“Contrapuntal superposition” of Heaviside signals unravelled as a lookalike state coding problem in asynchronous circuit design

This article http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x267.pdf by Ivor Catt – published (now more than) 40 years ago – proposed looking at transverse electromagnetic (TEM) wave by means of the so-called Heaviside signal. Heaviside signal is basically EM “energy current”, described by Poynting vector ExH (E and H are electric and magnetic field intensities, respectively), that travels and can only travel in space with a speed of light in the medium, fully determined by its fundamental parameters permittivity (epsilon) and permeability (mu) – i.e., c=1/sqrt(mu*epsilon). The key point here, I should again stress, is that ExH cannot stand still – it can only travel with speed of light. One might ask, where does it travel? It travels where the environment – i.e the combination of materials – leads it to, and in practice it predominantly goes where the effective impedance of the medium is smaller. The effective or characteristic impedance of the medium, Z0, is also fully determined by the permittivity (epsilon) and permeability (mu), i.e. Z0=sqrt(mu/epsilon). Moreover, Z0=E/H – this is sometimes called the constant of proportionality of the medium.

Why is this look at the TEM wave more advantageous than some other looks, such as for example, the so called “rolling wave” of the alternating concentrations of magnetic energy 1/2*mu*H^2 and electric energy 1/2*epsilon*E^2 in the direction of propagation? As Catt shows in the above article, this more conventional way is actually meta-physical, because it is based on the assumption of causality between the electric field and magnetic field and vice versa. The latter is a form of tautology because it creates a non-physical, but rather, mathematical or equation-based “feedback mechanism”, which does not make sense in physics.

Another important issue that calls for the use of Heaviside signal is that it retains the notion of the travelling EM “ExH slab” in each direction where it can travel, and hence its change-inducing geometric causality between points in space. As exemplified by the effects of travelling TEM waves in transmission lines (TLs), this look, for example, naturally separates the incident wave from the reflected (of the interface with another medium) wave, or from another wave that may travel in the opposite direction. As a result, the analysis of the behaviour of the TL becomes fuller and can explain the phenomena such as superposition of independent waves in cases such as cross-talk between TLs. Here is another paper by Ivor Catt – published more than 50 years ago – http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x147.pdf and subsequent clarifications – http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm of the superposition of the even and odd modes (modes of TEM travelling with different speeds of light in the medium due to different epsilon and mu conditions arising between adjacent pairs of metal lines).

As shown in these papers, the view provided by the conventional theory is necessarily contrapuntal – it looks at the combined EM field in every point in space and in time. As a result it simply overlays the travelling ExH signals. And that’s what one can see by measuring voltage and current in points of interest on the TL. Or, equally, what one could see on the oscilloscope’s waveforms at points in space. Interestingly that looking at the same time at a number of points, in a spatially orderly way, leads to a conjecture that there is an interplay of several travelling TEM waves, but the conventional rolling wave approach would not explain the physics behind them properly!

What is remarkable in this for me is that this reminds me the difference between two types of models in asynchronous control circuits and how one of them obscures the information revealed by the other. One type of model that is based on recording purely binary encoded states of the circuit (akin to the contrapuntal notion). The other is based on a truly causal model (say Signal Transition Graph – or STG – called Signal Graph or Signal Petri Net in my early publications: https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/alex.yakovlev/home.formal/LR-AY-TPN85.pdf or https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/alex.yakovlev/home.formal/AY-AP-PN90.pdf), where we have the explicit control flow of signal transitions or events running in the circuit. The difference between these two looks is often manifested in the so-called Complete State Coding problem (cf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2951782_Detecting_State_Coding_Conflicts_in_STGs ). If we only look at the contrapuntal notion of the state without knowing the pre-history of the event order we cannot distinguish the semantically different states that map onto the same binary code provided by the signals. To distinguish between such states one needs additional information or memory that should be either provided in the underlying event-based model (the marking of the STG) or by introducing additional (aka internal or invisible) signals (in the process of solving the CSC problem).

I am not claiming that the above-noted analogy leads to a fundamental phenomenon, but it reflects the important epistemic aspect of modelling physical world so that important relationships and knowledge are retained, yet in a minimalist (cf. Occam’s razor) way. Some more investigation into this analogy is needed.

My talk at the 2nd Workshop on Reaction Systems

Following the 1st School on Reaction Systems in Torun, Poland, there was the 2nd Workshop on Reaction Systems, also held in Torun.

The workshop programme is listed here:

http://wors2019.mat.umk.pl//workshop/

I gave a talk on “Bringing Asynchrony to Reaction Systems”. This talk was work in (pre-)progress. Mostly developed during the Reaction Systems week in Torun.

