docs: synced via GitHub Actions

Author: nop-cao

src/theory/generalized-reversible-computation-paper.md

@@ -1113,7 +1113,35 @@ GRC通过将“可逆性”作为其核心追求，实际上是声明其构造
 
 ## 附录F：广义可逆计算(GRC)的范式创新说明
 
-本附录集中呈现广义可逆计算范式的高阶骨架：主动设计语义Delta空间 + 统一公式不变量 $Y = F(X) \oplus \Delta$ + 最小覆盖原语；并给出空间评价准则、分形式四维结构、代数草案、公理化与度量方向。正文仅保留概念提示，避免干扰主叙事；完整范式论证与形式化起点请参见此附录。
+### **F.0 导言：范式跃迁的世界观 — 从“对象”到“坐标系”**
+
+在深入探讨广义可逆计算（GRC）范式的技术骨架之前，有必要首先阐明其背后最根本的世界观转变。这种转变，是从传统面向对象（OOP）的“粒子”视角，向GRC所倡导的“场论”视角的跃迁。为了便于计算机领域的读者理解，我们将其概括为：**从关注“离散的对象”，转向关注“连续的坐标系和作用于其上的变化”。**
+
+#### **传统世界观：软件是由“对象”构成的宇宙**
+
+在以OOP为主导的传统世界观中，软件系统被看作是由一个个离散的、封装了状态和行为的**对象**构成的。
+*   **基本单元**：对象是宇宙中的基本“粒子”。
+*   **构造方式**：通过消息传递（方法调用）、继承、组合等方式，将这些“粒子”硬性地连接在一起。
+*   **演化方式**：通常是**侵入式**的。一个需求的变更，往往需要深入多个对象的内部，修改其私有状态或方法。这种修改的元数据变得难以追踪，且容易引发不可预知的连锁反应（副作用）。
+
+#### **GRC新世界观：软件是“坐标系”中的演化场**
+
+GRC提出了一种全新的世界观，其核心要素如下：
+
+1.  **语言即坐标系 (Language as Coordinate System)**
+    GRC首先要求我们为软件世界建立一个**结构化的坐标系**。这个坐标系由**领域特定语言（DSL）**来定义。在这个坐标系中，系统中的每一个信息单元（一个配置、一个UI组件、一个业务规则）都拥有一个**稳定、可寻址的语义坐标**（例如，类似于文件路径、XPath或JSON Pointer）。这个坐标不应随格式化、代码重排等非语义因素而轻易改变。
+
+2.  **变化即叠加 (Change as Superposition)**
+    一旦有了坐标系，任何“变化”（新功能、Bug修复、客户定制）都可以被精确地描述为一个**结构化的差量（Δ）**。这个差量本质上是一个**“坐标-新值”**的稀疏集合。将变化应用到系统，不再是侵入式地修改代码，而是将这个差量`Δ`**非侵入式地“叠加”**到基础模型之上。这种叠加是一种具有良好数学性质（如结合律）的**代数运算**，使得变化本身变得可计算、可组合、可预测。
+
+3.  **多坐标系协同 (Multi-Coordinate System Collaboration)**
+    复杂的系统不可能由单一的全局坐标系描述。因此，GRC借鉴了数学中微分流形理论的思想，将复杂的系统分解为一个由多个**局部坐标系**（由不同的DSL定义）构成的**“坐标图谱”（Atlas）**。**生成器（Generator）**则扮演了在不同坐标系之间进行**坐标变换**的角色。这使得我们可以“分而治之”，系统性地驾驭复杂性。
+
+**世界观跃迁的意义：**
+
+从“对象”到“坐标系”的跃迁，意味着我们将关注点从**“如何编排一堆相互调用的对象”**，转移到了**“如何设计一套稳定的坐标系，并通过代数叠加来持续演化其内容”**。
+
+理解了这一根本性的世界观转变，后续F.1至F.12节中关于统一公式、Delta空间选择、分形构造、最小代数原语等技术细节，其背后的设计动机和理论价值便会不言自明。它们都是为了支撑这一新世界观在工程实践中得以精确、高效地落地。
 
 ### F.1 摘要
 

src/theory/paper/generalized-reversible-computation-paper-en.md

@@ -1118,4 +1118,167 @@ By making "reversibility" its core pursuit, GRC is, in fact, declaring that its
 
 2.  **Enabling of Advanced Reuse Patterns**: It gives rise to the advanced reuse pattern of "reusing what is related." The decomposition, stripping, and recombination of changes become systematic, with their theoretical foundation rooted in the existence of an inverse element.
 
