Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's

[Steve Smith]

Though John's statement *does* beg the question of what is meant by "Agent Based Model".   There is a whole galaxy of discussion to be had about "Agency".   What is conventionally termed "Agent Based Modeling" only barely references and certainly does not require any significant "agency" on the model's parts.   I can't remember if this can of worms has already been opened and thoroughly sorted through on-list before.   I don't need to do that myself, but I suppose I'm asking for it by even offering up the can-opener here! - Steve There are many alternative simulation styles to an ABM simulation architecture: Discrete-event queuing models Continuous systems simulation (ex: CSMP) Procedural discrete event (ex: SimSCRIPT) CA The use (or not) of a subroutine in the underlying code  has nothing to do with the simulation architecture being used. --Doug On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:34 AM, John Kennison <jkenni...@clarku.edu> wrote: Perhaps the first step in forming a taxonomy is to see if there is a reasonable way to distinguish ABMs from non-ABMs. I am guessing here, but is using a subroutine the alternative to using an ABM? (For example, is it the case that a subroutine which computes square roots can be viewed as an agent whose purpose in life is to find square roots?) Is the difference merely a matter of FOR? If my distinction between subroutines and ABMs makes sense, are some features that would make something more likely to be thought of as an ABM rather than a subroutine? ________________________________________ From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts [d...@parrot-farm.net] Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 2:16 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's Jim, I cheerfully concede that one is free to view the universe or any of its subcomponents through an astoundingly large variety of frames of reference (FOR).  Whichever FOR best gets a person through the day is the one that should be used.  As a not-so-extreme example, an acquaintance of mine has adopted a particular FOR that allows him to believe with every fiber in his being that the Mountain Meadows Massacre<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre> of September, 1857 (an event that occurred well within the annals of recorded history) was perpetrated by American Indians. Myself, I prefer to us a FOR that requires the minimum of force-fitting to help me get my job done.  However, those of you out there who have this apparent burning desire to see taxonomy structure as the frame of reference which will provide the guiding light into the magical mystery wonderland of successful ABM design,  go for it! Myself, I don't see much traction there.  But, on the other hand, I believe the Mountain Meadows Massacre was on Mormons by other Mormons.  Go figure. --Doug On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Nicholas Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> wrote: Jim, Don't blame the form of the question on Doug. I supplied the straw. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu<mailto:nthomp...@clarku.edu>) > [Original Message] > From: Jim Gattiker <j.gatti...@googlemail.com<mailto:j.gatti...@googlemail.com>> > To: <nickthomp...@earthlink.net<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com>> > Date: 1/4/2009 8:57:28 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classification of ABM's > > > AHA!  you DO have a taxonomy. > > To pile on here (I suspect Doug can take it): > >   Doug, after you set up the straw man that there was no taxonomy > possible, you went on to discuss how you believe there is, in an > implementation sense, a core set of ABM features. I suggest also that > software engineers work on ABM environments because the notion of a > core functionality augmented with structured parts is a compelling > idea. IF there's a core set of features, AND there are consequent > optional features, THEN this is a taxonomy. No? At least in > implementation. > >    --jim ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org