RE: [SysSciWG] Digest for syssciwg@googlegroups.com - 6 updates in 4 topics

3 views

Skip to first unread message

Erik Aslaksen

unread,

Jan 20, 2018, 2:50:25 PM1/20/18

to syss...@googlegroups.com

Dear Joshi,

A is not a definition of a system; it is the definition of a taxonomy. Without interaction between the elements it is nothing more than the sum of its parts.

Regards,

Erik

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, 20 January 2018 10:23 PM
To: Digest recipients <syss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [SysSciWG] Digest for syss...@googlegroups.com - 6 updates in 4 topics

syss...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

· Invitation to review SE & System Definition document - 3 Updates

· Constraint Theory -- Second Edition - 1 Update

· [structural-modeling] Some Charts For Use At The Saturday January 20th, Structural Modeling Video Conference - 1 Update

· [Capella Day Stuttgart] Attend this Systems Engineering Conference on March 13th - 1 Update

Invitation to review SE & System Definition document

"ohkami" <ohk...@sdm.keio.ac.jp>: Jan 20 03:49AM +0900

Dear James and friends,

While I was trying to review the document, I happened to find the following definitions of ‘System’ among many.

A: A complete exhibition of essential facts arranged in rational dependence or related by some common law, principle, or end

B: A collection of inter-related parts that, by virtue of the relationships between them, does things its parts cannot do their own

My question as non-native: What is essential difference between A and B?

I would appreciate as many responses as possible.

Best regards

+++++

Yoshiaki ‘Yoshi’ Ohkami, Fellow & ESEP, INCOSE

Professor Emeritus, Tokyo Institute of Technology

Executive Advisor for Keio Instiute of System

Design and Management

4-1-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, Japan

Phone: +81 45 564 2480

+++++

Wolt Fabrycky <f...@vt.edu>: Jan 19 03:37PM -0500

Yoshi, et al

A is more generic, hardly useful in engineering (the human-made), whereas B is an inspiration to endeavors regarding the latter.

Wolt

- - - -

Sent from my iPhone

"ohkami" <ohk...@sdm.keio.ac.jp>: Jan 20 10:50AM +0900

Thanks, Wolt, for your rapid response.

Yoshi

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Wolt Fabrycky
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 5:38 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com
Cc: James Martin
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Fwd: Invitation to review SE & System Definition document

Yoshi, et al

A is more generic, hardly useful in engineering (the human-made), whereas B is an inspiration to endeavors regarding the latter.

Wolt

- - - -

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 19, 2018, at 1:49 PM, ohkami <ohk...@sdm.keio.ac.jp> wrote:

Dear James and friends,

While I was trying to review the document, I happened to find the following definitions of ‘System’ among many.

A: A complete exhibition of essential facts arranged in rational dependence or related by some common law, principle, or end

B: A collection of inter-related parts that, by virtue of the relationships between them, does things its parts cannot do their own

My question as non-native: What is essential difference between A and B?

I would appreciate as many responses as possible.

Best regards

+++++

Yoshiaki ‘Yoshi’ Ohkami, Fellow & ESEP, INCOSE

Professor Emeritus, Tokyo Institute of Technology

Executive Advisor for Keio Instiute of System

Design and Management

4-1-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, Japan

Phone: +81 45 564 2480

+++++

--
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.

Constraint Theory -- Second Edition

joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com>: Jan 19 02:59PM -0800

Team:

As Janet pointed out there is a new edition of, "Constraint Theory," by
Friedman and Phan.

http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319547916

We received our copy today.

Is this an area where people would like to devote some time and energy
reviewing the content of this book?

Take care, b 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

[structural-modeling] Some Charts For Use At The Saturday January 20th, Structural Modeling Video Conference

joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com>: Jan 19 08:55AM -0800

Len:

Just a note to expand my comments on your statement:

"Your last graphic here brought me some relief as I usually regard your
detailed matrices as mostly and only logical propositions. The last graphic
indicates that you and I agree on the meanings and relations between
“formal” “factual” and “value” statements."

In general we have been working in the area of propagating relationships.

Propagating relationships have an interesting set of characteristics.

From Warfield, "A Science of Generic Design," page 64:

"Propagation of a relationship is a logical phenomenon, not necessarily a
temporal or spatial or influence type of phenomenon. It is the logical
propagation that is critical. Relationships that do not propagate in a
logical sense may still propagate in terms of influence or impact."

Systems engineering is mostly focused on relationships the propagate in
terms of influence or impact.

Now , that we have established a small set of open source software to
engage the logical propagation of relationships, we will start to evaluate
the alignment of these different types of propagation.

What type of logical propagating relationships map directly to other types
of propagating (non-logical) relationships.

The mapping of these relationship groups provides a direct computational
connection between these different forms.

Yes, most of our current material is focused on logical relationship
representation.

However, the abstract relation type (ART) was designed to organize and
present information about a specific type of relationship. A specific type
of relationship may be encoded in logic, process, influence, structure, or
any combination of these forms.

A fundamental activity would be mapping your isomorphic systems process
(ISPs Linkage Propositions) to a given set of logical forms using the ART
construct.

This fundamental step would also help communicate basic applications of the
systems science and engineering ART form.

Take care, be good to yourself and I look forward to a chance to work with
you in the future.

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

[Capella Day Stuttgart] Attend this Systems Engineering Conference on March 13th

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

Steven Krane

unread,

Jan 20, 2018, 3:38:08 PM1/20/18

to syss...@googlegroups.com

The definition of “a” (indefinite article) system, or “the” (definite article) system? Seems to me that if you are able to define “definite” instances of system (we consistently fail at this), and you do that for a variety of them, then perhaps you will see a pattern that can describe a (any) system, else, you will not. The former has clear and immediate consequences, especially for people in the engineering domain.

The definitions of a system proposed here are:

A) A system is a collection...

B) A system is an exhibition...

Forget the other stuff. What does that alone mean? Who or what is collecting what? Who or what is exhibiting what to who? These abstract nouns formed by taking a verb and adding the suffix “-tion” should be avoided if clear, direct language is sought.

If definition “B”, then,

Is an oxidizing piece of aluminum, lying in the dirt, exposed to the atmosphere and radiation from the sun, a “system”?

Last time I took this up, being somewhat biased toward process philosophy (it’s all action, not thing), I thought progress could be made by beginning with:

“A system is a network of relationships that....” (it’s the qualities of the relationships that makes system-ness.)

Or, short-circuiting thing-oriented thinking even further, you could start with Jack’s definition, “A system is that which....”

For those seeking absolute clarity regarding the definition of an indefinite system, try to write the definition of “a chair”.