This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Complex system article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed a section of text from the Agent-based model page on Complex Systems Modeling, because it wasn't specific there. It does seem like it might be useful if it was integrated into this page. I've pasted the text in below. User:Wrand 18:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
===Complex systems modelling===
[[File:Logical deterministic individual-based cellular automata model of interspecific competition for a single limited resource.gif|thumb|Logical deterministic individual-based cellular automata model of interspecific competition for a single limited resource]]
[[File:Mathematical models for complex systems.jpg|thumb|left|Mathematical models for complex systems]]
[[File:Logical deterministic individual-based cellular automata model of single species population growth.gif|thumb|Logical deterministic individual-based cellular automata model of single species population growth]]
Mathematical models of complex systems are of three types: [[black-box]] (phenomenological), [[White box (software engineering)|white-box]] (mechanistic, based on the [[first principles]]) and [[Grey box model|grey-box]] (mixtures of phenomenological and mechanistic models).<ref name="Kalmykov Lev V., Kalmykov Vyacheslav L. Solution">
((Citation
| last = Kalmykov
| first = Lev V.
| last2 = Kalmykov
| first2 = Vyacheslav L.
| title = A Solution to the Biodiversity Paradox by Logical Deterministic Cellular Automata
| journal = Acta Biotheoretica
| volume = 63
| issue = 2
| pages = 1–19
| year = 2015
| doi = 10.1007/s10441-015-9257-9
| pmid = 25980478
))</ref>
<ref name="Kalmykov Lev V., Kalmykov Vyacheslav L. White-box model">
((Citation
| last = Kalmykov
| first = Lev V.
| last2 = Kalmykov
| first2 = Vyacheslav L.
| title = A white-box model of S-shaped and double S-shaped single-species population growth
| journal = PeerJ
| volume = 3:e948
| page = e948
| year = 2015
| doi = 10.7717/peerj.948
| pmid = 26038717
| pmc = 4451025
))</ref> In black-box models, the individual-based (mechanistic) mechanisms of a complex dynamic system remain hidden. Black-box models are completely nonmechanistic. They are phenomenological and ignore a composition and internal structure of a complex system. We cannot investigate interactions of subsystems of such a non-transparent model. A white-box model of complex dynamic system has 'transparent walls' and directly shows underlying mechanisms. All events at micro-, meso- and macro-levels of a dynamic system are directly visible at all stages of its white-box model evolution. In most cases mathematical modelers use the heavy black-box mathematical methods, which cannot produce mechanistic models of complex dynamic systems. Grey-box models are intermediate and combine black-box and white-box approaches. Creation of a white-box model of complex system is associated with the problem of the necessity of an a priori basic knowledge of the modeling subject. The deterministic logical [[Cellular automaton|cellular automata]] are necessary but not sufficient condition of a white-box model. The second necessary prerequisite of a white-box model is the presence of the physical [[ontology]] of the object under study. The white-box modeling represents an automatic hyper-logical inference from the [[first principle]]s because it is completely based on the deterministic logic and axiomatic theory of the subject. The purpose of the white-box modeling is to derive from the basic axioms a more detailed, more concrete mechanistic knowledge about the dynamics of the object under study. The necessity to formulate an intrinsic [[axiomatic system]] of the subject before creating its white-box model distinguishes the cellular automata models of white-box type from cellular automata models based on arbitrary logical rules. If cellular automata rules have not been formulated from the first principles of the subject, then such a model may have a weak relevance to the real problem.<ref name="Kalmykov Lev V., Kalmykov Vyacheslav L. White-box model" />
The first sentence of this section makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.198.74.203 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The entire universe cannot be an example of a complex system because there can be no interaction of components if one is outside the other's cosmological horizon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.100.179 (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
When I originally wrote this, I framed the whole thing with an emphasis on non-linear dynamics. This seems to have been removed, but at a later state some kind of half educated twaddle about "chaos theory" ( which is a subset of non-linear dynamics) has been chucked in by someone who has only half an idea what they are going on about. The section even contradicts itself.
