Did you notice in the post about my new hero

William Poundstone. We learned something I didn't know.

I have this problem, getting at these guys backwards your know, I ask: if this works then why hasn't anyone worked it. They almost always have!

Shannon turned Boole logic into complex digital arithmetic, was friends with Turing. How did he prove complex math from a two operand/two valued system? Dunno, yet...

But consider the semantic machine, what is it? Complex nested ontologies made up of keywords, with a true false match. And hey! a Dot and Comma (or/and; set/descent) Good grief, groups rings and fields, no,no I protest. What are we in the semantic machine, a ring, a field? We need more bloggers on the task.

This is going to change us, we will be communication to each other through nested ontologies, our language and thought patterns will subtly change. We will begin typing like robots.

Graphs! I bet that's what Shannon did, made binary graphs and figured a Turing descent could collect the 'value' of a graph with an arbitrary leaf pattern. Multiplication a mutual convolution of two graphs, generating the third graph. If your graphs obey various constraints, you get alebras. But, you see, each node, the atom, was a single bit operation, of: and/or.

As long as he had the two operations, he didn't need more precision, he could make graphs, cascading boolean operations. Egad, this is all recent. This is all within the life span a many professors today. These guys hung out at Bell labs, and you know who else? Dennis Richie, Unix. right? A plot, I know!

We are a semi-group? We got two operands, the dot has an inverse, we are closed, and if we have a define Turing complete operator. We are some sort of semantic algebra.