-**Conclusion**: Naming the paradigm "Generalized Reversible Computation" was a carefully considered theoretical decision. This is because "reversibility" accurately captures the theory's mathematical structure (originating from group theory), philosophical goal (governing entropy), and core capabilities (multi-dimensional reversibility that surpasses simple delta composition). It clearly distinguishes GRC from all methodologies that remain at the "delta" level (such as Git, traditional DOP), and it is the key to defining the paradigm's advanced nature and the theoretical cornerstone connecting software construction with deeper scientific principles.
+**Conclusion**: Naming the paradigm "Generalized Reversible Computation" was a carefully considered theoretical decision. This is because "reversibility" accurately captures the theory's mathematical structure (originating from group theory), philosophical goal (governing entropy), and core capabilities (multi-dimensional reversibility that surpasses simple delta composition). It clearly distinguishes GRC from all methodologies that remain at the "delta" level (such as Git, traditional DOP), and it is the key to defining the paradigm's advanced nature and the theoretical cornerstone connecting software construction with deeper scientific principles.
+
+
+## Appendix F: Paradigm Innovation of Generalized Reversible Computation (GRC)
+
+### **F.0 Introduction: The Worldview Shift of a Paradigm Leap — From "Objects" to "Coordinate Systems"**
+
+Before delving into the technical skeleton of the Generalized Reversible Computation (GRC) paradigm, it is essential first to clarify the most fundamental shift in worldview underlying it. This shift is a transition from the "particle" perspective of traditional Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) to the "field theory" perspective advocated by GRC. To facilitate understanding for readers in the computer field, we summarize this as: **a shift from focusing on "discrete objects" to focusing on "continuous coordinate systems and the changes applied to them."**
+
+#### **Traditional Worldview: The Software Universe is Composed of "Objects"**
+
+In the traditional worldview dominated by OOP, a software system is seen as composed of discrete **objects**, each encapsulating state and behavior.
+*   **Basic Unit**: Objects are the fundamental "particles" of the universe.
+*   **Construction Method**: These "particles" are rigidly connected through means such as message passing (method calls), inheritance, and composition.
+*   **Evolution Method**: It is typically **intrusive**. A change in requirements often requires delving into the internals of multiple objects to modify their private state or methods. The metadata of such modifications becomes difficult to track and can easily trigger unpredictable ripple effects (side effects).
+
+#### **GRC New Worldview: Software is an Evolving Field within a "Coordinate System"**
+
+GRC proposes a fundamentally new worldview, with the following core elements:
+
+1.  **Language as Coordinate System**
+    GRC first requires us to establish a **structured coordinate system** for the software world. This coordinate system is defined by **Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs)**. Within this coordinate system, every unit of information in the system (a configuration, a UI component, a business rule) possesses a **stable, addressable semantic coordinate** (e.g., similar to a file path, XPath, or JSON Pointer). This coordinate should not change easily due to non-semantic factors like formatting or code rearrangement.
+
+2.  **Change as Superposition**
+    Once a coordinate system exists, any "change" (new feature, bug fix, customer customization) can be precisely described as a **structured delta (Δ)**. This delta is essentially a sparse set of **"coordinate-new value"** pairs. Applying a change to the system is no longer about intrusively modifying code, but about **non-intrusively "superimposing"** this delta `Δ` onto the base model. This superposition is an **algebraic operation** with good mathematical properties (such as associativity), making change itself computable, composable, and predictable.
+
+3.  **Multi-Coordinate System Collaboration**
+    A complex system cannot be described by a single global coordinate system. Therefore, drawing inspiration from the theory of differentiable manifolds in mathematics, GRC decomposes complex systems into an **"Atlas"** composed of multiple **local coordinate systems** (defined by different DSLs). The **Generator** plays the role of performing **coordinate transformations** between different coordinate systems. This allows us to "divide and conquer," systematically managing complexity.
+
+**Significance of the Worldview Leap:**
+
+The leap from "objects" to "coordinate systems" means shifting our focus from **"how to orchestrate a collection of interacting objects"** to **"how to design a set of stable coordinate systems and continuously evolve their content through algebraic superposition."**
+
