Many thanks for the best distinction of structural and object
oriented languages I have ever seen. Big help for someone with a
very elementary understanding of the art. (I had just read the WIKI
definition with the result which you predict.)
Bob L.
On Jun 2, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Robert
Interesting paper!
I do like seeing the phrase:
Individual-based models (IBMs) allow researchers to study how system level
properties emerge from the adaptive behaviour of individuals
The collective presupposes the individual.
Information and properties of the part flow to the
Hi Robert (and HPCoder)
In a semantic network, you need not destroy an object's present
manifestation through a transformation. You can maintain a snapshot
of the object by using some sort of provenance and thus, forever
express its Platonic realization at some particular moment in time.
Robert:
It seems to me that there is usually (always?) bi-directionality involved in
a dynamic system, especially between the individual and the collective. The
collective often (Usually? Always?) provides a context that generates and
governs data flow, a time frame, rugged landscapes or not,
Tom,
But is there really such thing as a collective—physically? If I have a
nickel and a dime in my pocket, the collective total is 30 cents. But where
is the object whose value is thirty cents? Both the nickel and the dime can
exist independently of the 30 cent thingy; but not the other way
Tom Johnson wrote:
It seems to me that there is usually (always?) bi-directionality
involved in a dynamic system
i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at
