On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Russell Wallace wrote: > > As were mine. I don't claim e.g. computers are complex because their > > constituent silicon atoms are complex (though they are), but because > > they are complex at all levels of description including the ones > > ordinarily used by hardware engineers, programmers and sophisticated > > users. There is no significant level on which computers are not > > complex. > > > > This is complete nonsense. Sorry, but it is. If you can say this, then > you simply have no understanding of the accepted meaning (or the meaning > that I produced) of "complex system".
Okay, so one of the following is the case: 1) You have a magic formula that will analytically predict the behavior of a program from static analysis of the code. Such a formula (if it were logically possible, which it isn't) would be worth money somewhere in the twelve-digit range, but for some reason you're keeping it on the shelf. 2) You claim to be using "complex system" in the accepted meaning of complex systems theory, but are actually using a special vocabulary in which it means something completely different. 3) You have no idea what you're talking about. I leave it to the audience to decide which of the three is the most likely. ------------------------------------------- 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
