Thus spake John Kennison circa 05/01/09 08:34 AM: > 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?
It might be helpful to consider Oren and Yilmaz's (I think it was theirs) classification of: agent-oriented simulation agent-directed simulation agent-based simulation My own interpretation (which I forget how well it matches theirs) is basically that agent-orientation only implies that, regardless of the implementation, it is useful to _think_ of the objects and behavior as agents. Indeed, there need not even be any well-formed (quantum/atomic) units. E.g. a term in an equation over a continuous space might be _thought_ of as an agent. An agent-directed simulation is one where the implementation is unspecified (might be agent-based, might not); but that implementation is controlled by agents (to which executive control is delegated by the human). An agent-based simulation, however, requires the implementation to consist (primarily) of agents. (However one may define "agent".) -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ 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
