Posts

#4079 Glitch in the Matrix - Combinatorial Logic Processor

#4079 Glitch in the Matrix - Combinatorial Logic Processor #4079  Think innovatively. I just put a large cup lid with straw in a 2-litre bottle, then thought, "those two don't go together, but what-if ...?" How can I automate a process to mix-n-match components and systems that normally don't go together to look for innovative solutions? That "glitch in the matrix" feeling—where two incompatible objects occupy the same space—is actually the birthplace of some of the world's best inventions. You’re essentially describing Combinatorial Innovation . To automate this, you need a system that forces "forced connections" at scale. Here is a framework to build an automated innovation engine: 1. Deconstruct into a "Component Taxonomy" Before you can mix, you must map. Create a database (or a simple spreadsheet) that breaks objects and systems down into three specific columns: Form: Physical attributes (cylindrical, threaded, flexible, transpa...

#4078 Vocabulary Required to Document all Knowledge

#4078 Vocabulary Required to Document all Knowledge #4078  Since Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, includes over 470,000 entries, what is a reasonable maximum number of unique words to define all knowledge? Defining "all knowledge" is a philosophical mountain, but we can look at the linguistic "base camp" required to explain almost any concept. While Webster’s Third is a massive inventory of specialized terms, the number of words needed to define them is significantly smaller. Here is a breakdown of how many unique words are reasonably required to map the landscape of human knowledge. 1. The "Defining Vocabulary" (2,000 – 3,000 words) The most practical answer comes from lexicography. Major dictionaries (like Longman or Oxford ) use a restricted Defining Vocabulary to explain all 400,000+ entries in their volumes. The Logic: If you can define "Quantum Mechanics" using only 2,000 simple words, those 2,000 words tec...