Re: Nodes and relations -- was [SysSciWG] Logical Properties Of Natural Language System Structuring Relationships

[Curt McNamara]

Excellent question!

I would submit that many systems models do not define nodes and relations clearly, and a system model may not be consistent with what is assigned to the nodes and relations.

Here are some that I am aware of, please reply with your own!

Approach 1: (system dynamics and Odum's systems ecology)

-- a node is an accumulation, something that can be measured in a snapshot of time (a noun)

-- a relation is a flow, something that takes more than one measurement to define (a verb)

Examples are a bathtub water level (node / noun) flows in and out (water). Or a bank account. Note that the noun/verb combination fits with function analysis, value engineering, bio-inspired design, and the substance-field technique from Triz

Approach 2: (Fuller's Synergetics)

-- relations are "all that is". They are forces and fields, things we don't understand, however can measure and use (gravitation, electromagnetic waves, see link below). The metaphysical part of universe.

-- nodes are the resolution / summing of the relations. This may result in a perceived system / module. The physical part of universe

Note that each node has sub-systems which consist of relations and nodes ...

Approach 3: (SE practice)

-- nodes are useful/interesting sub-systems or modules

-- relations are what links the modules / sub-systems together, and may be a combination of physical and informational

Approach 4: (cellular / agent based, A New Kind of Science by Wolfram)

-- nodes are sub-systems / modules / cells

-- relations communicate the state of neighboring sub-systems / modules / cells

Approach 5: (system process theory, Troncale)

-- nodes are system processes

-- relations are other system processes that influence / affect / give rise to other system processes

Approach 6: ...

                  Curt

https://books.google.com/books?id=1ZyJOzZLrxwC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:08 PM, 'Hillary Sillitto' via Sys Sci Discussion List <syss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Curt, Joe

Interesting and confusing!

Curt, you are now talking about dimensions. Before, you were talking about nodes. 

What did you mean by 'node'? I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that a node in your taxonomy corresponded to an object in Joe's. Is this the case, or not?

Joe, I understand your definition of system and accept that it is a valid definition in the context of your particular world view. I don't find it a satisfactory definition of system for my purposes and in my worldview because, as Jack's cryptic comment points out, it is concerned only with structure and not (or at least not explicitly) with behaviour. There are other categories of definition of system that bring in behaviour (in one category) and purpose (in another). Like Goldilocks I prefer the middle one - including behaviour but not purpose.

I now believe that for a definition of 'system' to be useful, it must come with a declared worldview and with a statement of range of validity. Then and only then can we make sense of and have a meaningful discussion about different definitions of 'system'.

Best regards

Hillary

On Saturday, 20 February 2016, Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> wrote:

You may discover that 'system is' does not address 'system does' which is the issue under A influences B.
Or maybe not.

On Feb 20, 2016 11:56 AM, "joseph simpson" <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting line of thought and concepts...

However, they do seem  a bit awkward in a discussion titled:

Logical Properties Of Natural Language System Structuring Relationships

A system is a relationship mapped over a set of objects.

A system has a minimum of two objects.

A key concept is logical properties..

Another key concept is natural language...

Almost every language is abstract...

Given the above, it is difficult to align the discussion threads...

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Curt McNamara <cur...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks! Excellent examples.

A star, planet, nucleus, and electron  have (at least) 3 dimensions. A common model of the pairs you mention would be their orbits and interactions, which also exist in 3D (+ time).

It is certainly possible (and definitely useful) to use simplified representations of complex items. It is also useful to be aware that our models represent an abstraction, and that this abstraction has limits.

What relation (s) between the nodes would you use, and to what end would you model these pairs of complex items as two nodes? 

     Curt

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 2:01 AM 'Hillary Sillitto' via Sys Sci Discussion List <syss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Curt

I find the text you reference interesting but odd. It seems to be associated with a particular belief system not universally (perhaps not even widely) shared. Do I understand it is from the writings of Buckminster Fuller?

The assertion that a system has at least four nodes is at odds with Joe's definition and many others'. As an example of a system with only two nodes, a star with one planet meets Joe's definition and is definitely imaginable. Likewise a hydrogen atom with a nucleus and one electron.

Best regards

Hillary

On 18 Feb 2016 12:53 am, "Curt McNamara" <cur...@gmail.com> wrote:

A system is a set of "objects" (i.e. nodes) which are coupled via relations. The minimum number of nodes for a "real system" (e.g. the system exists in 3-space) is four. If there are fewer than 4 nodes then the system is an abstraction.

Given the above, the minimum number of relations at a node (object) is three.

     Curt

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/p0000.html

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 5:01 PM joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just a quick note to  make sure I communicate these ideas to a larger group.

A system is a relationship mapped over a set of objects.

A system has a minimum of two objects.

The reflexive logical property involves only one individual.

Therefore, when the reflexive property is involved in a system structuring activity it is almost always an error because the property does not operate between two objects.

The symmetric logical property involves two individuals and is the only logical property that generates system structure.

The transitive logical property involves three or more individuals but does not impact the system structure.  The transitive property only impacts the inference opportunities and the efficiency of the structuring process.  You could think of the transitive property as "riding on top" of the symmetric property structure.

These and other observations enable the structuring of a system using the natural language system structuring relationships set of logical properties.  

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jack Ring]

Curt,

Approach 6 might be —

Noun/Verb perspective is useful. However notice that a relation is a noun whereas the effect of the relation is the verb (including Wymore’s gradient). This nuance is necessary to understand perspective shift (a contract is a recitation of relations until it is sold to another party in which case it is a node.

Less ambiguous thinking occurs if you use of Operators and Operands. Then nodes and relations become Operands (which can be configured variously) while the commerce enabled by the relations becomes the Operator. In this sense a Relation acts as catalyst.

Note that some entities may act as both operator and operand (a human in the system, for example).

This cartoon may help or hinder —