You still have not described HAM except in the vaguest of terms. You have addressed very few of my questions.

What is the Hypothetical Amnesia Machine thought experiment? Where have you described this, or where can a description be found? What do the return values mean? The comments are very little help. What situations do they cover?

How does this relate to your algorithm? Please explain the algorithm in simple terms, with precise definitions.

Your slides provide NO USEFUL INFORMATION WHATSOEVER. If you cannot see that someone who doesn't already know what HAM is will be TOTALLY UNABLE to understand your slides, then you have a serious problem seeing things from another's point of view and should get somebody else to do your documentation for you.

Believe me, it's not from lack of trying on my part. I'm not stupid. I'm an experienced developer and familiar with the internal workings of many different database systems. It's my job and my hobby. I have maintained and contributed to several database systems. Your slides are intriguing but meaningless to me.

Your list of definitions ('Semantics') redefines many things that already have perfectly good definitions, and declares new terminology for concepts that already have perfectly good labels.

Many of the definitions are vague or even nonsensical/self-inconsistent.

For example: "soul': is the practically unique, immutable identifier for a node".

OK, so it's an identifier for a Node. So it's a Node ID. Why don't you just call it that?

But what does 'practically unique' mean? Something is either unique, or it isn't. It might be unique in a particular context, e.g. only in one instance of the database, or application, or server, ... or... what?

And what's a 'node'? "A group of no, one, some, or all fields, as they change over time." Well, you've redefined a perfectly good piece of jargon with a new and vague description. Node seems like a really bad word for this. In what way is a set of fields anything like a 'node' in the general sense? How does a node capture things over time? Is it a list, a history, an event log....?

"A group of no, one, some, or all" is better known as a 'set'. This is universally-accepted mathematical terminology. Except you've redefined that too.

And if something is a set of fields.... hey, how about calling it a field set? You know, like everybody else does...? Oh, no, let's call it a node instead....

My favourite: "Sent: proof that a message was received, might contain data that needs no receipt." The more you study this sentence, the more nonsensical and ambiguous it becomes. For a start, why not call it 'Received'? Or even 'Receipt', because that's the common noun for an item showing proof of receipt. Except, that you might need to prove receipt of data that needs no receipt... It is a ridiculous definition.

I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously.

Frankly, it sounds like you yourself don't understand the domain and concepts you are describing, and are handwaving to cover your lack of knowledge. The fact that you provide your own terminology for things that could quite easily be described in standard terms betrays a lack of theoretical background, and ignorance of the state-of-the-art.

I'd venture a guess that your being REALLY, REALLY bad at explaining things may be correlated with the fact that you're apparently really good at describing tiny things in the most grandiose and self-aggrandizing terms. This seems to be ubiquitous across all your github projects. Redefining things unnecessarily, solving things that already have simple solutions, describing toy apps as radical revolutionary game-changers. I suspect your inability to explain things stems from this narcissism/egocentrism.