## Systema: Geodesates, Nodes and Links

“To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” — Isaac Newton

A predominant issue arising from my work is the discovery of the difference between a node and a link.  A node type represents a state type while a link type represents a transaction between state types.  However I am finding there are a limited number of node types (self-ordered states) and link types (self-ordered state actions).

In the diagram below, each polyhedron is a first frequency geodesate and has a unique polytrope/polytype combination.  A polytrope is the number of edges per polyhedron vertex.  A polytype is the number of polyhedron vertexes.  This is not the final version.  I am still working to purify my geodesate concept.

What I am revealing here is that each of the seven Node Types on the Left has only one Link Type on the right.  In the same way that an association is composed of a source node type and target node type, an association is composed of a source link type and target link type.

Here is an example of a homogenous Entity to Entity association:

Here is an example of a hetergeneous Entity to Positity association:

Having considered this it is now possible to conclude that there are a unique set of nodes each with a unique link which can be used to build homogeneous or heterogeneous associations.  In otherwords, each node type can perform only one action type.  It is the reaction type of the target node type that makes the action reaction combination unique in the system.

Let’s look at some examples of node type and link type associations:

1. To identify a positity, positifies an identity.
2. To objectify a projectity, projectifies an objectity.
3. To chronify a chronity, chronifies a chronity.
4. To projectify a quantity, quantifies the projectity.
5. To qualify an identity, identifies a quality.

Fourty-nine possible type combinations exist.  I think there are even more types which I will explore with Archimedean Solids and higher frequency Geodesates in later posts.

## Systema: The Six Hats, Six Coats Hypercube

Later in this post we will discuss this man:

The following table represents my interepretation of the Zachman Framework:

I have taken this framework and applied the following de Bono metaphor:

I also incorporated my own metaphor to differentiate the axes:

These two modifications produced the following table:

This is where I had an “aha” moment. I asked myself what the entities would be:

I also recognized that in each column these entities were related hierarchically allowing the creation of a six dimensional hypercube. In creating the hypercube it was possible to look at a variety of “slices”. For example:

The table above combines Motive with Person. We can see that Motive is verbal while Person is a noun.

Next we will combine Function and Data to create another slice:

Again, Function is a verb and Data is a noun.

Let’s look at one final slice:

Here we see that nodes and time have many possible states.

But, why am I doing this exhaustive analysis of the possible combinations in the Six Hats, Six Coats hypercube?

Let’s go back in time for a moment and look at this table:

When Dmitri Mendeleev created this table to describe periodic behaviour of the elements, many of the elements had not been discovered. However, the table projected what the properties of those elements would be making the search much easier.

The Six Hats, Six Coats hypercube is also a form of periodic table. Its entire collection of possible cells are called the framework space. Many of the cells in the hypercube do not yet exist, however their properties can be predicted. This makes their search and discovery of system components systematic instead of random or organic.

Related Posts: