On 4/17/13 10:52 AM, glen wrote:
"Type" seems like a state-oriented conception, whereas "predicate"
seems like a process-oriented conception. We talk about things being
"of a type". But we talk about "satisfying a predicate".
There's a question of why a set must be mixed in the first place. With
some restructuring it may be possible to treat homogeneous sets (or even
compresses the set into a prototype and count), rather than treating
individuals in an independent fashion, but in the same pool, and then
partitioning them after the fact with various predicates.
If there is no mixing of different instances in the pool, the fact that
sets can be kept separate is a helpful thing to recognize (and good for
efficiency). If there is mixing, how do the species change? Can they
be described by a distinct or elaborated type such that another separate
and homogeneous set can be introduced? The process of elaborating the
member types or the aggregate sets is an incremental, analytical
process, and analytical predictions are usually what folks want from a
model. The former does not necessarily lead to the latter, but letting
anything happen anywhere does tend to make it harder to reason what a
model can do.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
