This software is with nets of mid80. For facilitating fun & development -- even at the kindergarten level.
Honestly, I am not claiming the title of "inventor" of the formalism, but archaelogist/restorateur (or, editor). And I'm writing a few (model-abstraction) stories (of important cases/issues). Try making up your stories (cf. TAT testing). For example, frozen@mid80 at start (bypassable with ctrl-F4), is monitoring the Fig.2 of NN73.
In a firmaze-five story, the X-transition is the firm/master, while J-transition is a human-resource / project-approve type -- mediating among the fruitful/inventor thinking people, and the firm/money. T-transition is test or marketing function. Y is standing for your-gain (why a firm is, for the World).
In contrast, as an evil-crew scenario (e.g: the antichrist, satan, or KGB), think of thought-manipulators, who have crafted terrorism with that. Literature (fact, as well as fiction) is full of such reports & tales. In this case, the crew does not need the wisdom that firmaze-five would need. The evil crew being stealthy, they tinker & mess. The (negative) X-transition would fit the anti-christ, while Y is your-pain, the agonies of the people of the World. In this case, all of the J- and some of the T-transitions being members of the evil crew. J-transition(s), the satanical-operator(s), tinkering with the thoughts of fault-finding (field-master) people. T-transition is terror&corruption (e.g: a puppet-terrorist may go hurt other people, that is, a victim/puppet (trying) to hurt other victims). If F-transition may help/inform Y enough [ more than the (negative) J-transition sucked from F ], then Y-transition is able to block out any offenses of T-transition, right out. (If F and T arrive at the same time, F has the priority, and after that, Y is cautiously nullifying any input (bomb/etc.) of any evil T. That is, nullify/sift the token-attributes. No evil passes through.)
Of copycat trouble, the 9/11 may be an example, too. In that case, one "F" seems to be the Flight Simulator of Microsoft -- the intro joke/movie suggesting crashing-into-WTC as "cool." (That point was in the news when, after 9/11, Microsoft apologized & withdrew that movie.)
I've started writing frozen@mid80 to point out a grossly ignorant plagiarism. To expect the academia to correct that, would be frustrating. By gift of Allah, I am not any giving-up type. I take those what would frustrate other people, for maneuvering. As gift-upon-gift, steps to rise by stepping on, for a marvelous strategy. I think they are motivating, for informing the public, to confront that messful-challenge of copycat82:
I think I am a high master of programming intuitively -- talking with software, kind of, applied-philosophy, having designed a few "simple" interfacing strategies, for all-authentic (w.r.t. the formal-literature in question) and highly-usable software. I think I could let even pre-teens, and even, inshaellah, the kindergarteners to learn all of the nets of mid80 -- then, noticing the obvious plagiarism, and the immense faultfulness of copycat82.
With this strategy, having a chance to rate who is understanding these, with a test. (I favor the formaze achievement-rating framework.) After that, you may learn the name of the plagiarist.
The following software is NOT complete, yet. In the spirit of flight & fight, I publish incrementally.
Legal Speak. Mid80.com, AND OTHER FILES/CONTENT AT THIS SITE, IS/ARE PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT ANY GUARANTEES. IT IS THE USER'S RESPONSIBILITY/CHOICE TO MAKE SURE, TO ENSURE CORRECT OPERATION (TO HIS/HER/THEIR SATISFACTION LEVEL), ON THE SET OF PROBLEMS HE/SHE/IT ENCOUNTERS. IN JURISDICTIONS, OR CONDITIONS, WHERE SUCH NOTICES LIKE THIS, WOULD STILL LEAVE THE SOFTWARE/AUTHOR LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, OR IN ANY WAY, WOULD LET LITIGATION TO EXIST, PERMISSION FOR USE IS NOT GIVEN.
I may find a few uses for buggy software-process
To explore what is working, and what is not, may have thrilling aspects, too. I think, w.r.t. days of unexpected electricity-outages, this test process is one-step higher, for a half-conrollable kind of experimenting.
If to continue from the state of the design that causes a software-crash, keep in mind to freeze that with the '-' (hyphen) to mid80.frz (& may rename that for archiving), before monitoring that.
In monitoring, for walking/running forward, press space bar (spb), or ^Forward (ctrl-'F').
If the running net is not able to run further, that monitoring session ends -- returning to the frozen@mid80 menu.
Thus, if wishing to get to the frozen@mid80 menu quickly, holding the spb pressed, for running, is enough to terminate the start-up screen. That works with that net, because that NN73-2 example on the start-up screen is not a loop -- although loopable. (The final loc b8, is keeping that token.)
A loop would keep looping infinitely, thus, ^F4 (ctrl-F4), is the more versatile key for getting out.
In representing, the (first, or any chosen) macro is modifiable. In monitoring, that is the running application.
frozen@mid80 is flexible in modifying itself. After modifying a graph, if that is worth saving, the "..." menu (press hyphen in the frozen@mid80 menu) will write out a copy of itself, as mid80.frz
That is a runnable, modified mid80.com -- if renamed, for example, mid80.2007-04-21.com (with date-telling, if for archival), or mid80.f&j.com (if that is starting with fork&join, as the start-up net).
