Hi there! My name is Bee, but most of my friends call me Gigi. Thank you for taking a minute to learn about me and about Davis Geometric.
I spent the last two decades doing in-the-trenches engineering on some of the world's most iconic machine-learning systems. When NASA laid me off, I finally had time to turn all that hard-won engineering intuition into hard-working mathematics and theory. What came out of it was a tiny Riemannian manifold — and that little manifold proved one thing elegantly: we've been doing the math in machine learning wrong. Measuring real-world data with flat Euclidean geometry gets you partial truth, some of the time, at best.
Davis Geometric is my deep dive into the math that makes my version of anomaly detection, pattern matching, and topological physics actually work. I'm not a classically trained physicist. I'm a thorough researcher. I theorize, I build, I observe, I revise, I theorize again. Nine platforms later, I'm still learning lessons from that little manifold.
Thank you again for taking the time. I hope to hear from you soon.
— Gigi
A field manual for the fiber-bundle database engine at the center of every Davis Geometric platform. Ingest schema, GQL queries, bundle primitives, and the geometric operations — curvature, holonomy, transport, geodesic — that make cross-domain reasoning possible.
Written for engineers who want to use GIGI, not just read about it. Worked examples spanning plasma diagnostics, LLM inference, vulnerability research, GNC, and precision agriculture — same engine, same operations, different data.
Get the book on Amazon →The Davis Manifold — a Riemannian framework where cross-domain problems (plasma confinement, drug binding, portfolio regime detection, LLM inference) reduce to geodesic navigation on a shared constraint manifold. Nine research platforms, thirty provisional patents, ten published books. Independent research, open to collaboration.
Many hard problems reduce to the same geometry. Protein folding, market regime detection, plasma confinement, neural network inference — all admit a manifold formulation where the "hard part" is curvature navigation. Domain expertise often obscures that shared structure; the Davis Manifold treats it as the primary object of study.
Each platform is a distinct research artifact — separate codebase, separate provisional patent family — but every one of them reduces to the same primitive: geodesic navigation on a constraint manifold, computed against the GIGI fiber-bundle database. Different data. Same engine.
1/(1+K). /icarus →Many classical heuristics — Monte Carlo, gradient descent, constraint propagation, MCTS — can be recovered as limiting cases of the same curvature-guided scheduling, when specific geometric weight components go to zero.
Many constrained decision problems admit a manifold structure — not as metaphor, but as literal Riemannian geometry with metric tensor, connection, and holonomy. When they do, the Davis Manifold theory provides a coordinate-free language that makes the "hard parts" visible as curvature, and the solution path apparent as a geodesic.
Imagine you're solving a jigsaw puzzle. This formula tells you which piece to try next. It looks at how constrained a spot is (few pieces fit there) plus how constrained its neighbors are, divided by how many options you have. High score = solve this first because it will make everything else easier. The magic: this same formula works for drug molecules, plasma control, financial portfolios — anything.
V(x) is an instantiation of the framework's capacity principle: capacity (C) equals tolerance (τ) divided by curvature (K). The information value at any point is exactly what remains when you divide how much variation the system can tolerate by how curved (constrained) that region is. Full derivation in the Davis Manifold paper.
Think of navigating a city. The first term is distance. The second is "avoid traffic" — don't go through congested areas. The third is "stay oriented" — don't take so many turns you get lost. The best route minimizes all three, weighted by what matters to you. The path that minimizes this energy is the optimal solution to any problem — finding a drug, stabilizing plasma, optimizing a portfolio. Same equation, different interpretations of "distance" and "twist."
Any geodesic satisfying E[γ] = minimum also satisfies the identity S + d² = 1: sameness (S) plus squared deviation (d²) equals unity. Every optimal path carries this identity as an on-the-wire certificate — the same identity, checked the same way, across every platform. Derivation in the Field Equations paper.
Not proposals or prototypes — production research platforms, each with measurable performance against domain-leading baselines. Nothing here is a promise; every number below has a paper trail behind it, linked from the platform documentation.
DEMETER (precision agriculture) is the newest platform and its provisional filings are in progress.
"You can't solve plasma confinement with the same math as drug binding."
Often the objection is right about the values and wrong about the calculus. Plasma confinement and drug binding have wildly different curvature values, and wildly different geodesic paths — but the curvature is computed the same way, the geodesic is minimized against the same variational principle, and the fiber-bundle representation is the same. Much of what looks like domain-specific complexity is coordinate choice; the hard part — navigating a constraint manifold efficiently — is shared.