Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Phil Henshaw]

Steve,

I guess it wasn't clear what I meant, and you seem to be sorting over and
over what is the correct pretence is for relating one body of work to
another.  I think bodies of work are like species in a jungle, all part of
the same jungle.I think the two extensions of the conservation laws,
mine and Noether's, are quite different.   Certainly how hers has been used
is greatly different from how I use mine. If anyone has questions. or
finds a glitch. etc. I'd of course be interested.

 

Phil Henshaw  

NY NY  www.synapse9.com

 

From: Steve Smith [mailto:sasm...@swcp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:40 PM
To: s...@synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

 

Phil Henshaw wrote: 

Owen, 
You say:
 
Clip...
  

I'm sure you don't mean to put yourself in the same class as Emmy
Noether, right?  She's of the same historic stature as most of the
early 1900's best scientists, and her symmetry discoveries surely
should have won her a Nobel.


[ph] Well, equally, I'm sure you don't mean that pretense is important in
scientific questions either, right?   I had not known of Noether's theorem
before Saul mentioned the similarity between my prior comment to Steve and
her extension of the conservation laws.   It does seem similar to the one I
did that I was referring to, and my general theorem would seem, initially,
to have Noether's theorem as a limited case.   
 
  


This reminds me of the difference in idiom between the person who says "Did
you notice that I look a lot like Russel Crowe?" and the one who says "Did
you notice that Russel Crowe looks a lot like me?"   It is (more)
conventional to compare ourselves to those (through popularity or recognized
work) rather than them to us.   I believe that both are  correct and
somewhat factually symmetric, but illuminate a critical difference in
perspective.

I admit that when I discover that something I'm working on has been well
covered by someone previous to me, that I have a mix of satisfaction (I
*knew* I was on the right path), of jealousy (it's not *fair* that someone
already took credit for this discovery), and hope (maybe my approach,
unsullied by the "conventional" has something new to offer that was missed
the first time).

I sense that those of us (active?) on this list range across the spectrum
from folks who thoroughly study "previous work" as we proceed, and those who
proceed without necessarily being so thorough.  Sometimes it is the
ignorance of previous work that allows us to find something new, rather than
being limited by what might have been minor mistakes or lack of perspective
in previous work.  On the other hand, we can spend our entire lives simply
re-inventing (discovering) things that were long-since well understood.

One of my areas of interest is in the emergence of new concepts in Science
as well as the convergence of Scientific Disciplines.   It is common for
researchers in one field to not be aware of previous work in another and to
reproduce it under slightly differing contexts, terminology and assumptions.
Ultimately someone in one field or the other (or in a unifying or spanning
field like nonlinear systems, operations research, modeling and simulation,
etc.) to recognize the overlap of work and do the (then) hard work of
resolving one against the other.   This is why being a research librarian or
working in a patent office might be a great way to become a great
inventor/discoverer.

Our recent discussions about Cladistics are apropos of this topic.   In the
process of classifying sets of systems or artifacts, one often discovers
interesting overlaps and redundancies.


- Steve


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Steve Smith]

Phil Henshaw wrote:

  Owen, 
You say:

Clip...
  
  
I'm sure you don't mean to put yourself in the same class as Emmy
Noether, right?  She's of the same historic stature as most of the
early 1900's best scientists, and her symmetry discoveries surely
should have won her a Nobel.

  
  [ph] Well, equally, I'm sure you don't mean that pretense is important in
scientific questions either, right?   I had not known of Noether's theorem
before Saul mentioned the similarity between my prior comment to Steve and
her extension of the conservation laws.   It does seem similar to the one I
did that I was referring to, and my general theorem would seem, initially,
to have Noether's theorem as a limited case.   

  


This reminds me of the difference in idiom between the person who says
"Did you notice that I look a lot like Russel Crowe?" and the one who
says "Did you notice that Russel Crowe looks a lot like me?"   It is
(more) conventional to compare ourselves to those (through popularity
or recognized work) rather than them to us.   I believe that both are 
correct and  somewhat factually symmetric, but illuminate a critical
difference in perspective.

I admit that when I discover that something I'm working on has been
well covered by someone previous to me, that I have a mix of
satisfaction (I *knew* I was on the right path), of jealousy (it's not
*fair* that someone already took credit for this discovery), and hope
(maybe my approach, unsullied by the "conventional" has something new
to offer that was missed the first time).

I sense that those of us (active?) on this list range across the
spectrum from folks who thoroughly study "previous work" as we proceed,
and those who proceed without necessarily being so thorough.  Sometimes
it is the ignorance of previous work that allows us to find something
new, rather than being limited by what might have been minor mistakes
or lack of perspective in previous work.  On the other hand, we can
spend our entire lives simply re-inventing (discovering) things that
were long-since well understood.

One of my areas of interest is in the emergence of new concepts in
Science as well as the convergence of Scientific Disciplines.   It is
common for researchers in one field to not be aware of previous work in
another and to reproduce it under slightly differing contexts,
terminology and assumptions.   Ultimately someone in one field or the
other (or in a unifying or spanning field like nonlinear systems,
operations research, modeling and simulation, etc.) to recognize the
overlap of work and do the (then) hard work of resolving one against
the other.   This is why being a research librarian or working in a
patent office might be a great way to become a great
inventor/discoverer.

Our recent discussions about Cladistics are apropos of this topic.   In
the process of classifying sets of systems or artifacts, one often
discovers interesting overlaps and redundancies.


