Very interesting. In a rather different context, I was led to a word “apportionment”, which I think is similar in intent to your fractionation.
The context was the inherent limitation of fitness as the term is used in population genetics, where it is required (by the roles it must play in Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem and the Price Equation) to be an apportionment. God, I wonder what it must be like to be a real writer, and have some kind of command of the richness of this thing called language that we have all inherited. > On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:33 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Coalescence is a very nice sidetrack, actually. It, again, takes me back to > the notion of *a* filtration, in particular ascending and descending > filtrations. A brief hunt for a good antonym of "coalesce" lands me on > "fractionated". I like that better than the temporal implications (evoked in > *me* even if nobody else) of divergent. The volume of space is *rationed* > amongst the branches sprouted from a tree trunk, much like the volume of > tissue is divied up amongst the sinusoids sprouted from the portal vein in > the liver. And I can say the same thing about the other side. The tissue is > fractioned/rationed/divied up amongst the sinusoids that lead into the > liver's output. > > Such a fractionated (fractioned? rationed? "binned"?) region can be talked > about independent of the direction of flow. > > And this idea of divying up the space carries with it some sort of agency, > functionality, or purpose beyond the more objective terms like plexus or > plenum, which could be engineered or natural. Divied up how? Why? What is > being optimized by tree branching, basin canalization, dendritic spreading, > etc? > > On 08/21/2018 08:22 AM, Eric Smith wrote: >> When you first asked, and hadn’t talked yet about specifically tree-like >> networks, I was thinking that the converging end could borrow the term >> “coalescent” from population genetics. I don’t think the geneticists have a >> corresponding word for the final-time data that it is the purpose of the >> coalescent to assign a history to, but I guess the counterpart would be the >> “divergent”. That would have been a strange notion for a >> merely-concentrated part of a network that wasn’t both treelike and directed >> in some sense, so I stayed quiet. But it seems treelike networks with >> sources and destinations are still in the conversation. >> >> Of course this has the problem that both words are natively adjectives, >> themselves derived from transitive verbs, which have now been repurposed as >> nouns in technical fields. But maybe in linguistic typology that isn’t so >> uncommon (Bill Croft has told me this, but I don’t have a particularly good >> reference. Perhaps >> http://www.unm.edu/~wcroft/WACabst.html >> or his book(s?)) > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > 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 > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