The abstract of my talk is below:

Reaction systems have a number of underlining principles that govern them in their operation. They are: (i) maximum concurrency, (ii) complete renewal of state (no permanency), (iii) both promotion and inhibition, (iv) 0/1 (binary) resource availability, (v) no contention between resources. Most of these principles could be seen as constraints in a traditional asynchronous behaviour setting. However, under a certain viewpoint these principles do not contradict to principles underpinning asynchronous circuits if the latter were considered at an appropriate level of abstraction. Asynchrony typically allows enabled actions to execute in either order, retains the state of enabled actions while other actions are executed, involves fine grained causality between elementary events and permits arbitration for shared resources. This talk will discuss some of these potential controversies and attempt to show ways of resolving them and thereby bringing asynchrony into the realm of reaction systems. Besides that, we will also look at how the paradigm of reaction systems can be exploited in designing concurrent electronic systems.

The slides of my talk are here

 

My lecture on Asynchronous Computation at the 1st School on Reaction Systems

The 1st School on Reaction Systems has taken place in historical Toruń, Poland.

Organised by Dr Lukasz Mikulski and Prof Grzegorz Rozenberg at the Nicolaus Copernicus University.

I managed to attend a number of lectures and gave my own lecture on Asynchronous Computation (from the perspective of electronic designer).

Here are the slides:

https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/alex.yakovlev/home.formal/talks/Torun-Yakovlev-lecture-final.pdf

Ideas picked up at the 1st School on Reaction Systems in Torun, Poland

Grzegorz Rozenberg’s lecture on Modularity and looking inside the reaction system states.

  • Some subsets of reactants will be physical – they form modules.
  • Stability implies lattice: a state transition is locally stable if the subsets (modules) in the states are isomorphic. These subset structures form partial order, so we have an isomorphism between partial orders. So, structurally, nothing really changes during those transitions – nothing new!
  • Biologists call this “adulthood”. It would be nice to have completion detection for that class of equivalence!

Paolo Milazzo’s talk (via Skype) on Genetic Regulatory Networks.

  • Some methods exist in gene regulation for saving energy – say by using lactose (as some sort of inhibitor)
  • He talked about sync/async Boolean networks of regulatory gene networks.

Paolo Bottoni on Networks of Reaction Systems.

  • Basic model – Environment influences the reaction systems
  • Here we consider reaction systems influences the environment

Robert Brijder on Chemical Reaction Networks.

Hans-Joerg Kreowski on Reaction Systems on Graphs.

  • Interesting graph transformations as reaction systems.
  • Examples involved some graph growth (e.g. fractal such as Serpinski graphs)

Grzegorz Rozenberg on Zoom Structures.

  • Interesting way of formalizing the process of knowledge management and acquistioon.
  • Could be used by people from say drug discovery and other data analytics

Alberto Leporati on membrane Computing and P-systems.

  • Result of action in a membrane is produced to the outside world only whne computation halts.
  • Question: what if the system is so distributed that we have no ability to guarantee the whole system halts? Can we have partial halts?
  • Catalysts can limit parallelism – sounds a bit like some sort of energy or power tokens

Maciej Koutny on Petri nets and Reaction Systems

  • We need not only prevent consumption (use of read arcs) but also prevent (inhibit!) production – something like “joint OR causality” or opportunistic merge can help.

 

New book on Carl Adam Petri and my chapter “Living Lattices” in it

A very nice new book “Carl Adam Petri: Ideas, Personality, Impact“, edited by Wolfgang Reisig and Grzegorz Rozenberg, has just been published by Springer:

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-96154-5

Newcastle professors, Brian Randell, Maciej Koutny and myself contributed articles for it.

An important aspect of those and other authors’ articles is that they mostly talk about WHY certain models and methods related to Petri nets have been investigated rather than describing the formalisms themselves. Basically, some 30-40 years of history are laid out on 4-5 pages of text and pictures.

My paper  “Living Lattices” provides a personal view of how Petri’s research inspired my own research, including comments on related topics such as lattices, Muller diagrams, complexity, concurrency, and persistence.

The chapter can be downloaded from here:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-96154-5_28

There is also an interesting chapter by Jordi Cortadella “From Nets to Circuits and from Circuits to Nets”, which reviews the impact of Petri nets in one of the domains in which they have played a predominant role: asynchronous circuits. Jordi also discusses challenges and topics of interest for the future. This chapter can be downloaded from here:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-96154-5_27