All very frustrating. I'd advise people to use scholarpedia instead. I know I will.
Duracell 10:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have made a first draft for a separate article about complex system, see User:Mdd/Complex system. This gives a first impression on what I intend to do. Of cause a second article about complex systems theory is missing, but this will contain all the information from the current article which is not in the new complex systems article. - Mdd 23:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have recreated the second article User:Mdd/Complex system (study). And I think I am going to implement this sone. I'm not so sure any more that the scholarpedia article is an excellent introduction... of complex systems. It's probably an excellent introduction of complexity. But since when are complexity and complex systems one and the same thing? I think that if you name an article complex system and then write about complexity... you don't make a contribution to society. It mistifies instead of clearifies things. - Mdd 13:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this explaination. I have just recreated the complexity article, and I have come to the point that I have three designs:
Now I'm trying to compare these with scholarpedia article!? That article on first hand is far more impressive then the three (what you already called) listings. I have faith however that the three related article can and will also grow.
It remains clear to me that something has to been done with the current situation... If you have no really big objections I like to give it a try to split this article in two. - Mdd 17:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll just implement it. Then people can really see what happens and respond anyway. - Mdd 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I made one more step. I changed the articles name complex systems (study) into complex systems. - Mdd 19:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The main reason for so many misunderstandings about complex systems and complexity theory are ambiguous and overcomplicated explanations. People seem to think that words “complexity” and “complex” justify complicated explanations in which even “explanators” (coined word) cannot find their way.
As any other entry in any other encyclopaedia, the explanation needs to be simple, easy to follow and with examples to support the explanation. It needs to satisfy readers of all possible profiles: experts and non-experts.
It always helps to start with a bit of history (George Henry Lewes and Jules-Henri Poincaré) and example like emergent property saltines of salt (NaCl). Here we see that the first notions of complexity were based upon observations of natural phenomena. The math (theory) that followed is still having some issues to match itself with observations, mainly because of linear thinking. (See complexity theory bible: Thinking in Complexity by Klaus Mainzer.)
The concept is, however, clear and supported by numerous examples. (Market Equilibrium, planetary systems, molecules, bees, ants, us, culture etc. each describing interactions of agents (oscillators) and result of these interactions called emergent property.) I think that I have managed to explain the concept clearly enough on my web pages: Imagination is Greater than Knowledge. However, I can surmise it here:
It is interesting to note that unstable system is in a higher energy level than stable system and we need to introduce energy into stable system if we do not like the outcome of the previous symmetry splitting.
As for this whole entry: It is much better and more competent than previous one. (Scrapped, I guess.) However, when I consider that previous one listed attributes and this one is listing seemingly different meanings of word complexity - I’m not so sure. There is one, and only one, meaning of complexity in all listed (and some non-listed) disciplines and this meaning needs to be articulated before we get into different aspects of it.
Damir Ibrisimovic 08:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've repeatedly stated how I think this article should be done. I greatly improved it in 2005, and would be willing to work on it further. All that is required here is not 3 articles, or impressionistic wanderings, but a simple article after the manner of the article on scholarpedia, as I have said above. - Duracell 00:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought there really needed to be a history section on this page. I created one and put a few tidbits there but it's only the beginning. I would be very grateful if anyone could contribute enough material to weave together a coherent narrative. I would be glad to come back and add material on ecology, but I don't know as much about other subjects. Cazort (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
There used to be relevant info about the origins and early developments of complex systems theory, which was, it seems, deleted during this edit [3]. I would bring back some of this info as the article is pretty "dry" right now. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the following entry:
Relationships are non-linear In practical terms, this means a small perturbation may cause a large effect (see butterfly effect), a proportional effect, or even no effect at all. In linear systems, effect is always directly proportional to cause. See nonlinearity.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the argument follows. I can envisage a linear system that is ill-conditioned, although I don't know if a non-linear system CAN be well posed. Does Hadamard's definition of a well posed problem apply to non-linear systems too? Or am I completely misguided here? Also I couldn't find any reference to a system being sensitive to initial conditions from the page on nonlinearty that is referenced. Maybe someone with more experience in the field could follow this up?
