“hapax” means “only once” in ancient Greek. You may have seen it in the form hapax legomenon, quote: ” a word that occurs only once within a context, either in the written record of an entire language, in the works of an author, or in a single text”.
After a bit of research I found the correct, I hope, form that I use for this project:
It reads “hapax cheon” and it means, again in ancient Greek, “poured only once”.
Why this? Because, according to this wiki link, “the Greek word χυμεία khumeia originally meant “pouring together””.
The motivation of the project hapax comes from the realization that we only explored a tiny drop in the sea of possibilities. As an example, just look at lambda calculus, one of the two pillars of computation. Historically there are many reasons to consider lambda calculus something made in heaven, or a platonic ideal.
But there are 14400 = 5! X 5! alternatives to the iconic beta rewrite only. Is the original beta special or not?
By analogy with the world of CA, about a third of cellular automata are Turing universal. My gues is that a significant fraction of the alternatives to the beta rewrite are as useful as the original beta.
When we look at lambda calculus from this point of view, we discover that all the possible alternatives, not only of beta, but of the whore graph rewriting formalism, say in the form of chemlambda, all these alternative count a huge number, liek 10^30 in the most conservative estimates.
Same for interaction combinators. Same for knot theory. Same for differential calculus (here I use em).
I started to collect small graph rewrite systems which can be described with the same formalism.
The formalism is based on a formulation which uses exclusively permutations (for the “chemistry” and Hamiltonian mechanics side) and a principle of dissipation which accounts for the probabilistic side.
The goal of the project hapax is to build custom worlds (physics and chemistry)
“poured only once”
which can be used to do universal computation in a truly private way. Because once the rules of computation are private, this leads to the fact that the who;le process of computation becomes incomprehensible.
Or is it so? Maybe yes, maybe not. How can we know, without trying?
That is why I starded to make the hapax stuff.
For the moment is not much, only demos like this one, but the rest will pass from paper to programs, then we’ll play.