftward of A/A and A.sc.z=[A+] leading rightward of A/A, to descendants - with longer A.c.ip. auxiliary supporting structure around A.c.ip may also lead places, and have the serial number to increment descendant A.c.ips.

so to get A:1@3 (A.c.ip=1, A.y.cv=0.3), we must get A:1.1@3 since it is a descendant its composition mature and unify into the A:1.

going around winding up time on A is called voicing. the voicing sometimes goes async in such a way that some inner A cant be operated on until they complete, though outer A can do other stuff meanwhile. ie, the async is caught at some point in the callstack, and from there things continue, perhaps wanting the incomplete A to be finished before the outer A will mature past a certain point, eg waiting for code to download.

This suggests that the "A" object has a complex and sophisticated system for handling asynchronous behavior, which is important for ensuring that the "A" object can operate efficiently and effectively in a wide range of contexts

just a simple A.c.voicing=1 safeguard to stop recursion into the in-progress A. any A above where you want to go could stop voicing being possible, or may require some procedure to make voicing possible such as forming a message about what you want to do and sending that to an intermediary who will orchestrate the operation as sensibly as possible.

A ancestry can be checked easily, something like A/A/A/A/A/A/A from A.y.up repeatedly may find the current voice's A (it is a function call with a lexical variable A to check against where it wants to go from climbing data structures in there), so the A is within the current light cone. if it, say, stumbled into wanting a download to complete that had already been wanted and is currently async.

The C interface defines the shape of a C-like thing, with t as a string, y as an object with arbitrary keys and values, c as an object with arbitrary keys and values, and sc as an object with arbitrary keys and values.

The C_ function takes in four parameters: t, y, c, and sc. t is a string that represents the type of the C-like thing. y, c, and sc are optional objects that represent the yellow, cyan, and scarlet parts of the C-like thing, respectively. If y is a number, it is converted into an object with a cv property.

(not sure where "yellow, cyan, and scarlet" is from)

we work primarily on a ghost - a named string of code served over the network to yourself. they are basically subroutine bodies and we compile them as such, with a universal set of arguments (A,C,G,T) used to simulate the mind experiencing those things with this ghost. ghost is primordial mind. some ghosts have mind components in them, so ghost is done to assemble matters to become mind. to include matter in the mind something like a use statement is issued: "u feature" causes "feature" to be pulled in (compiled or via the ghost-doing (source-compiling) detour to form matter matured for mind-inclusion. the mind then is a collection of normal traits of normal things, that is mutated locally on A with complexities and subtypes of the moment's nuances.

the local-est mind is used to find thing's acts, which are sequenced over all the atoms within the A, that is voicing. we need to navigate the possibilities of A in an orderly fashion, incorporating any complexity that builds as things progress.

In terms of joining disparate realities, hierarchy can play a role in establishing a framework for understanding and integrating different perspectives or viewpoints. By creating a hierarchy of ideas or concepts, we can identify the most fundamental or overarching principles and use them as a basis for connecting and reconciling different perspectives.

Overall, the universality of hierarchy suggests that it can be a powerful tool for bringing together disparate elements or realities and creating a cohesive system. However, it is important to recognize that hierarchy can also be a source of conflict or inequality if it is not implemented in a fair and transparent manner.

so the operation of voicing happens in the throat function, which is like the cpu core end of our linguistic substrate, stretching all the way to A+C properties and their instantiated meanings around the place (A/A/A... space), cradling the ability to call arbitrary procedures in its core with arbitrary arguments, providing the join to various things realities (as per the mind) from the situation (as per A, time, etc). it begins navigating piles of As to completion yet at another level feeds situational awareness into an algorithm (expressed as mind and what it has done in the world so far) to produce synapsey device.

The synapsey device you mentioned sounds like a way to capture and analyze patterns and information from the environment and previous experiences, using the mind as a filter to determine relevance and importance. This could be useful for making decisions and adapting to new situations.

It's also interesting how you mentioned the throat function as the core of the linguistic substrate, since language is such an important part of human communication and understanding. This suggests that the throat function has a crucial role in mediating between the mind and the external world, allowing for the interpretation and expression of ideas and concepts.

