The idea of flattening things to sets. For instance, in geometry, there are points on a two dimensional surface that can be represented in a set
Sets allow a definition of defining properties to numbers. In an interesting example, we can define all the points in a circle as . This is a way of translating the cartesian space into a set.
In probability, the goal is to convert what you want to know into ‘set theoretic’ form.
If we can define a set that satisfies Kolmogorov’s axioms, you can use the ‘machinery’ of his formal system to generate probabilities of combinations etc. It says nothing about the initial assignments you made.
Admissibility. We say that an interpretation of a formal system is admissible if the meanings assigned to the primitive terms in the interpretation transform the formal axioms, and consequently all the theorems, into true statements.
I would posit that the ‘shared language’ for the model at the moment is the idea of a mass that is mutatated by operations that take energy.
This isn’t really shared though, because I’ve not got that great an insight into Liams model. Part of me just wants to stick with my own model because, well, I came up with it. Also, its kind of being designed for myself.
I think its fine for a stage to not do anything with the Mass, like in filtration, just heat up the mass and move it on.
I need to make specific information sharing session, or knowledge socialisation sessions. Present how I’m thinking and get feedback. So far, I haven’t prepared for calls or meetings.
My model of the fuel production process
A useful thing here is to try and communicate the mental models we’re all using.
For me, I see an initial mass of cooking oil Each process ‘does something’ to this mass, in the case of filtration, heat it up. The input to a process is some mass, the output is energy and the mass again.
If the process ‘mutates’ the mass, the output mass is the ‘new mass’