All,
When I first moved here, seven years ago, Owen set me down and eldered me concerning "citizens like me" who have no respect for threads, whereas, people like YOU, people who really are experienced with computers, see the importance of not bending threads But this is the worst gang of @##!@&% thread benders I have ever had the misfortune to talk with. Thus, I now find myself in the unlikely role of the FRIAM thread fascist. Owen, you can pass me the Official Gavel, next time we meet. ANYWAY, thank you Glen for steering us back at least part toward the question I raised, which was about whether complexity and instability were related. Owen introduced what I would call the Jenga (quod googlet <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga> ) model of complexity - you keep adding stuff until it's so baroque the whole thing falls over when you touch it. But even tho I started the argument, I am not sure what is the operating definition of complexity we are working with. I have have two quite contradictory definitions floating around in my head: (1) the number of bits and pieces x the number of kinds of bits and pieces or (2)the number of organizational levels in the system. The two definitions work at cross purposes in my head because I think of heaps of stuff as being unstable and hierarchical systems as (usually) stable. Glen now introduces (with respect to programming languages) a new dimension, expressivity vs generality. I know j.s. about computer languages, but the metaphor of expressivity is intriguing to me, particularly when opposed to generality. Is the genetic code expressive or general? And how do they related to complexity. And what is YOUR working definition of complexity. N -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:24 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor Edward Angel wrote at 02/08/2013 08:02 AM: > Although it might seem that I would have a similar view as Bruce since > we both support 3D graphics for educational purposes, my experience is > exactly the opposite of Bruce's. [...] Perhaps it's my own abstraction run amok, but this whole discussion reminds me of the recent one about Doug's friends Dick and Bart: glen wrote at 01/15/2013 03:37 PM: > I suspect Dick had methods he invented for his astrophysics and Bart > invented methods for ... billing people. 8^) And I suspect they were > competent with those tools. But I also suspect those tools did not > translate well to non-astrophysicists or non-lawyers ... or perhaps > even very many astrophysicists or very many lawyers. Forget complexity (kind or degree), the metric is universality. The more expressive a tool, the less likely any particular use case for the tool will apply across a large cohort. The less expressive a tool, the more likely a particular use case will translate, at least between commonly structured individuals. This discussion ranges over a very limited set of highly expressive tools. It makes complete sense that a particular use case for, say, a Mac would not translate between even very similar users. The beauty of on OS, a GUI, or a tightly coupled monolithically integrated toolchain is that it _limits_ the universality of the tool, thereby making it easier to translate any particular use case amongst the members of a cohort. If you're not in that cohort, well, tough luck for you ... You have to puncture the monolithic toolchain, the GUI, or the OS to get what you want. (E.g. Marcus' description of analyzing to the bottom.) You need a more expressive tool in order to formulate and satisfy your use case. If you're belligerent and want to retain the monolith, but coerce it into a suboptimal satisficing for your compromised use case, then you have to continually react to the slight changes in the toolchain. Your compromised use case (and its generating machinery) is _fragile_ to changes in context. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, <http://tempusdictum.com> http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