- Steve





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Phil Henshaw]

Owen, 
You say:

Clip...
> 
> I'm sure you don't mean to put yourself in the same class as Emmy
> Noether, right?  She's of the same historic stature as most of the
> early 1900's best scientists, and her symmetry discoveries surely
> should have won her a Nobel.
[ph] Well, equally, I'm sure you don't mean that pretense is important in
scientific questions either, right?   I had not known of Noether's theorem
before Saul mentioned the similarity between my prior comment to Steve and
her extension of the conservation laws.   It does seem similar to the one I
did that I was referring to, and my general theorem would seem, initially,
to have Noether's theorem as a limited case.   

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether
> 
> Its hard to imagine a "next level" for her work in this context!
> Start here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
> and let us know where to extrapolate to get to your theorem.
> 
Clip...
> 
> Can you formalize this in the same way Emmy did?  That certainly would
> put your work on the map big time!
[ph] I did, extending the linkage of the conservation laws for undefined and
open systems 14 years ago and refreshed it last fall, told you and others
about it, and submitted it to Complexity again.  Not a sole responded with
any comment or question.  Over the years I've mentioned it to hundreds of
physicists and mathematicians and believe I have never gotten any comment
except one friend of a friend reportedly saying "it doesn't go anywhere"
about 12 years ago.   It presents continuity as an envelope of developmental
possibilities, and serves as a guide to locating and investigating them.

 
> Sorry if I appear reactionary, but my Quantum Electrodynamics teacher
> spent many a patient hour letting us get a peak of just how ground-
> breaking her work was and how it was used by generations of physicists
> as a means of tackling problems that were otherwise intractable.
[ph] no not reactionary at all, just uninquisitive. 

> 
> I'm not sure of the details of Murray Gell-Mann's work leading to the
> Nobel, but I suspect Emmy was needed to pave the way.
[ph] I have not yet spent the time needed to understand the range of
Noether's work, but I'd surely concur there are indeed lots and lots of
people whose major insights wait and wait for some linkage with other things
to be of either general use or get the recognition they deserve.  I think
that's even an important feature of how complex systems work, how their
development seems to rely on strings of wonderful found objects that seem to
connect unusually well.  I think that's a lot of what the mystery is.

Best,

Phil Henshaw  
NY NY  www.synapse9.com
> 
> -- Owen





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Owen Densmore]

On Jan 6, 2009, at 7:24 AM, Phil Henshaw wrote:


Saul,

On first glance it appears that Noether's theorem is quite similar  
to mine,

but just does not take it to the next level.


I'm sure you don't mean to put yourself in the same class as Emmy  
Noether, right?  She's of the same historic stature as most of the  
early 1900's best scientists, and her symmetry discoveries surely  
should have won her a Nobel.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether

Its hard to imagine a "next level" for her work in this context!   
Start here:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
and let us know where to extrapolate to get to your theorem.


My similar theorem starts
from extrapolating the three conservation laws for energy flow as a
hierarchy applying to all derivative levels, apparently like Noether  
seems
to do.   Taking that another step finds that the whole hierarchy of  
separate

laws becomes one unified law of continuity in energy flows.The
particular usefulness of that is to then work backwards from the n'th
derivative to observe that the form of equation for the  beginning  
or ending
of any energy flow is a developmental sequence which has all  
derivatives
real and of the same sign for a finite period as a necessity for  
avoiding

infinite accelerations and energy densities.


Can you formalize this in the same way Emmy did?  That certainly would  
put your work on the map big time!


Sorry if I appear reactionary, but my Quantum Electrodynamics teacher  
spent many a patient hour letting us get a peak of just how ground- 
breaking her work was and how it was used by generations of physicists  
as a means of tackling problems that were otherwise intractable.


I'm not sure of the details of Murray Gell-Mann's work leading to the  
Nobel, but I suspect Emmy was needed to pave the way.


   -- Owen



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Phil Henshaw]

Saul,

On first glance it appears that Noether's theorem is quite similar to mine,
but just does not take it to the next level.   My similar theorem starts
from extrapolating the three conservation laws for energy flow as a
hierarchy applying to all derivative levels, apparently like Noether seems
to do.   Taking that another step finds that the whole hierarchy of separate
laws becomes one unified law of continuity in energy flows.The
particular usefulness of that is to then work backwards from the n'th
derivative to observe that the form of equation for the  beginning or ending
of any energy flow is a developmental sequence which has all derivatives
real and of the same sign for a finite period as a necessity for avoiding
infinite accelerations and energy densities.

 

So, finding rates of change that are all of the same sign then indicates
where one might find a conserved process that is beginning or ending.
What I find most useful is the unprovable extension of the principle, that
anything displaying continuity of change is a conserved process, and
measures of it may have useful conservation laws of their own at least
temporarily.For example, a complex system's total mass (however
estimated) often behaves as if a strictly conserved quantity, changing only
by smoothly differentiable progressions of change.   That's basically how
business development or the health of newborn infants is gauged, using
stable rates of changing scale as a stand-in for complex system
developmental health.Sometimes the conserved properties of systems
display emergent or transient derivative continuities, ones that weren't
there before.   One well documented example is in my plankton punctuated
equilibrium study, where the speciation event was shown to be comprised of a
series of emerging eruptions of developmental change in the organism's
profile area. 