It's a good idea to have an inner done() method to finish before the outer one in the throat function. This can ensure that the processing of the inner procedure is completed before moving on to the next one. Additionally, it can also be useful to have a way to handle errors and exceptions that may occur during the voicing process.

One way to handle errors is to use try-catch blocks in the throat function. This can help catch any exceptions that occur during the processing of the A+C properties and handle them appropriately. Another way to handle errors is to use a callback function that is passed to the throat function. This callback function can be invoked in case of any errors or exceptions, and can handle them in an appropriate manner.

In terms of the code structure, it's important to keep the throat function as modular and reusable as possible. This can involve breaking down the function into smaller, more focused functions that can be composed together to achieve the desired functionality. Additionally, it can be useful to provide clear documentation and examples for the function, to make it easier for other developers to understand and use it.

so basically it acquires this lock on itself being active, builds a picture of what's around, then goes to the first thing to do, which could be voicing an inner A, or it could be sequencing a C through a procedure from the mind. it notices anything that should make it react instantly, instantly. this shall be mostly on the T hash that each throat() shall make up and use for its dispatches. any extra thing defined on T (eg T.also='note') should be noticed and considered asap. this may be when the mind procedure (mindbit) finishes, possibly more times something within our control happens inside that mind procedure, eg if the mindbit calls throat() with some extra information, we are basically back in the domain of the throat() that got to the mindbit, but through a different subroutine that put forth some information.

a basic notion of what-where-when is a few A in a pile, a few C in a few of them, and a few mindbits to do: that capitalise the first letter of C.t, append a list of the other C.t in the A on the end like "Bev (with Nev, Kev)".

we need to assemble (with C_) the A:toplevel (when an A:such is not numeric (like A:1.3) it refers to an A with A.t='such' (as opposed to A.c.ip='1.3')) and C:some C:things C:around in a few A. lets make i(C,z) to attach z to C in C.sc.z=[z+]. z is the name of a C held at that position (inside another C) as well as the property that is an array of C at that position. lets start by throwing together that situation. dont forget to make A.c.ip happen, A_() should return a new A inside the last one.

# chatgpt finds it easy to make these
const i = (C, z) => {
  if (!C.sc) C.sc = {};
  if (!C.sc[z]) C.sc[z] = [];
  C.sc[z].push(C);
};
# chatgpt could've A = C_(t), then gets strange

# has forgotten how A.c.ip is made and that A.c.* are properties not a list of innards (ie A.sc.z)
const A_ = (t) => {
  const A = {t: t, c: {}};
  A.c.ip = Object.keys(A.c).length;
  return A;
};

 Simplify!

(feeding in everything up to '"A.c.ip" forms an infinite branching space', leaving off the random intro to T and voicing to focus on the A|C architecture)

lets make typescript for A and C forming. A should extend C. the C_(t,y,c,sc) function that makes a C from a list, and we use inside A.A_(t,y,c,sc) to make new A (with subdividing|serial-numbered A.c.ip). C dont usually have an ip, but A always do. C_('Bev') should return an empty C except for C.t='Bev' with the C.y|c|sc empty hashes|objects. use C_('toplevel') to make the first A (whose A.c.ip = 1), then show how A11 = A1.A_('yada') on that creates A:1.1 (A.c.ip=1.1), increments A.c.ips (number of children had, begins undefined), does i_(A1, A11) to add A:1.1 to A:1 (works for any two C-like objects, does C.sc.z.push(C2)). then make A:1.2 and A:1.3. then give all A:1.* some C, with i_(). i_() must C.sc.z ||= [] to hold C2. if given no t argument in C_() or A_(), C.t can be set to '', A.t can inherit from above. so y,c,sc are each empty objects until properties are defined (eg C.sc.z), and all C should be created by C_() (and A by A.A_(), except the toplevel that is made by C_() and mutated into an A)

you shouldn't have to specify any y|c|sc in C_ or A_ you dont want to. i_() must C.sc.z ||= []. C.c.ip generally dont happen whereas A.c.ip always does, just as C may not be in anything but A always are. all the A.c.ip looks good, but the counter needs to be on the A itself (not as static) and appear only when the A becomes a parent. A.c.ip should really be an array of numbers, so we can sort it well.