Hi,
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Alejandro F. Reimondo
<[email protected]> wrote:
Complexity is not measurable in the objects (nor figures),
because it emerges from information process.
Some would disagree and argue for using Kolmogorov Complexity (or some
approximation) to measure complexity of things. But you can get some
support in the concept of "Effective Complexity" from Gell-Mann and
Lloyd which first says:
It is ok that some people disagree, but I am interested in the people
that agree with that and the concecuences of following
that reasoning.
Most of the works in literature consider information as
something measurable/encapsulable/anObject
and not as a process of formation/syntesis of something (aModel).
The emergents are intermediate (subproducts) of that process,
the process of in-formation of an internal model.
What is missing in the intention to measure complexity of a figure
(e.g. a description) is that it do not consider time;
it is all (visible/understood) there in an instant;
and hides the in-formation process.
It is like a snapshot of a system, something similar to consider
Smalltalk as the image (or its contents) instead of consider
Smalltalk as the actions made in a virtual media to cristalize
a model of a system (that is not fixed by its contents
nor it's "code").
It is frecuent that people working with smalltalk refers to it as a
language,
or as a set of tools, or a set of objects... instead to reflect that
in a sustainable system, the code, and the contents is irrelevant
(is anegdotic, as it is the big bang of a "new" system)
The same happens in chemestry, where a lot of people think
in formulae, and/or descriptions of behavior (the rules). It is ok
to think that way, but has limitations; and there is not enough people
working to push the limits nor to instruct on how to behave when
we find the limits/concecuences of the aplication of The Method.
which i interpret as the effective complexity corresponding, in some
sense, to the "mental"/computing energy an entity would need to expend
to consider all the aspects of a thing/system it considers important
after disconsidering the parts which it consider irrelevant.
ok, but the "aspects" of a thing re not a thing... ok?
The aspects are not additive, the same with behavior,
we all undestand the convenience of a model of Behavior
but it is a reduction of behavior (an emergent) to be handled
by the system during reflexion... we make it anObject to
be operated by the system; but it do not means that behavior
is an object nor can be part of a sum.
cheers,
Ale.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Feldt" <[email protected]>
To: "Fundamentals of New Computing" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] my two cents
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Alejandro F. Reimondo
<[email protected]> wrote:
Complexity is not measurable in the objects (nor figures),
because it emerges from information process.
Some would disagree and argue for using Kolmogorov Complexity (or some
approximation) to measure complexity of things. But you can get some
support in the concept of "Effective Complexity" from Gell-Mann and
Lloyd which first says:
"In nontechnical language, we can define the effective complexity (EC)
of an entity as the length of a highly compressed description of its
regularities."
IMHO, EC is particularly interesting for Software Engineers/Developers
since G-M&L make a "...distinction between regularities and those
features that are treated as random or incidental" which is similar to
Fred Brooks analysis of software in the "Silver bullet" paper
(inherent and accidental complexity).
G-M&L then goes on to say:
"Like some other concepts sometimes identified with complexity, the EC
of an entity is context-dependent, even subjective to a considerable
extent. It depends on the coarse graining (level of detail) at which
the entity is described, the language used to describe it, the
previous knowledge and understanding that are assumed, and, of course,
the nature of the distinction made between regularity and randomness."
which i interpret as the effective complexity corresponding, in some
sense, to the "mental"/computing energy an entity would need to expend
to consider all the aspects of a thing/system it considers important
after disconsidering the parts which it consider irrelevant.
Best regards,
/Robert Feldt
--
Tech. Dr. (PhD), Assoc. Professor (Senior Lecturer) in Software
Engineering
Chalmers, Software Engineering and Technology
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Software Engineering Research Lab
robert.feldt (a) chalmers.se or robert.feldt (a) gmail.com
http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~feldt
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