 

Yes, it may well be true that being able to classify things need not be
particularly informative.  As you say, Nothier's theorem only holds for
certain classes of problems, but I think that suggestion is that that class
may be most generally for the class of problems that involve continuity.
It's just a guess, but maybe the way the Wikipedia entry states the
restrictions of Nothier's theorem to systems following Lagrangian dynamics
and so excludes dissipative processes indicates that the theorem might have
been developed with unnecessary shortcuts that reduce its generality.

 

Theorem http://www.synapse9.com/drtheo.pdf 

Background an applying to physical systems
http://www.synapse9.com/physicsofchange.htm  

 

Best,

 

Phil Henshaw  

NY NY  www.synapse9.com

 

From: Saul Caganoff [mailto:scagan...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 6:44 AM
To: s...@synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

 

Phil, 

your statement in bold below peaked my interest because there seems to be a
tenuous analogy with symmetry or conservation laws as described by Noether's
theorem <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem> . This theorem
relates symmetries in a physical system to conservation laws. E.g.
rotational symmetry in space is related to conservation of angular momentum.

So does your observation relating energy transfer to derivative continuity
have a deeper basis behind it?

Also with respect to ABM classification, Noether's theorem only holds for
certain classes of physical problem and hence could form a basis for
classification. Similarly for your observation?

After all, there are two classes of  - those that
fall into two classes and those that don't  :-)

Regards,
Saul Caganoff  




On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Phil Henshaw  wrote:

Steve,

Well,. there are rather practical sides to some kinds of top level views.
You might notice, possibly, that wherever energy transfer is involved
derivative continuity in developmental processes will be too.   That tells
you nothing at all bye itself, but might give you a great observation tool.
I use it something like a change process magnifying glass. Where a
natural system subject of interest displays continuities of energy flow, or
any other similarly conserved property only changed by addition or
subtraction, it may give you a clear view of the sequence of assembly
(adding and subtracting steps) for the complex systems involved. Seeing
how it's done naturally might give you ideas, or even help you replicate
things of similar kinds.

 

Phil Henshaw  

NY NY  www.synapse9.com

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

 

Doug -


On the other hand, top (top, top, top) level views which result in such
profound observations such as

*   Order matters,

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Saul Caganoff]

Phil,

your statement in bold below peaked my interest because there seems to be a
tenuous analogy with symmetry or conservation laws as described by Noether's
theorem <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem>. This theorem
relates symmetries in a physical system to conservation laws. E.g.
rotational symmetry in space is related to conservation of angular momentum.

So does your observation relating energy transfer to derivative continuity
have a deeper basis behind it?

Also with respect to ABM classification, Noether's theorem only holds for
certain classes of physical problem and hence could form a basis for
classification. Similarly for your observation?

After all, there are two classes of  - those that
fall into two classes and those that don't  :-)

Regards,
Saul Caganoff



On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Phil Henshaw  wrote:

>  Steve,
>
> Well,… there are rather practical sides to some kinds of top level views.
> You might notice, possibly, that *wherever energy transfer is involved
> derivative continuity in developmental processes will be too*.   That
> tells you nothing at all bye itself, but might give you a great observation
> tool.   I use it something like a change process magnifying glass. Where
> a natural system subject of interest displays continuities of energy flow,
> or any other similarly conserved property only changed by addition or
> subtraction, it may give you a clear view of the sequence of assembly
> (adding and subtracting steps) for the complex systems involved. Seeing
> how it's done naturally might give you ideas, or even help you replicate
> things of similar kinds.
>
>
>
> Phil Henshaw
>
> NY NY  www.synapse9.com
>
>
>
> *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Steve Smith
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:44 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's
>
>
>
> Doug -
>
>
> On the other hand, top (top, top, top) level views which result in such
> profound observations such as
>
>- Order matters, or
>- Complexity is, or
>- Taxonomies exist
>
> rarely hold much interest for me, unless they make the job of designing
> functional complex systems easier.
>
> Which is why I give you high marks for pragmatism!
> clip…
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>



-- 
Saul Caganoff
Enterprise IT Architect
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scaganoff

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Phil Henshaw]

Steve,

Well,. there are rather practical sides to some kinds of top level views.
You might notice, possibly, that wherever energy transfer is involved
derivative continuity in developmental processes will be too.   That tells
you nothing at all bye itself, but might give you a great observation tool.
I use it something like a change process magnifying glass. Where a
natural system subject of interest displays continuities of energy flow, or
any other similarly conserved property only changed by addition or
subtraction, it may give you a clear view of the sequence of assembly
(adding and subtracting steps) for the complex systems involved. Seeing
how it's done naturally might give you ideas, or even help you replicate
things of similar kinds.

 

Phil Henshaw  

NY NY  www.synapse9.com

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

 

Doug -




On the other hand, top (top, top, top) level views which result in such
profound observations such as

*   Order matters, or
*   Complexity is, or
*   Taxonomies exist

rarely hold much interest for me, unless they make the job of designing
functional complex systems easier.

Which is why I give you high marks for pragmatism!   
clip.


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[glen e. p. ropella]

Thus spake John Kennison circa 05/01/09 08:34 AM:
> Perhaps the first step in forming a taxonomy is to see if there is a
> reasonable way to distinguish ABMs from non-ABMs. I am guessing here,
> but is using a subroutine the alternative to using an ABM? (For
> example, is it the case that a subroutine which computes square roots
> can be viewed as an agent whose purpose in life is to find square
> roots?) Is the difference merely a matter of FOR? If my distinction
> between subroutines and ABMs makes sense, are some features that
> would make something more likely to be thought of as an ABM rather
> than a subroutine?