Maszanchi (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Broadly, non-linear does mean dependent on different initial conditions. in simple (one dimensional) non-linear systems, there are only fixed points in the dynamics, to which trajectories will converge. But there can be more than one fixed point, and which one you end up at is determined by initial conditions. In two dimensions, it gets more complicated, and in 3+ dimensions, you (can) get chaos. In chaotic dynamics, it is impossible to predict where the system will go (as far as is known), even though it is deterministic (i.e. is not random in any way).
A one dimensional linear system could only have one fixed point, at the intersection of the line describing the rate of change, and the line describing the position. Two dimensional linear system can have orbits as well as fixed points, but still just one fixed point. So, in that sense they are not dependent on initial conditions. Strogatz's book is good for all thisDuracell (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, two dimensional linear systems have orbits, and the amplitude of the orbit depends on the initial conditions. So that is an example of a linear system that depends on inital conditions. but *qualitatively* the dynamics don;t depend in IC. Duracell (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The following list of organizations is just removed User:Ronz, see here:
Organizations
I don't think a list likle this is just spam. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the link to Adam M.Gadomski and to Socio-cognitive systems because:
Don't get me wrong here. I don't oppose either Adam M.Gadomski nor Socio-cognitive system. I follow simply a strickt rule here, that an overview article like this in Wikipedia should be based on the current articles in the field. I you have anything reliable to state, you are free to create these new articles articles first. I am simply asking to do tou home work here.
I do know however that the name Adam M.Gadomski is spammed in other articles before, like User:Arthur Rubin has noticed on his talkpage. I will contact him about this incident. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I accept your motivations, but, anyway, socio-cognitive systems are really complex systems!
About Gadomski - his socio-cognitive engineering domain with its complexity is an important but narrow and difficult advanced specialization (with the big future, I suppose).
"In this section we discussed different types of bridges. These different perspectives underline the notion that something has to be created (artifact, communication, interface, gatekeepers, relationship) that connects individuals or collective entities. Although these bridging concepts are presented as complex and multidimensional, most of them ignore the socio-cognitive complexity of the two ends of the bridges: the individual." (the ERIM Report Series Research in Management: I. Bogenrieder, P. J. Van Baalen. Multiple Inclusion and Community Networks, 2004)
On the other hand, the Google search: "socio-cognitive complexity", only finds 23 documents.
- Maybe, at present, it is better to wait on a journal publication about systemic socio-cognitive complexity (?) --Overix (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been checking if unintentionally various parts of Wikipedia articles have been copy-paste here without proper attribution. Now it seems:
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
"Structure" is used five times alone in discussion! I attempted to create complex structure, really complex data structure (which is a redundant statement as structured material is, of course, data), but the page got deleted as it took longer than expected to recruit experts.
The point being that the structure is the atomic level, or layer, into which all the data fits. In our environment, I believe we are so familiar with it that we take it for granted: Wikiology. It is the conceptual structure that Carl Rogers describes (cited in Wikiology) in his original "objective" model. It is the structure of object-orientation--and I mean programming here and not "object relations," though that can be included too. It is not hard to locate material; the problem is wrenching out of the minds of those who have possession it, introverted geeks!--John Bessa (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The author of the source used in this set of diffs added the a bunch of content based on his own article. This appears to give WP:UNDUE weight to this source. Per WP:SELFCITE I have reverted, and have copied the content here for discussion.
Mathematical models of complex systems are of three types:[1][2]
- black-box (phenomenological),
- white-box (mechanistic, based on the first principles) and
- grey-box (mixtures of phenomenological and mechanistic models).
In black-box models, the individual-based (mechanistic) mechanisms of a complex dynamic system remain hidden. Black-box models are completely nonmechanistic. They are phenomenological and ignore a composition and internal structure of a complex system. We cannot investigate interactions of subsystems of such a non-transparent model.
