--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-mode...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Jon Awbrey <jaw...@att.net> wrote:
All & Sundry —
Various discussions in various places have brought back to mind this thread
from early this fall, prompting me to make a try at continuing it. Here's
a series of blog posts where I kept track of a few points along the way:
• Differential Logic, Dynamic Systems, Tangent Functors • 1
• Differential Logic, Dynamic Systems, Tangent Functors • Discussion 1
• Differential Logic, Dynamic Systems, Tangent Functors • Discussion 2
• Differential Logic, Dynamic Systems, Tangent Functors • Discussion 3
• Differential Logic and Dynamic Systems 2.0 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fintersci.ss.uci.edu%2Fwiki%2Findex.php%2FDifferential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_2.0&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Cd9eff88495e34dac579708d6604c8837%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636802279157062521&sdata=7qvxVOS9vXclk7viHPoFVDrRrG7Ha9U6Rmj7%2B8dvJjw%3D&reserved=0
“This article develops a differential extension of propositional calculus and applies it to a context of problems
arising in dynamic systems. The work pursued here is coordinated with a parallel application that focuses on neural
network systems, but the dependencies are arranged to make the present article the main and the more self-contained
work, to serve as a conceptual frame and a technical background for the network project.”
Regards,
Jon
--
inquiry into inquiry: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquiry.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Cd9eff88495e34dac579708d6604c8837%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636802279157062521&sdata=PtMls1b73tAEWIyHmvOj4B36EGdjULwXsLza6VFtFfg%3D&reserved=0
academia: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Findependent.academia.edu%2FJonAwbrey&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Cd9eff88495e34dac579708d6604c8837%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636802279157062521&sdata=EhTBZOuCOBX6493598Hw0kiMsVq%2FtoQJS5D%2B9md2rfc%3D&reserved=0
oeiswiki: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oeis.org%2Fwiki%2FUser%3AJon_Awbrey&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Cd9eff88495e34dac579708d6604c8837%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636802279157072530&sdata=fuwKmgQqoq1ZUMBdWjZ5IevQYQILVE7hzRpDF%2F4qz7Y%3D&reserved=0
isw: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fintersci.ss.uci.edu%2Fwiki%2Findex.php%2FJLA&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Cd9eff88495e34dac579708d6604c8837%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636802279157072530&sdata=NdkSQnAlnJGHfZTpx6INmd2fmLXvNnptijiyl9RFFcU%3D&reserved=0
facebook page: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FJonnyCache&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Cd9eff88495e34dac579708d6604c8837%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636802279157072530&sdata=%2FI1nWG1n%2FPt4uwDzp9voALm1QMaSYKuLeO2Jm91oJOQ%3D&reserved=0
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-mode...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-mode...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On Dec 17, 2018, at 6:40 AM, Jon Awbrey <jaw...@att.net> wrote:
Dear Len,
Thanks for the links. I have signed on to the LifeWork blog
at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flentroncale.com&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Ca708118ddc734157ccb408d6642d9945%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636806544338545047&sdata=dd5jnxGbc4QRqk8zyxcMq%2Be%2FnjtJfKHPCvHlnRfoW9c%3D&reserved=0 and will explore it as time goes by.
I wasn't trying to define a whole field but merely describe my experience in forums
like these, where it took me a while to realize that when I use the word “system”
a great many people are not thinking what I'm thinking when I use it. The first
thing in my mind is almost always a state space X and the possible trajectories
of a representative point through it. But a lot of people will be thinking of
a “system”, like the word says, as a collection of parts “standing together”.
Naturally I'd like to reach the point of discussing such things, it's just
that it takes me a while, and considerable analysis of X, to get there.
It goes without saying this has to do with the boundaries of my own experience
and the emphases of my teachers and other influencers in systems, the early ones
taking their ground in Ashby, Wiener, and the MIT school, the later ones stressing
optimal control and learning organizations, but mostly it has to do with my current
objectives and the species of intelligent systems, Inquiry Driven Systems, I want to
understand and help to build.
Regards,
Jon
--
inquiry into inquiry: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquiry.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Ca708118ddc734157ccb408d6642d9945%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636806544338545047&sdata=nclXK1GwrcIWCCfvJcFI%2BPoyX7oVvwmgAt%2B6vBjEzT8%3D&reserved=0
academia: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Findependent.academia.edu%2FJonAwbrey&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Ca708118ddc734157ccb408d6642d9945%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636806544338545047&sdata=QJOaShmqx980wQc%2BC%2FCyTmOELhxlwUZOrsxspEegNns%3D&reserved=0
oeiswiki: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oeis.org%2Fwiki%2FUser%3AJon_Awbrey&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Ca708118ddc734157ccb408d6642d9945%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636806544338545047&sdata=7ChOg34hlAOBtBi4SQBCPTW7wKQwWWvfYAwygJ2oaqs%3D&reserved=0
isw: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fintersci.ss.uci.edu%2Fwiki%2Findex.php%2FJLA&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Ca708118ddc734157ccb408d6642d9945%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636806544338545047&sdata=kJ3VOMQjInVUDJQ3%2F8dXfDDgyU2lI%2B7blscna4Oop34%3D&reserved=0
facebook page: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FJonnyCache&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Ca708118ddc734157ccb408d6642d9945%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636806544338545047&sdata=sxuVfbbDNfVRIFEmBMS88K38EK6LfWApfwBjR1u3fec%3D&reserved=0
On 12/12/2018 1:04 PM, Lenard Troncale wrote:
Jon,
I appreciate your characterization of GST but think that it is very much outdated or limited to just your experience.