+Understanding this fundamental shift in worldview makes the design motivations and theoretical value of the subsequent technical details in sections F.1 to F.12—regarding the unified formula, Delta space selection, fractal construction, and minimal algebraic primitives—self-evident. They are all designed to support the precise and efficient implementation of this new worldview in engineering practice.
+
+### F.1 Abstract
+
+By actively engineering stable semantic Delta spaces, we unify any software construction as $Y = F(X) \oplus \Delta$: generate a skeleton first, then perform minimal changes through sparse coordinate coverage. Construction and evolution are no longer separated; fractal recursion repeatedly appears across vertical stages, horizontal DSLs, temporal versions, and meta-layer tools. With an extremely minimal x-extends mechanism (XPath coverage + post-ordering processing), we obtain determinism, reversibility, and composability, significantly reducing complexity noise and enhancing evolution governance capabilities.
+
+### F.2 Unified Paradigm Formula and Significance
+
+**Formula**: $Y = F(X) \oplus \Delta$ uniformly describes:
+
+- **$F(X)$**: Deterministic generation/projection/expansion of base model X within some structural space, corresponding to templates, loaders, compilation, transformation, or any deterministic process.
+- **$\Delta$**: Sparse coverage (add/modify/delete/replace) defined in an actively selected or designed "delta structure space," superimposed with the result of $F(X)$ to obtain the final product Y.
+
+**Unification of Construction and Evolution**:
+
+- Initial construction: $Y_0 = F(\emptyset) \oplus \Delta_{\text{genesis}}$ (applying genesis Delta to "empty baseline")
+- Ordinary evolution: $Y_k = Y_{k-1} \oplus \Delta_k$
+
+Thus, "new project creation" and "version iteration" are no longer distinguished at the paradigm level, differing only in the selected baseline; all activities are reduced to the same structural operation—**applying Delta**.
+
+### F.3 Active Selection and Design of Delta Space
+
+Traditional text diff (e.g., Git line space) "passively accepts" underlying representations; its coordinates (line numbers, indentation) are affected by formatting and sorting, resulting in high noise, weak semantics, and poor algebraic closure. The paradigm innovation advocates:
+
+1. **Actively construct/select** structural spaces with semantic coordinates (e.g., layered VFS, XDSL syntax trees, process models, UI layout models)
+2. Define minimal primitives for Delta within this space, giving local operations good properties (determinism, reversible stripping, compositional closure)
+3. Allow multiple spaces to interconnect in fractal ways (vertical pipeline, horizontal DSL family, temporal version chain, meta-layer tools themselves)
+
+Active space design = upfront investment in stable coordinate systems; the payoff is that all subsequent superposition operations are no longer diluted by syntactic noise, improving the "information density and governability" of evolutionary assets.
+
+### F.4 Typical Delta Space Type Comparison
+
+| Space | Coord. Stability | Noise | Algebraic Closure | Semantic Density | Reversible Stripping | Applicable Scenarios |
+| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
+| Git line space | Low (format/rearrangement affects) | High | Weak (conflicts break closure) | Low | Partial (text-level) | General source code collaboration |
+| VFS layers | Medium-High (path stable) | Low | Strong (priority + shadowing) | Medium | Good (layer stripping) | Environment/configuration layering, image construction |
+| XDSL XPath tree | High (semantic tags + attributes) | Very Low | Strong (coverage composable) | High | Strong (supports diff/stripping) | Business models, processes, data structures |
+| UI layout free space | Medium (layout nodes variable) | Medium | Needs strategy (ordering/placeholders) | Medium | Convention dependent | Front-end views, visual orchestration |
+
+### F.5 Space Selection Evaluation Criteria
+
+1.  **Coordinate Stability**: Whether node/unit positioning during evolution changes with formatting or fine-tuning
+2.  **Noise Compression Rate**: Whether non-semantic changes (line breaks, indentation, reordering) are naturally avoided
+3.  **Algebraic Closure**: Whether superposition operations still produce legitimate elements of the same space, without "conflicting foreign objects"
+4.  **Reversible Strippability**: Whether specific Deltas can be reliably stripped from the result to restore the baseline
+5.  **Sparse Expressiveness**: Whether a single change can be precisely expressed with few structural units
+6.  **Fractal Connection Capability**: Whether the space easily connects with others in vertical, horizontal, temporal, and meta-layer dimensions
+7.  **Tool Implementability**: Complexity and maintainability of parsing/merging algorithms
+8.  **Cognitive Load**: Whether developers can easily understand and predict results
+
+### F.6 Fractal Construction Four Dimensions
+
+1.  **Vertical Pipeline**: Multi-stage generation: $X_0 \xrightarrow{F_1} X_1 \xrightarrow{F_2} X_2$; each stage can superimpose its own $\Delta$
+2.  **Horizontal DSL Family**: Cross-domain models: $Y = [\mathrm{DSL}_1, \mathrm{DSL}_2, \ldots, \mathrm{DSL}_n, \Delta_{\mathrm{residual}}]$