In representing, for submacro-toggling, highlight a T- or X-transition, or any (non-rezloc) location, and next, press the space bar, or CR/BS, for toggling the submacro (a macro that is compatible with the type) of that row.
food4thought How could you make the NN73.2 example of the start-up, run without stopping, and without looping (from b8 to b1)? (Hint: The running is finished, when there is no token, or if stuck because no token is walking any more. Toggling a macro or two, may keep that running.)
A macro is not able to contain its container (nor itself). That would infinitely loop.
Therefore, while toggling submacros, a few of the combinations may red-flag, as recursive.
If you get out of representing at that state, and go to monitoring, that would immediately return.
Likewise, in the Find-From-List, a few of the listed macros, would red flag that they are recursive, because they may relate to that/those macros that you left as an infinite-loop.
In representing, at the rapport tab, M0 is settable.
M0 is the starting (token on/off) state of the macro, configured for running in monitoring.
The Rapport tab is the ring (location/place) list, relating this transition to that, all around the net.
That (static) token-setting is the norm in representing. The dynamism is left to frag.
Normally, tinkering (manually manipulating) the running net, is unwantable in monitoring, if to test how that macro, as was represented, would run. But for debugging with what-if testing, or for instance-differentiating (macro vs. zip), a well-thought manually-token-state-setting is probably valuable, too. NN73 suggest, as an option, setting/shunting the value of a rezloc to a fixed value -- but I'm not sure, whether they implied live ("mechanical Turk") token-setting while monitoring.
The first macro in the list is for absorbing a token. Would like to see how that is working? Feed a token into the first location, b1, and watch at monitoring, how that little net is automatizing the getting-rid-of-a-token. No concern about whether the output is full, because there is no output.
In representing, designating/choosing a friendly/fertile (green) location as the friend (the dark green, with ^F), is automatically setting a token there (seen when out of the representing). (VD78) Manually, setting any token on/off there, does not matter, as long as that location is the friend.
In representing, if a rezloc is set to 0 or 1, the rezolving frag will not run. That value is final. (NN73)
In representing, the specific frag formula of a formal thing is modifiable. That is, for any activity-related (activity, freezing, rezolving) function/procedure, and for any peripheral location, a frag is choosable from that type of list.
In monitoring, only the list in the frag tab is modifiable, to get information, not for setting any value.
The section "Alternatives in Representation" of NN73, is reflecting on what/how we would choose from.
For experimenting, we may turn a submacro off for a transition/activity, and right next toggling the equivalent frag code on (that is, the "transition procedure involving statistical terms" as NN73 suggested), as its activity.
food4thought You probably know that 2+2 is 4. That knowledge may facilitate your arithmetic with frozen@mid80, too. Kind of abacus, with a walking-token (or, a few), for incrementing by a specific amount. For example, if the submacro is fork&join and we know what that two-arm macro is computing, we may choose the function that would compute that result. If arm1 is x1+=3, arm2 is x1+=1, we may summarize that as x1+=4 for replacing that submacro with a frag. (Go, with frozen@mid80, frame & reduce, to see how to express a formula for running.)
For looping fast, hold the key pressed (till designated time, or close). Accumulating arithmetic.
food4thought What would that stat be, if the submacro that we would be replacing were computing at a single row? (cf. menuing-loop) (Hint: The summarizing stat, that the frag would be computing, has to reflect the determinism of that submacro. If the submacro is randomizing the high-vs.-low row running, the frag summarizing that, ought to weigh with those probabilities, too.)
For toggling the frag of an activity, first press '[' or ']' to get to that list, while highlighting the row of the corresponding activity. Next, keep toggling the frag (with '[' or ']'), until the sought-for frag is found. In that list, A is the frag for activity, F/F1/F2 are for freezing, and R is for rezolving.
hungry, yet? Look around, to find challenges. For example, one may start by finding out why the TXY macro (listed 10 in the program) is immediately returning, rather than running, at all. Fix that.
They are framing-equivalent, as you see. But if one is modified internally (representing differently), the other is not reflecting that. Thus, they may act differently if they harbor different frag formulae, or different submacros.
That is demonstrating that, the graph is not all of the story. That is how we may tell a herd of different, quite unrelated abstraction stories, about a single figure such as NN73-2, or any other mazing. To capture that story a little more, with frag we may represent the program/data aspect.
frozen@mid80 is with a few macro examples, as the FindFromList is listing. Want stories?
I am writing frozen@mid80 for demonstrating the formal-net know-how that was there, by 1980. Although, in the name of authenticity, I do not improve that prior art (net-formalism literature), I have lovely text-mode graphics.
For mazing, follow this-and-that token (that is, information) running around, having their attribute-list transformed at this-or-that transition, this time cooperating, the next time in rivalry, etc.
The Windows/Mac interface that people of all ages use today, was at first worked out (at XEROX), testing with children. That could have motivated me, for aiming toward children, too. The nephew I have is only three. That is motivating even further. Most related to frozen@mid80 issues, though, is the kindergarten-level plagiarism of copycat82. I want to facilitate people (not only academic experts who do not talk), for evaluating the cases.
