> Kevin's random babbling follows: > > Is there a working definition of what "complexity" exactly is? > It seems to > be quite subjective to me. But setting that aside for the moment...
I view complexity as part of a web of concepts that also, centrally, includes "pattern" Roughly, an entity is complex if there are a whole lot of patterns in it (statically or dynamically) On the other hand, what is a pattern? A pattern in X is a program P that produces X, but has significantly less "basic complexity" than X. What is this "basic complexity"? One approach is to define it as program length: that's algorithmic information theory, in essence... This mathematical approach is part of the conceptual foundations of Novamente. It highlights the very real subjectivity of the notion of "complexity." Note that I defined complexity in terms of pattern and then defined pattern in terms of "basic complexity" ;-) You can define "basic complexity" as "complexity relative to a certain observer" or "the minimum length program that computes P assuming a given knowledge base K as background knowledge." Then you have defined complexity in a way that is specifically relative to an observer or a set of knowledge. Anyway, this is MY working definition of complexity. Not everyone's ;-) I guess there are many working definitions of complexity out there.... How effectively they're working is another question ;-p -- Ben G ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