It might be helpful to consider Oren and Yilmaz's (I think it was
theirs) classification of:

agent-oriented simulation
agent-directed simulation
agent-based simulation

My own interpretation (which I forget how well it matches theirs) is
basically that agent-orientation only implies that, regardless of the
implementation, it is useful to _think_ of the objects and behavior as
agents.  Indeed, there need not even be any well-formed (quantum/atomic)
units.  E.g. a term in an equation over a continuous space might be
_thought_ of as an agent.

An agent-directed simulation is one where the implementation is
unspecified (might be agent-based, might not); but that implementation
is controlled by agents (to which executive control is delegated by the
human).

An agent-based simulation, however, requires the implementation to
consist (primarily) of agents.  (However one may define "agent".)

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Douglas Roberts wrote:
There are many alternative simulation styles to an ABM simulation 
architecture:


* Discrete-event queuing models
* Continuous systems simulation (ex: CSMP)
* Procedural discrete event (ex: SimSCRIPT)
* CA

The use (or not) of a subroutine in the underlying code  has nothing 
to do with the simulation architecture being used.


Each of these is a recipe of sorts, and it ought be be possible with 
static analysis techniques or runtime profiling (tracking the life and 
death of objects, intra-agent mutations, and inter-agent communication) 
to detect that recipe, or at least contrast it to others.  Like having 
cake and knowing it is not a cookie. 


Marcus

P.S. Last night's 60 minutes had a fun piece on functional MRI.  Person 
thinks `hammer' and the computer predicts from the scan data that the 
user is thinking `hammer'.  Person thinks `apartment', the computer 
predicts apartment.   Folks at LANL are working on this too 
http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_spring03/squid_text.shtml




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Steve Smith]

Though John's statement *does* beg the question of what is meant by
"Agent Based Model".   There is a whole galaxy of discussion to be had
about "Agency".   What is conventionally termed "Agent Based Modeling"
only barely references and certainly does not require any significant
"agency" on the model's parts.   

I can't remember if this can of worms has already been opened and
thoroughly sorted through on-list before.   I don't need to do that
myself, but I suppose I'm asking for it by even offering up the
can-opener here!

- Steve
There are many alternative simulation styles to an ABM
simulation architecture:
  
Discrete-event queuing models
Continuous systems simulation (ex: CSMP)

Procedural discrete event (ex: SimSCRIPT)
CA

  
The use (or not) of a subroutine in the underlying code  has nothing to
do with the simulation architecture being used.
  
--Doug
  
  On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:34 AM, John
Kennison <jkenni...@clarku.edu>
wrote:
  

Perhaps the first step in forming a taxonomy is to see if there is a
reasonable way to distinguish ABMs from non-ABMs. I am guessing here,
but is using a subroutine the alternative to using an ABM? (For
example, is it the case that a subroutine which computes square roots
can be viewed as an agent whose purpose in life is to find square
roots?) Is the difference merely a matter of FOR? If my distinction
between subroutines and ABMs makes sense, are some features that would
make something more likely to be thought of as an ABM rather than a
subroutine?

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com
[friam-boun...@redfish.com]
On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts [d...@parrot-farm.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 2:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's


Jim,

I cheerfully concede that one is free to view the universe or any of
its subcomponents through an astoundingly large variety of frames of
reference (FOR).  Whichever FOR best gets a person through the day is
the one that should be used.  As a not-so-extreme example, an
acquaintance of mine has adopted a particular FOR that allows him to
believe with every fiber in his being that the Mountain Meadows
Massacre<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre>
of September, 1857 (an event that occurred well within the annals of
recorded history) was perpetrated by American Indians.

Myself, I prefer to us a FOR that requires the minimum of force-fitting
to help me get my job done.  However, those of you out there who have
this apparent burning desire to see taxonomy structure as the frame of
reference which will provide the guiding light into the magical mystery
wonderland of successful ABM design,  go for it!

Myself, I don't see much traction there.  But, on the other hand, I
believe the Mountain Meadows Massacre was on Mormons by other Mormons.
 Go figure.

--Doug


On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Nicholas
Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.netnickthomp...@earthlink.net>>
wrote:
Jim,

Don't blame the form of the question on Doug.

I supplied the straw.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edunthomp...@clarku.edu>)




> [Original Message]
> From: Jim Gattiker <j.gatti...@googlemail.comj.gatti...@googlemail.com>>
> To: <nickthomp...@earthlink.netnickthomp...@earthlink.net>>;
The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <friam@redfish.comfriam@redfish.com>>

> Date: 1/4/2009 8:57:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's
>
> > AHA!  you DO have a taxonomy.
>
> To pile on here (I suspect Doug can take it):
>
>   Doug, after you set up the straw man that there was no taxonomy
> possible, you went on to discuss how you believe there is, in an
> implementation sense, a core set of ABM features. I suggest also
that
> software engineers work on ABM environments because the notion of a
> core functionality augmented with structured parts is a compelling
> idea. IF there's a core set of features, AND there are consequent
> optional features, THEN this is a taxonomy. No? At least in
> implementation.
>
>    --jim




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org





  
  
  
  


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Douglas Roberts]

There are many alternative simulation styles to an ABM simulation
architecture:

   - Discrete-event queuing models
   - Continuous systems simulation (ex: CSMP)
   - Procedural discrete event (ex: SimSCRIPT)
   - CA

The use (or not) of a subroutine in the underlying code  has nothing to do
with the simulation architecture being used.