For example, the SPT (Systems Processes Theory) candidate GST has “hierarchy” considerations as just ONE of its 110
(or a more conservative list of 80) isomorphies not to even mention its many Linkage Propositions defining influences
among the isomorphies. Each of those isomorphies has many dozens of books in its key references list, and literally
million or more research articles on their development and elucidation. So just stating that GST is limited to
hierarchy is simply not true. Although I do appreciate your focus on one approach and lineage as being a bit more
static and the other more dynamic if your purview is limited to just the one isomorphy.
Systems Engineer Duane Hybertson and I were going to produce a paper roughly entitled “Model of Models” at one time
that focused on the individual models of individual Isomorphies being literally a library of potential piecemeal
models that could be assembled for any model of any complex system. But we diverged so much in our outline that we
never produced it.
Otherwise, I would like to say that I have appreciated your many and detailed responses to the Simpson(s) projects
and to the Category Theory debates with Ken Lloyd. Your comments have been detailed and informative to the limits of
my ability to understand them and your participation superior. Just please expand your view of GST by seeing these
websites (still under construction). lentroncale.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flentroncale.com&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Ca708118ddc734157ccb408d6642d9945%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636806544338545047&sdata=dd5jnxGbc4QRqk8zyxcMq%2Be%2FnjtJfKHPCvHlnRfoW9c%3D&reserved=0> systemsprocessestheory.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsystemsprocessestheory.com&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Ca708118ddc734157ccb408d6642d9945%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636806544338555052&sdata=cnTJNz2WUJasApiVInR9Ox3kEIgGHcPjoeQNcAgrL%2Fg%3D&reserved=0> ISSP.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2FISSP.org&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Ca708118ddc734157ccb408d6642d9945%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636806544338555052&sdata=f8WTXALBC9nkd73ujVEFuAn7tTbljz8BflNgfo8r0UM%3D&reserved=0> albertgwilson.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Falbertgwilson.com&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Ca708118ddc734157ccb408d6642d9945%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636806544338555052&sdata=PSgGd6vuKO5MTQH%2FT1tMpV0jDOlNCKB68%2BudBM%2BueSw%3D&reserved=0> (just the systems pull down menu) is-ge.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fis-ge.com&data=02%7C01%7Clrtroncale%40cpp.edu%7Ca708118ddc734157ccb408d6642d9945%7C164ba61e39ec4f5d89ffaa1f00a521b4%7C0%7C0%7C636806544338555052&sdata=rUQSXGJ5VnFqROJdlumpmITdB4tsjpBB%2BN14dHUMyY8%3D&reserved=0> as the
Len,
I have noticed that some people consider mathematical descriptions as disembodied constructs – separate from “reality” – as exemplified by your statement “systems as understood by scientific experiments. That is considerably different from math versions”. I contend that this becomes aligned and coherently consistent.
I think the problem of understanding the application of mathematics to reality is missing the (ultimate) point of mathematics, put forward back in 1955 by W.W. Sawyer in his book “Prelude to Mathematics” where he observed that “mathematics is the science and study of all patterns”. This isn’t what most people think. You’ve touched on one important aspect of any mathematical application – how “the patterns observed will eventually be formalized”. Dare I ask: What do people mean by “formal”? I thought I had some idea of the distribution of meanings of many words in the natural language of English. “MY version” was highly underestimated. An extraordinary number of terms – words – have radically different domain-specific meanings that must be covered by “umbrella concepts”, and what I look for are distributions in areas of convergence (attractors).
This takes us into the realm of evolving models (and meta-models) for observations in contexts in AI. We use “witness” algorithms for observations that are in competitive co-evolution (a form of ‘coopetition’) with human observations. (Cf.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.43.6813 for a nerdy overview).
Our challenge is discovering the optimal boundaries between correctness and precision. More precise does not always mean more correct (on the contrary).
Ken Lloyd
--
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.
This report may be of interest:
COLLABORATIONS
of
CONSEQUENCE
NAKFI’S 15 YEARS
IGNITING INNOVATION AT THE
INTERSECTIONS OF DISCIPLINES
Notice the empty quadrant …
From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Lenard Troncale
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 2:05 PM
To: Jon Awbrey <jaw...@att.net>
Cc: SysSciWG <syss...@googlegroups.com>; Structural Modeling <structura...@googlegroups.com>; Cybernetic Communications <cyb...@googlegroups.com>; Ontolog Forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
--
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.
Len,
I think why the link doesn’t work is because “for a nerdy review” got appended by mistake to the link. Delete that appendage and you should be good.
There’s another aspect that I found important (using mathematical patterns). Beyond the predictive “forward models” where many investigations start, there are so-called “inverse” (actually, opposite) models that help us refine our forward models by comparing the predictions to witnessed or observed results. I strongly suggest K. Mosegaard and A. Tarantola.
This has proved quite successful especially when the phenomena we are studying is not directly observable – but it does tell us whether we are relating relevant observations (in correlation and sufficiency) to the forward model parameters. Since this is often underdetermined, it is why we use evolutionary genetic algorithms to “complexify” our ab initio assumptions.
Regarding a “model of models” (what I term meta-models, and meta-meta-models, etc.), be certain that each model is at a different level of abstraction, otherwise you can run into self-referential cycles that *can* ruin your whole day.
Ken
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/f232afb6-b7bc-221c-d6e3-fada42fe82eb%40att.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-mode...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.