Re: What do we mean by KR (and where K3D fits)

Dave, Milton, all,

Thank you for these perspectives. The distinction Dave draws between 
formal explainability and practical adequacy, and Milton’s emphasis on 
domains of discourse and mathematical limits, is very close to what led 
me to build K3D in the first place.

Very briefly: K3D is my attempt, as an electrical engineer, to 
operationalize “knowledge as domains of discourse” in a physically 
honest way:

Domains of discourse as spatial structures
Each K3D House is a bounded domain of discourse (e.g. AI‑KR, 
neuroscience, reliability), partitioned into Rooms and Nodes with 
explicit vocabularies and metadata. That’s the KR layer: a language for 
describing the world plus a computational model for consequences, but 
anchored in concrete “where” as well as “what”.

Adequacy under hardware/energy constraints
Instead of assuming that ever‑larger embeddings will converge to 
adequacy, we treat the MIP*=RE / Gödel‑style limits seriously. K3D uses 
procedural compression (inspired by demoscene work) and Matryoshka‑style 
dimensions to keep representations within realistic GPU and energy 
budgets, while tracking fidelity explicitly. The goal is “good enough 
for this domain and this task,” not an impossible complete model of all 
knowledge.

AI as partner, not oracle
MVCIC (Multi‑Vibe Code in Chain) is the methodology I used to build K3D: 
multiple LLMs as assistants, but every step logged as explicit KR 
(development chains), and every architectural decision owned by the 
human. That looks much more like the “AI–human symbiosis” Dave described 
than the “just scale the LLM” hubris Milton rightly criticises.

On the implementation side: the PTX kernels are just one open‑source 
substrate for the KR operations (embeddings, spatial layout, 
consolidation). K3D’s knowledge representation design is 
substrate‑agnostic; PTX happens to be the way I enforce sovereignty and 
reproducibility on mid‑range hardware. The Houses/Rooms/Nodes/Galaxy 
structures could be realized on other backends just as well.

I agree with Milton that “knowledge representation as a domain of 
discourse isn’t owned by computer scientists.” My hope is that K3D can 
serve as a concrete, inspectable example of how mathematics, KR, AI and 
electrical engineering can meet in the middle: domains of discourse 
represented as spatial structures, with explicit limits, explicit 
procedures, and explicit logs.

If there is interest, I’d be happy to prepare a short note mapping K3D’s 
Houses/Rooms/Nodes and procedural compression more explicitly onto the 
adequacy vs explainability framing Dave outlined and the 
domains‑of‑discourse terminology Milton uses, so we can see more clearly 
where it fits and where it doesn’t.

Best regards,
Daniel