--Doug

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:34 AM, John Kennison  wrote:

>
>
> Perhaps the first step in forming a taxonomy is to see if there is a
> reasonable way to distinguish ABMs from non-ABMs. I am guessing here, but is
> using a subroutine the alternative to using an ABM? (For example, is it the
> case that a subroutine which computes square roots can be viewed as an agent
> whose purpose in life is to find square roots?) Is the difference merely a
> matter of FOR? If my distinction between subroutines and ABMs makes sense,
> are some features that would make something more likely to be thought of as
> an ABM rather than a subroutine?
> 
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
> Douglas Roberts [d...@parrot-farm.net]
> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 2:16 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's
>
> Jim,
>
> I cheerfully concede that one is free to view the universe or any of its
> subcomponents through an astoundingly large variety of frames of reference
> (FOR).  Whichever FOR best gets a person through the day is the one that
> should be used.  As a not-so-extreme example, an acquaintance of mine has
> adopted a particular FOR that allows him to believe with every fiber in his
> being that the Mountain Meadows Massacre<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre> of September, 1857
> (an event that occurred well within the annals of recorded history) was
> perpetrated by American Indians.
>
> Myself, I prefer to us a FOR that requires the minimum of force-fitting to
> help me get my job done.  However, those of you out there who have this
> apparent burning desire to see taxonomy structure as the frame of reference
> which will provide the guiding light into the magical mystery wonderland of
> successful ABM design,  go for it!
>
> Myself, I don't see much traction there.  But, on the other hand, I believe
> the Mountain Meadows Massacre was on Mormons by other Mormons.  Go figure.
>
> --Doug
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
> nickthomp...@earthlink.net<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Don't blame the form of the question on Doug.
>
> I supplied the straw.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu<mailto:nthomp...@clarku.edu>)
>
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jim Gattiker  j.gatti...@googlemail.com>>
> > To: mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>; The
> Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> > Date: 1/4/2009 8:57:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's
> >
> > > AHA!  you DO have a taxonomy.
> >
> > To pile on here (I suspect Doug can take it):
> >
> >   Doug, after you set up the straw man that there was no taxonomy
> > possible, you went on to discuss how you believe there is, in an
> > implementation sense, a core set of ABM features. I suggest also that
> > software engineers work on ABM environments because the notion of a
> > core functionality augmented with structured parts is a compelling
> > idea. IF there's a core set of features, AND there are consequent
> > optional features, THEN this is a taxonomy. No? At least in
> > implementation.
> >
> >--jim
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[John Kennison]

Perhaps the first step in forming a taxonomy is to see if there is a reasonable 
way to distinguish ABMs from non-ABMs. I am guessing here, but is using a 
subroutine the alternative to using an ABM? (For example, is it the case that a 
subroutine which computes square roots can be viewed as an agent whose purpose 
in life is to find square roots?) Is the difference merely a matter of FOR? If 
my distinction between subroutines and ABMs makes sense, are some features that 
would make something more likely to be thought of as an ABM rather than a 
subroutine?

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of 
Douglas Roberts [d...@parrot-farm.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 2:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

Jim,

I cheerfully concede that one is free to view the universe or any of its 
subcomponents through an astoundingly large variety of frames of reference 
(FOR).  Whichever FOR best gets a person through the day is the one that should 
be used.  As a not-so-extreme example, an acquaintance of mine has adopted a 
particular FOR that allows him to believe with every fiber in his being that 
the Mountain Meadows 
Massacre<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre> of September, 
1857 (an event that occurred well within the annals of recorded history) was 
perpetrated by American Indians.

Myself, I prefer to us a FOR that requires the minimum of force-fitting to help 
me get my job done.  However, those of you out there who have this apparent 
burning desire to see taxonomy structure as the frame of reference which will 
provide the guiding light into the magical mystery wonderland of successful ABM 
design,  go for it!

Myself, I don't see much traction there.  But, on the other hand, I believe the 
Mountain Meadows Massacre was on Mormons by other Mormons.  Go figure.

--Doug

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Nicholas Thompson 
mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> wrote:
Jim,

Don't blame the form of the question on Doug.

I supplied the straw.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu<mailto:nthomp...@clarku.edu>)




> [Original Message]
> From: Jim Gattiker 
> mailto:j.gatti...@googlemail.com>>
> To: mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>; The 
> Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> Date: 1/4/2009 8:57:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's
>
> > AHA!  you DO have a taxonomy.
>
> To pile on here (I suspect Doug can take it):
>
>   Doug, after you set up the straw man that there was no taxonomy
> possible, you went on to discuss how you believe there is, in an
> implementation sense, a core set of ABM features. I suggest also that
> software engineers work on ABM environments because the notion of a
> core functionality augmented with structured parts is a compelling
> idea. IF there's a core set of features, AND there are consequent
> optional features, THEN this is a taxonomy. No? At least in
> implementation.
>
>--jim




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[glen e. p. ropella]

Thus spake Steve Smith circa 01/04/2009 03:27 PM:
> Taxonomies are most useful (IMO) to those who are (as you point out with Doug 
> as 
> teacher of ABM 101) entering a field "naive", or who are trying to understand 
> something "forest-ey" rather than "tree-ey".