+3.  **Temporal Evolution Chain**: $V_k = V_{k-1} \oplus \Delta_k$, version differences treated as first-class assets
+4.  **Meta-layer Tool Self-recursion**: Generators, merge rules, DSL metamodels themselves: $\mathrm{Meta}_k = \mathrm{Meta}_{k-1} \oplus \Delta_{\mathrm{meta}}$
+
+All four dimensions share the unified invariant, giving the system self-similar structure at both macro and micro levels.
+
+### F.7 Minimal Delta Mechanism: x-extends + XPath Coverage
+
+In XDSL tree space, an "extremely minimal yet sufficient" mechanism can support the paradigm:
+
+- **x-extends**: Declares current file as Delta, specifies base file path or parent model identifier
+- **XPath Coverage**: For appearing nodes/attributes, execute coverage according to their XPath coordinates; unappeared ones remain unchanged; use `x:override="remove"` to indicate deletion
+- **Ordering Strategy**: List order doesn't rely on special insertion instructions; unified ordering after merging through conventional ordering fields `order`/`weight`
+- **Placeholder Node Strategy**: In spaces where global ordering keys cannot be introduced (e.g., UI layout), use placeholder elements `<col id="placeholder"/>` then append `<col id="new"/>`, cleaned during normalization
+
+**Rationale**: Reduce primitive count → Lower mental burden → Enhance merge predictability and algebraic analysis feasibility.
+
+### F.8 Minimal Algebraic Primitives and Axiom Draft
+
+**Assume**:
+
+- Coordinate set $C$: Finite or countable set of XPath paths
+- Model $M$: Function $m: C \to V$ (sparse, undefined coordinates = inherit base value)
+- Delta $\delta$: Partial function $\delta: C \rightharpoonup V \cup \{\bot_{\mathrm{remove}}\}$, where $\bot_{\mathrm{remove}}$ denotes removal
+
+**Superposition**: $m' = m \oplus \delta$, for any $c \in C$:
+
+$$
+m'(c) = \begin{cases}
+   \text{undef} & \delta(c) = \bot_{\mathrm{remove}}\\
+   \delta(c) & c \in \mathrm{Dom}(\delta), \delta(c) \neq \bot_{\mathrm{remove}}\\
+   m(c) & \text{otherwise}
+ \end{cases}
+$$
+
+**Candidate Axioms**:
+
+1.  **Coordinate Independence**: Covers of $c_1 \neq c_2$ do not affect each other
+2.  **Determinism**: Input $m, \delta$ yields unique output
+3.  **Local Associativity**: Coordinate-level $((m \oplus \delta_1) \oplus \delta_2)(c) = (m \oplus (\delta_1 \oplus \delta_2))(c)$
+4.  **Sparse Closure**: $\delta_1 \oplus \delta_2$ can still be normalized into a single partial function
+5.  **Strippable Near-inverse**: Recording coverage sequence allows replay removal of last $\delta_k$: $m_{k-1} = m_k - \delta_k$
+6.  **Idempotence**: $m \oplus \delta \oplus \delta = m \oplus \delta$
+
+Extended operations (ordering, placeholder cleanup) are placed in the normalization stage, not entering the core algebra.
+
+### F.9 Conflict and Simplification Model
+
+Conflicts degenerate to "same coordinate coverage chain" resolution: take final non-removal value or removal state. Semantic constraint conflicts are moved out of the algebraic layer, handled by the validation stage: maintaining closure and merge determinism.
+
+### F.10 Engineering Implementation Minimal Path
+
+1.  **Unified Intermediate Structure**: All DSLs → Unified tree (XNode)
+2.  **Order**: Delta superposition first → Ordering normalization → Semantic validation and projection
+3.  **Delta Storage**: Only save Delta files; support stripping to restore standard distribution
+4.  **Debugging**: Merged tree dump + Coordinate coverage chain view
+5.  **Placeholder Strategy**: Limited to UI scenarios + Automatic cleaner
+6.  **Performance**: Coordinate hash table; Merge $O(k)$
+
+### F.11 Paradigm Transition and Relationship with Existing Technologies
+
+| Existing Direction | Relationship with Paradigm | Paradigm Transition Point |
+| :--- | :--- | :--- |
+| Git text diff | Passive space, unstable line coordinates | Active semantic space selection, reduces noise & conflict spillover |
+| MDE/MDA | Has generation $F(X)$ | Complements structured Delta & reversible stripping system |
+| SPL/FOP/DOP | Has feature/incremental modules | Unified coordinates + minimal coverage algebra + fractal penetration across layers |
+| Language Workbench | Multi-DSL editing | Simplifies editing→coverage, emphasizes Delta space selection & minimal primitives |
+| OverlayFS/image layers | Filesystem Delta | Generalizes to arbitrary semantic model trees, finer coordinate granularity |
+
+**Paradigm Innovation**: Extracting "generation + delta superposition" from isolated practices into a unified organizational method across spaces/layers, endowing it with reversible and fractal connection logic.
+
+### F.12 Further Formalization and Research Directions
+
+1.  **Complete Axiomatization**: Characterization of $\oplus$'s associativity/identity/near-inverse conditions (generalized group or semigroup + projection structure)
+2.  **Insertion Externalization Proof**: Post-ordering processing maintains algebraic core simplicity
+3.  **Metric System**: Define sparsity, noise compression rate, reversible stripping success rate
+4.  **Concurrent Merging**: Integration with CRDT, timestamp/last-write convergence
+5.  **AI Collaboration**: Automatic Delta recommendation in semantic coordinate spaces