Well, I had to try just for fun of it. The immediate reply was the following:
[...]
Starting with 0 paired with 1. If I think about functions or some formula that could map these values, but that might be too complicated.
Alternatively, perhaps these numbers represent something specific. For example, maybe they're representing the number of certain features in the number itself, like the number of closed loops in the digit's shape.
Let's think about that:
0 has one closed loop.
5 has no closed loops.
6 has one closed loop.
7 has no closed loops.
8 has two closed loops.
9 has one closed loop.
Wait a minute, that seems to match the sequence:
0 (1 loop) - 1
5 (0 loops) - 0
6 (1 loop) - 1
7 (0 loops) - 0
8 (2 loops) - 2
So, if 9 has one closed loop, then it should be paired with 1.
But let's double-check this theory with the given pairs.
0 has one loop, paired with 1 – matches.
5 has no loops, paired with 0 – matches.
6 has one loop, paired with 1 – matches.
7 has no loops, paired with 0 – matches.
8 has two loops, paired with 2 – matches.
Yes, this seems consistent.
Therefore, 9 should have one closed loop, so it should be paired with 1.
[...]
Then it continued trying another approach related to the number of angles in the digit shape, but it discarded it. Then "Alternatively, perhaps it's related to the number of segments that are 'on' in a seven-segment display." and so on.
Thank you for this. I just installed it an it was exactly what I looked for when I bought my Oculus: the opportunity to explore, zoom and learn about the night sky freely in 3d. I tried many others but this has been the only one to fill my expectations.
Yes. All modern systems run a huge amount of code if we count the underlying microcode, operating system, runtime libraries, 3rd party dependencies and the application itself.
The thing is not the total size but the boundaries and the understanding of each layer and how manageable each layer is for the humans modifying and mantaining it ... which is, of course, the total cognitive complexity.
I struggled initially to understand what this was about. Then, after digging a little bit more, I see that it is an open and rich environment to visualize (while executing) data from different perspectives while being extensible from within the same environment (using Pharo), allowing to create a rich and custom ecosystem for data and systems exploration in an orderly and structured manner.
What I couldn't find is information about workshops or forums besides discord to talk and understand about its possibilities.
Specifically, I had trouble understanding how to apply it to other programming languages and their frameworks. I can see that for some of them (e.g. PHP) you have to export the project with a tool and then import it into GToolkit, but that converts such a system into just an static structure to be analyzed, but not a live system to experiment with. This would mean that live documentation would require permanently exporting and then importing the code from such system. To get a living system + its real time perspectives and embedded live documentation it seems you must program the system in Pharo.
No affiliation, just a happy customer. I initially explored the DIY way, but since this one has such good references, I decided to start with it and go from there having a better reference to compare against my DIY attempts.
[...]
Starting with 0 paired with 1. If I think about functions or some formula that could map these values, but that might be too complicated.
Alternatively, perhaps these numbers represent something specific. For example, maybe they're representing the number of certain features in the number itself, like the number of closed loops in the digit's shape.
Let's think about that:
0 has one closed loop. 5 has no closed loops. 6 has one closed loop. 7 has no closed loops. 8 has two closed loops. 9 has one closed loop. Wait a minute, that seems to match the sequence:
0 (1 loop) - 1
5 (0 loops) - 0
6 (1 loop) - 1
7 (0 loops) - 0
8 (2 loops) - 2
So, if 9 has one closed loop, then it should be paired with 1.
But let's double-check this theory with the given pairs.
0 has one loop, paired with 1 – matches.
5 has no loops, paired with 0 – matches.
6 has one loop, paired with 1 – matches.
7 has no loops, paired with 0 – matches.
8 has two loops, paired with 2 – matches.
Yes, this seems consistent.
Therefore, 9 should have one closed loop, so it should be paired with 1.
[...]
Then it continued trying another approach related to the number of angles in the digit shape, but it discarded it. Then "Alternatively, perhaps it's related to the number of segments that are 'on' in a seven-segment display." and so on.