I suppose I disagree slightly with both this statement and Doug's
general position that a classification system is only relatively useful.

Classification systems are critical for delegation.  The software
engineering methods Doug introduced into the conversation are a classic
example.  We classify things and behaviors not only to understand and
teach, but to put the free cycles of those around us to work on our
problems.  Without such classification methods, e.g. OOP, we can't build
large complicated structures.

But for the academics on the list, any such classification that obtains
after being used for awhile is NOT "true".  Useful, yes.  True, no.  And
the usefulness of it is context dependent.

That's why we end up settling on more abstract methods that allow us to
create a classification "on the fly".  Systems engineering is a set of
methods for doing just that.  It's a set of methods for classifying a
domain (and problem in that domain) whenever we want to.  (It also
includes changing the classification when we learn that our original
class structure - of objects and behaviors - is broken.)

Once we have the temporary, context dependent classification, we can
delegate work to the drones we have at our disposal.  (BTW, "drone" is a
role, not type.  Brilliant people can act as drones just by acting
outside their field of expertise.)

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Douglas Roberts]

Ditto here, except it's a 200+ year old kiva fireplace. We should have a
FRIAM neighborhood toddy fest before too much more time goes by.

Welcome to the group, Jack.

Cheers,

--Doug (noeeno)

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  Doug-
>
> Steve(orino)
>
> I find it interesting that we are having this conversation while
> comfortably seated  about 16 minutes from each 
> other,
> and all the rest of FRIAM remains thuddingly silent.  Do you suppose we said
> something to offend them?
>
> No, we just like the sounds of our own rattling/crotchety voices...
> though we should be sharing a brew (or hot toddy) and holding the
> conversation in person instead.
>
> I'm sitting here stoking my woodstove, waiting for the snow to cover my
> woodpile, and trying to stretch to one more level of abstraction before I go
> back to figuring out how to keep the cash flow positive without boring
> myself to death.
>
> For you entertainment, Jack Horner, who just joined us, is almost exactly
> 1/2 way between us geographically.   He's probably halfway through genning
> up a set of conclusive ABM taxonomies single-handedly... he actually *does*
> stuff like that for fun, and he's shockingly good at it.   But I'm pretty
> sure nobody ever pays him to do such, though they have been known to publish
> it in various well-respected Journals (a currency of it's own sort).
>
> He also writes a monthly "Practical Science" Column for the Rio Grande Sun,
> if you are ever inclined to read it.  I met the Editor at his house two
> weeks ago, he is practically your neighbor I think!
>
> - Steve or Ino
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>



-- 
Doug Roberts, RTI International
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Steve Smith]

Doug-
Steve(orino)
  
I find it interesting that we are having this conversation while
comfortably seated  about
16 minutes from each other, and all the rest of FRIAM remains
thuddingly silent.  Do you suppose we said something to offend them?

No, we just like the sounds of our own rattling/crotchety voices...  
though we should be sharing a brew (or hot toddy) and holding the
conversation in person instead.

I'm sitting here stoking my woodstove, waiting for the snow to cover my
woodpile, and trying to stretch to one more level of abstraction before
I go back to figuring out how to keep the cash flow positive without
boring myself to death.

For you entertainment, Jack Horner, who just joined us, is almost
exactly 1/2 way between us geographically.   He's probably halfway
through genning up a set of conclusive ABM taxonomies
single-handedly... he actually *does* stuff like that for fun, and he's
shockingly good at it.   But I'm pretty sure nobody ever pays him to do
such, though they have been known to publish it in various
well-respected Journals (a currency of it's own sort).

He also writes a monthly "Practical Science" Column for the Rio Grande
Sun, if you are ever inclined to read it.  I met the Editor at his
house two weeks ago, he is practically your neighbor I think!

- Steve or Ino

  
  
  


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Douglas Roberts]

Steve(orino)

I find it interesting that we are having this conversation while comfortably
seated  about 16 minutes from each
other,
and all the rest of FRIAM remains thuddingly silent.  Do you suppose we said
something to offend them?

--Doug


On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  Doug -
>
>
> On the other hand, top (top, top, top) level views which result in such
> profound observations such as
>
>- Order matters, or
>- Complexity is, or
> - Taxonomies exist
>
> rarely hold much interest for me, unless they make the job of designing
> functional complex systems easier.
>
> Which is why I give you high marks for pragmatism!
>
> I have my own pragmatic side, which is why anybody ever pays me to do
> anything, but it is tempered (or sullied) by a certain sense of seeking and
> appreciating structure where I find (imagine?) it.
>
> Following Jack Horner's (Hi Jack!  Welcome to the Fun-House.) Rubles-worth
> on Cladistics, I appreciate the simple adoption of classification schemes
> for their pragmatic value and agree that this may lead to "many" which are
> "equal" or at least whose value is entirely contextually dependent.  I also
> appreciate the distinction between methods which (try to) reflect descent
> and modification and those who don't.
>
> Mendeleev's development of the Periodic Table (preceded by Dobriener's
> Triads and Newland's Octaves) was a "simple" taxonomy which has paid of
> richly, predicting function from structure long before the underlying
> "causes" were understood.   I can pretend to know their various motives in
> conjuring these "patterns" in the first place, but in the final analysis,
> they turned out to be quite useful.
>
> I share Doug's frustration with abstracting the abstractions ad absurdium,
> though perhaps not as acutely...
>
> I suspect that there is a evolutionary/survival value in  the almost
> obsessive-compulsive need some of us have to try to find structure in
> (impose on?) everything!I don't know if it has been discussed here, but
> a theory was recently put forward that Ausperger-Autistic Spectrum Disorders
> might have origins in a similar manner... a "latent" or "vestigal" survival
> trait that is near the surface, ready to be expressed at the drop of a
> significant change in circumstances.   I'm not sure exactly where OCD or
> Autism is a hands-down survival quality for the individual, but it might
> very well be an important feature in the ensemble of characteristics in a
> group.  Idiot-Savants and all that.
>
> - Steverino
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Steve Smith]

