> Alejandro Garcia wrote: >>> >>> Andrey Fedorov wrote: >>> >>>> The picture you gave isn't a system, it's a directed graph. I guess >>>> you're implying anything you imagine to be a "system" can be represented as >>>> a graph - but what *is* a system? >>> >>> >>> Well it isn't a system in the same sense that a map isn't the terrain. I >>> think people call those things a representation. >>> >> >> Precisely! So we *are* on the same page. It's a representation which >> doesn't always preserve a system's "complexity" (without defining >> "complexity"). >> > > No we are not in the same page. I'm pretty sure that if a map shows a > mountain and I go to the terrain that mountain is going to be there. [...] > I'd better got to know them. For example I can't see the entire USA or the > entire planet but with a good map I can make pretty good Idea of how that > system "looks". >
But a good map-maker includes the "important stuff" and discard the "details". When "complexity" or more specifically "the possible states of each component" are part of the "important stuff", CRT is not a good representation of a system. So all I'm getting from your earlier point is that the CRT representation of >> a system can't be used to define "complexity". So it's a crappy >> representation, after all. >> > > The point of the diagrams was to show that some people think of complexity > as the number of nodes + arrows in a system.(ie how many words it takes to > describe it), while other people see complexity as the number of degrees of > freedom (possible states) of the system. > Both seem like perfectly adequate definitions of properties of a system. Might be a good idea to call one of them "in vitro complexity" and the other "live complexity". Or maybe call the former is better referred to as "size"? I see how the former thread now - great point. System A has 16 possible sates > System B has 2 > So in essence system B is equivalent to just one circle! Isn't that > "simple" (Inherent Simplicity as Goldratt would call it) > Are those numbers you derived from the picture alone? If you did, could you go through the math? Unless I'm misunderstanding the notation (could you link to a rigorous definition?), I see System B having a lot more than 2 states.
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