The title "frozen@mid80" is as if mumbling my name, Ferzen Midyat, although I have not invented the stuff. All of this formal work had been published (as the academic literature), before the middle of 1980 (before "July 1").
Poking at copycat82, a plagiarist "Ph.D.," copying papers of others, & immensely (& gravely) errorful, too (& w/o software)! How was that granted a Ph.D. title, & published in an IEEE journal?
I normally build with AF/FRM-Z, as I had told. That is a strategy, & gift. The title frozen@mid80 is quite different, though. I have nothing to choose-or-not, because I am trying to be totally authentic, in programming the literature from 1980. The cause of naming that that way, is for poking. The plagiarist copycat82, as a lot of plagiarisms being that way, has replaced a few names, to sound as if new. No new questions. No new answers. Even those (verbose) names were old. e.g: To call a Petri-place, "control-state variable," is not any new abstraction.
Even at that, though, I think, I may have shown class. :-) For example, in transforming the word resolving (of what a Nutt resolution-procedure does), to rezolving (two from AFRMZ, as the first two consonants), I have the too-valid excuse that, the word "resolving" is not familiar to most people (who are not native to English), and they would not even guess that that is a word that they do not know. They would think as if that were "re-solving" (that is, "solving again"), but that is not true. They need to look up the vocabulary. (The word "solve" is known, because most non-native people learn English with lessons&tests -- if not with tourism.) Thus, as with the suffixes -ise, -isation, of British (that U.S. people spell -ize, ization), and even before those, rezolve had to transform. I follow what I'm suggesting, starting with the spelling in frozen@mid80.
Think of a toy-train, around the house. They are modular. How about the railroad protocol-engineering? Manipulating the train with hardware switches? Firmware-customizing could help (NN73, X- & Y-trans).
The firmware, is the software operating the machine, module-by-module. Fitting for planning your circuit, within a computer, too -- until the final shape is achieved. A valuable cause, for modeling.
The prior art for mid80 (from Petri lit., NN73, VD78, D80, SARA, etc.) is there for all. Therefore, I have no monopoly, at all. I think, we will have a large market for robotic/software fold&mold. Standardizable, so that our systems (toys from various companies) work friendly, as computers carry a lot of such accessories.
First, and most, the aim I have, is to craft frozen@mid80 as a platform, for running all of that prior-art to co-exist -- like first, Danthine was fond of (inviting the X-transition of Nutt, to a Petri net).
For example, if you have found a (pure) Petri net example, you could think of frozen@mid80 as "only" a Petri net processor. Also, for example, if you have found a Nutt example (or, Noe&Nutt, macroful examples, as with NN73), you could think of mid80.com as if a specialist toward NN73.
Starting with frozen@mid80 1.1, color-blind people may have less strain (or, none, except total monochromats, who see no color, except gray). I am not employing mixture-colors (e.g: Magenta, Cyan).
If your BIOS/MSDOS height or width is not enough to show all of the (high) macro (graph), while representing (or, monitoring), if to see the rest, shift that graph with a combination of shift + right/up/down/left arrow key.
rolling vs. scrolling The rolling in frozen@mi80 is familiar from rolling a globe, that is, the hand and the globe rolling together (both to the left, or both to the right). Fitting for frozen@mid80, as I intend a firmware-toy, playable in the room, not only within the computer. But this type of rolling, is the opposite of the "scrolling" of a document, that we know from most computer-applications.
Little or no problem even if you are most familiar with computer-applications, rather than our World. If the wrong direction, revert that (left vs. right, or down vs. up). That is immediately seen.
This far, only the 4-filter macro is not fitting within a 80*25. Thus, peripheral issue, yet.
The word frozen, of frozen@mid80, is in the sense of a frozen-food metaphor. (cf. for example, news that, Frozen Concentrate Orange Juice Has More Vitamin C. This metaphor is right, as the formal literature that frozen@mid80 is re-publishing (with software), is fresh after more than decades.
Another use of the word "frozen" is not as fitting, though. A broadway play, titled "frozen" is about serial killers. The "frozen" standing for remaining with what was felt at first, that is, non-leniency, no impunity. I have not watched the play. All I know, is from a page of New Yorker, on plagiarism. (I retrieved that on Jan.9,2006.)
For punishing, locked-at-target -- and nicely, there is the word laT from Arabic, with that sense. In that sense, I may be frozen (proudly), but that is not the sense of "frozen" in the title ...@mid80.
frozen@1982/1993/1994/..., or various other timings, would fit, if I were referring to the times of offenses. For a software I am writing, I prefer taking the lovely things to the title, not those that turn my stomach. That plagiarist, copycat82 is a garbage, has no contribution to this literature.
If a chronic pathology were enough, to call for leniency, take the "me-too" personality as a pathology category, too.:-)) A lot of grabs-orientation (thus, tyranny&corruption) beginning there.
frozen@mid80 (the software) is a freeware. (No donations.) This software is for fun & mission
& if I may arrest some criminals at hook, FBI/etc may pay a hunting reward.