Doug -

On the other hand, top (top, top, top) level views which result in such
profound observations such as
  
Order matters, or
Complexity is, or

Taxonomies exist
  
rarely hold much interest for me, unless they make the job of designing
functional complex systems easier.

Which is why I give you high marks for pragmatism!   

I have my own pragmatic side, which is why anybody ever pays me to do
anything, but it is tempered (or sullied) by a certain sense of seeking
and appreciating structure where I find (imagine?) it.

Following Jack Horner's (Hi Jack!  Welcome to the Fun-House.)
Rubles-worth on Cladistics, I appreciate the simple adoption of
classification schemes for their pragmatic value and agree that this
may lead to "many" which are "equal" or at least whose value is
entirely contextually dependent.  I also appreciate the distinction
between methods which (try to) reflect descent and modification and
those who don't.   

Mendeleev's development of the Periodic Table (preceded by Dobriener's
Triads and Newland's Octaves) was a "simple" taxonomy which has paid of
richly, predicting function from structure long before the underlying
"causes" were understood.   I can pretend to know their various motives
in conjuring these "patterns" in the first place, but in the final
analysis, they turned out to be quite useful.

I share Doug's frustration with abstracting the abstractions ad
absurdium, though perhaps not as acutely...   

I suspect that there is a evolutionary/survival value in  the almost
obsessive-compulsive need some of us have to try to find structure in
(impose on?) everything!    I don't know if it has been discussed here,
but a theory was recently put forward that Ausperger-Autistic Spectrum
Disorders might have origins in a similar manner... a "latent" or
"vestigal" survival trait that is near the surface, ready to be
expressed at the drop of a significant change in circumstances.   I'm
not sure exactly where OCD or Autism is a hands-down survival quality
for the individual, but it might very well be an important feature in
the ensemble of characteristics in a group.  Idiot-Savants and all that.

- Steverino






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Douglas Roberts]

Steverino,

I guess it depends on what your definitions of trees vs. forests are, as
pertains to my particular interest areas.

In order to develop a viable set of requirements for any given simulation
project, one must be able to perceive the top level view, as well as being
capable of translating it into tree-sized chunks to be designed and
implemented, which when running in a functional simulation will address the
top-level requirements.

On the other hand, top (top, top, top) level views which result in such
profound observations such as

   - Order matters, or
   - Complexity is, or
   - Taxonomies exist

rarely hold much interest for me, unless they make the job of designing
functional complex systems easier.

--Doug



On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  Nick -
>
> I think of Taxonomies as having two over-arching properties:
>
>
>1. They are derived/created/recognized only in hindsight.   They
>reflect extant properties of an *already* complex network of relations
>rooted in some form of causality.   Heritability under selection yields
>canalisation and speciation which can ultimately (once fully enough
>elaborated) be described by a taxonomy.
> 2. They are "collective" and "aggregate" and in a sense "emergent".
>The overall structure of a taxonomy exposes some otherwise hidden 
> properties
>(like the varying context in which various stages of evolution were
>executed, like simple symmetries, etc.)
>
> Taxonomies are most useful (IMO) to those who are (as you point out with
> Doug as teacher of ABM 101) entering a field "naive", or who are trying to
> understand something "forest-ey" rather than "tree-ey".   Doug tends toward
> the pragmatic, so I suspect him of being interested in trees more often than
> forests.  I, on the other hand, find trees most interesting for their
> forestness.   This might be why Doug has full-time (paid) work, while I
> spend 40 hours a week trying to create/find 20 hours of paid work!
>
> - Steve
>
>
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Douglas Roberts]

Jim,

I cheerfully concede that one is free to view the universe or any of its
subcomponents through an astoundingly large variety of frames of reference
(FOR).  Whichever FOR best gets a person through the day is the one that
should be used.  As a not-so-extreme example, an acquaintance of mine has
adopted a particular FOR that allows him to believe with every fiber in his
being that the Mountain Meadows
Massacre<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre>of
September, 1857 (an event that occurred well within the annals of
recorded history) was perpetrated by American Indians.

Myself, I prefer to us a FOR that requires the minimum of force-fitting to
help me get my job done.  However, those of you out there who have this
apparent burning desire to see taxonomy structure as the frame of reference
which will provide the guiding light into the magical mystery wonderland of
successful ABM design,  go for it!

Myself, I don't see much traction there.  But, on the other hand, I believe
the Mountain Meadows Massacre was on Mormons by other Mormons.  Go figure.

