I have a sneaking suspicion that you all are still arguing WWII era or earlier
aircraft while I'm arguing the last few decades. Yes, passenger aircraft (most
of which date much earlier than most people realize) are not that complex. No,
trans-mach, variable-geometry-wing fighter aircraft are horribly complex.
----- Original Message -----
From: Derek Zahn
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:21 PM
Subject: RE: Thoughts on the Zahn take on Complex Systems [WAS Re: [agi] WHAT
ARE THE MISSING ...]
Mark Waser:
> I don't know what is going to be more complex than a variable-geometry-wing
> aircraft like a F-14 Tomcat. Literally nothing can predict it's
aerodynamic behavior.
> The avionics are purely reactive because it's future behavior cannot be
predicted
> to any certainty even at computer speeds -- yet it's behavior envelope is
small
> enough to be safe, provided you do have computer speeds (though no human
> can fly it unaided).
I agree that this is a very sensible way to think about being "complex" and
it is certainly similar to the way I think about it myself. My embryonic
understanding of Richard's argument suggests to me that he means something
else, though. If not, traditional engineering methods are often pretty good at
taming complexity as long as they take the range of possible system states into
account (which is what you have been saying all along).
Since I'm trying (with limited success) to understand his point of view, I
might suggest that (from the point of view of his argument), the global
regularities of the aircraft (its flight characteristics) DO have a
sufficiently-efficacious small theory in terms of the components (the aircraft
body, including the moveable bits). In fact, it is exactly that small theory
which is embedded in the control program. Since the global regularities
(straight-line flight, turns, and so on) are sufficiently predictable from the
local interactions of the control surfaces with the air, the aircraft is not
complex *in the sense that Richard is talking about*.
Now I suppose I've pissed everybody off, but I'm really just trying to
understand Richard's definitions so I can follow his argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
