Hmmm,. that does seem to be a problem for me sometimes.Didn't you build
on other people's ideas and incorporate them in you models, and so create an
inheritance connection between them?
Phil Henshaw
NY NY www.synapse9.com
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Phil Henshaw wrote:
Th
> But if you are
> interested in the best current thinking about a subject, why should you care
> how people thought about it 4 centuries ago? Do I really care about
> Aristotelian physics, for example, if I want to know how the physical world
> works? I would say, "No" what I really want to know i
Doug -
Methinks that that cartilaginous shrapnel has been traveling from knee
to brain. A distillation of said yeasty brew might be better at
dissolving the blockages.
-Steve
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2009, at 9:04 PM, "Douglas Roberts"
wrote:
my poor, befuddled brain.
I' seri
Douglas Roberts wrote:
I seriously doubt that there is a one-size-fits-all taxonomy
classifier for ABMs that will produce anything other than "No shit!"
rudimentary descriptive information about any given ABM.
It might be informative to see map of invented conceptual attributes and
applications
Ok, Marcus. But what does that buy the developer of a C^3I (Command,
Control, Communications, and Intelligence) war gaming ABM? Or and ABM of
the pork bellies market? Or an ABM of celestial mechanics? Or an ABM of
the braking system of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner? Or an ABM of a specific
social ne
Russ Abbott wrote:
But if you are interested in the best current thinking about a
subject, why should you care how people thought about it 4 centuries ago?
What if there are common processes behind learning and insight and they
are general and timeless?
===
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
But what then about cladistics. Cladistics is a dark art of
classification that uses a variety of obscure incantations to lable
relations amongst species without, so far as I understand, any
reference to evolution. Yet, as I understand it, cladistics is not
arbitra
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Phil Henshaw wrote:
> The basis of taxonomy is the developmental sequences of the forms
> themselves, so in the case of ABM's it would be finding who built on whose
> ideas and model parts.It's basically a time network map of parentage
> and offspring, which
On Behalf
Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 7:39 PM
To: nickthomp...@earthlink.net
Cc: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Callling all cladisticists
Since my prejudice as a programmer is that almost any abstraction is likely
to be useful, then since taxonomies tend to reveal inter
I don't know anything about cladistics, so I don't know whether this
fits with it.
ABMs can have many different parents, often not directly known. I'm
not sure parentage in any strict sense would be a particularly good
approach. Better would be to identify separate patterns in how the
A
NIck
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Russ Abbott
> *To: *nickthomp...@earthlink.net;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group
>
.net;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group
Sent: 1/3/2009 2:16:02 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Callling all cladisticists
Hi Nick,
What's wrong with this argument?
My wife teaches what's known as Early Modern English, which means English
literature, culture, etc. in the
Hi Nick,
What's wrong with this argument?
My wife teaches what's known as Early Modern English, which means English
literature, culture, etc. in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. She is
interested in how people thought about things in her period as well as how
those ways of thinking develop
All,
For those of you who werent there, last friday, we got into an intersting
discussion about the possibility of taxonomies of agent based models. Are
there only a few basic types? Are many apparently different agent based
models, deployed for widely different purposes, fundamentally only
14 matches
Mail list logo
