Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/17/2013 10:51 PM: > 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).
Well, by efficiency, I infer you mean computational efficiency, not the efficient use of storage space? Again, the distinction involves the duality between state and process, size and effort, matter and energy. Even if there is no mixing by one particular (set of) measure(s), it's often safe to assume that, when the measures change, the sense of whether mixing is occurring or not may well change. It depends fundamentally on whether we have access to what the individuals actually _are_ versus what roles they may play. > 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. This goes back on the interesting question. Are computational models, or really any extant things, reusable in any serious sense? Or are they slaves to their initial requirements, the initial circumstances under which they were constructed? When you pick up a rock and use it as a hammer, what is the satisfied predicate? It's certainly not "hammer(x)", because rocks are usually nothing like hammers. There's an implicit predicate lurking in there that has to do with hardness, handiness, etc. It's something more like "anything hard enough and handleable enough to hit whatever I'm currently trying to hit". -- =><= glen e. p. ropella The economic factors are no longer relevant ============================================================ 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