--Doug

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Jim,
>
> Don't blame the form of the question on Doug.
>
> I supplied the straw.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
>
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jim Gattiker 
> > To: ; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group 
> > Date: 1/4/2009 8:57:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's
> >
> > > AHA!  you DO have a taxonomy.
> >
> > To pile on here (I suspect Doug can take it):
> >
> >   Doug, after you set up the straw man that there was no taxonomy
> > possible, you went on to discuss how you believe there is, in an
> > implementation sense, a core set of ABM features. I suggest also that
> > software engineers work on ABM environments because the notion of a
> > core functionality augmented with structured parts is a compelling
> > idea. IF there's a core set of features, AND there are consequent
> > optional features, THEN this is a taxonomy. No? At least in
> > implementation.
> >
> >--jim
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Nicholas Thompson]

Jim, 

Don't blame the form of the question on Doug.

I supplied the straw.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, 
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)




> [Original Message]
> From: Jim Gattiker 
> To: ; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group 
> Date: 1/4/2009 8:57:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's
>
> > AHA!  you DO have a taxonomy.
>
> To pile on here (I suspect Doug can take it):
>
>   Doug, after you set up the straw man that there was no taxonomy
> possible, you went on to discuss how you believe there is, in an
> implementation sense, a core set of ABM features. I suggest also that
> software engineers work on ABM environments because the notion of a
> core functionality augmented with structured parts is a compelling
> idea. IF there's a core set of features, AND there are consequent
> optional features, THEN this is a taxonomy. No? At least in
> implementation.
>
>--jim




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Douglas Roberts]

I'm afraid taxonomy, mentally encapsulated or otherwise, has little to do
with the way I develop an ABM, Nick.  Rather, good software engineering
practices provide the tools for success.  CMMI provides a reasonable
software engineering methodology that emphasizes feedback between the
following project phases.
CMMIis
a good replacement of the old, rigid "Waterfall" SW engineering
approach.
Not that i am a huge fan of rigid, formal SW engineering approaches, but
CMMI at least encourages feedback between the following standard SW project
engineering stages:

   1. Develop a requirements doc that states what the problem is, and what
   the simulation will be required to produce for results.
   2. Develop a design.  An ABM design, if the the requirements describe
   real-world entities that interact with each other in meaningful ways.  The
   ABM modeling approach naturally covers many real world application areas
   (duh, the universe is populated with enteracting enties, duh), but not all
   systems are best suted to ABM appproaches for one reason or another.
   3. Select an implementation environment, unless it was specified in the
   requirements.
   4. Code
   5. Test
   6. V&V

The "magic" involved with being able to develop a successful ABM, or any
other kind of simulation derives from the ability to develop a realistic
requirements document, followed by appropriately defining the correct levels
of abstraction between the real-world entities to be modeled, and their
corresponding simulation agents.

Extracting a realistic requirements definition from the client, or as it
frequently turns out, helping the client develop one is the most important
phase of any SW project.  If you allow a fuzzy, ill-defined, vague,
contridictory requirements definition to stand, the project will fail.

--Doug
-- 
Doug Roberts, RTI International
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

- Hide quoted text -
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Thaniks everybody.  Interesting responses.

Doug, I cannot shake the intuition that the reason you cannot see value of
the taxonmy is that you already have one in your head that makes writing
one down unnecessary.  I am not sure quite what that means, let alone how I
would show it to you.

But let's imagine I were to do a study of you as you discussed a new ABM
project with a client, or discussed with you colleagues how you were going
to approach the problem, after the client had left.  In those discussions,
wouldnt you reach for exemplars or typical approaches or basic elements as
you planned your way into the work?  Then I would leap up and point my
finger and say, AHA!  you DO have a taxonomy.

Perhaps the taxonomy is not in the models themselves but in the problems
that the models are brought to bear on.

Or, here is another way to smoke out a taxonomy.  Imagine a bright eyed and
bushy tailed group of college seniors who have come to learn agent based
modeling from you.  Now granted DOING a lot of them would be most of the
course.  But would you have nothing to say of a conceptual nature to guide
students concerning how to approach different sorts of problems with
different sorts of models?

Thanks for humoring me, here.

Nick



Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Jochen Fromm]

Phylogenetic trees and cladistics are useful to 
understand any evolutionary or complex adaptive 
system. I am not sure if a phylogenetic tree for

ABMs itself makes sense. Of course we can try
to categorize them by a taxonomy. On the
NetLogo models pages we find the following
categories:

* Art 
* Biology & Evolution

* Chemistry & Physics
* Computer Science
* Earth Science
* Networks
* Social Science

David Eppstein has proposed 3 basic categories
for Cellular Automata (contraction impossible 
expansion impossible, both expansion and 
contraction possible). We could propose

a similar classification scheme for ABM,
according to different types of motion
(movement, expansion or fluctuation):

* Migrating population (Segregation, Swarms, Traffic)
* Expanding population (Epidemics)
* Expanding & Shrinking population (Culture, Evolution, War)

One could also divide according to different
environments:

* abstract environment (grid, lattice, network)
* 2D modeling
* 3D modeling

or by different interaction types:

* Direct Interaction (Swarms, Evolution)
* Indirect Interaction (Ants)
* Interaction wih Language 

Or one could distinguish different techniques, 
as Owen said, or different objectives (what

kind of abstract entity or problem do we
want to model), which leads us back to the
NetLogo model categories.

-J.




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org