A white-box model of complex dynamic system has ‘transparent walls’ and directly shows underlying mechanisms. All events at micro-, meso- and macro-levels of a dynamic system are directly visible at all stages of its white-box model evolution. In most cases mathematical modelers use the heavy black-box mathematical methods, which cannot produce mechanistic models of complex dynamic systems.
Grey-box models are intermediate and combine black-box and white-box approaches. As a rule, this approach is used in ‘overloaded’ form, what makes it less transparent. It was demonstrated that the logical deterministic cellular automata approach allows to create the white-box models of ecosystems.
Creation of a white-box model of complex system is associated with the problem of the necessity of an a priori basic knowledge of the modeling subject. The deterministic logical cellular automata are necessary but not sufficient condition of a white-box model. The second necessary prerequisite of a white-box model is the presence of the physical ontology of the object under study. The white-box modeling represents an automatic hyper-logical inference from the first principles because it is completely based on the deterministic logic and axiomatic theory of the subject.
The purpose of the white-box modeling is to derive from the basic axioms a more detailed, more concrete mechanistic knowledge about the dynamics of the object under study. The necessity to formulate an intrinsic axiomatic system of the subject before creating its white-box model distinguishes the cellular automata models of white-box type from cellular automata models based on arbitrary logical rules. If cellular automata rules have not been formulated from the first principles of the subject, then such a model may have a weak relevance to the real problem.
References
- ^ Kroll, Andreas (2000). Grey-box models: Concepts and application. In: New Frontiers in Computational Intelligence and its Applications, vol.57 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, pp. 42-51. IOS Press, Amsterdam.
- ^ Kalmykov, Lev V.; Kalmykov, Vyacheslav L. (2015), "A white-box model of S-shaped and double S-shaped single-species population growth", PeerJ, 3:e948, doi:10.7717/peerj.948
((citation))
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Thoughts on that section by other independent editors? 13:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
This whole section appears to be lifted from a PhD thesis: Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Induction of Heat Shock Gene Expression By Paul H. Frisch (2008)
Of course, vice versa could be possible - looking back through the history, this text seems to have appeared around 2005.
PennyDarling (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The definition of a complex system was appallingly wrong. I now fixed it to give the current accepted general definition with a reference to a peer-reviewed article. Clearly, a great deal of additional work is necessary on this article. --Skater00 (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I removed this link because: 1. it didn't exist any longer. 2. there seems to be nothing about it 3. it has seemingly nothing to do with complex systems.--Skater00 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Should this page be deleted or combined with the content of the Complex Systems page? Both pages clearly cover the same topic, although this page focuses more in complex systems properties and the Complex Systems seems to focus more on complex systems applications. I see in the talk comments below, that they were once one page. However, I don't understand the logic for this. To me, the split seems to make things more confusing.
I'm a wikipedia noob, so I apologize if this isn't the correct way to frame this question.
Thanks
HariSeldon11988 (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Hari.
I propose a merge with the Complex systems page. It does not make much sense to have these two separate pages pretending they are in any way different. Skater00 (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd strongly support this. The complex systems page is much more detailed, and most of the interesting content is mirrored over there. This page reads very much like a definition of the term itself, which isn't the point of WP. RealityApologist (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree. (Clauariel (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC))
Agree, just do it ...----Snowded TALK 05:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Skater00 merged Complex system into Complex systems on 29 July 2017. But, if these two articles need to be merged, then Complex system should be merged from, not into, Complex systems per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). I just reverted the merger and merged Complex systems into Complex system. --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Complex system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Complex system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Is Stuart Kauffman a notable figure in this field? I'm not certain, but a concern by another was raised about Kauffman's inclusion in the list. I'll leave it up to others to decide. GoodDay (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
General form of complexity computation The computational law of reachable optimality[39] is established as a general form of computation for ordered systems and it reveals complexity computation is a compound computation of optimal choice and optimality driven reaching pattern overtime underlying a specific and any experience path of ordered system within the general limitation of system integrity. AdamNealis (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, fellow Wikipedians!
I just did a full sweep of this article to add the necessary commas, remove tautologies, fixed tenses, and plural form of certain words.
Some of the changes included spelling changes to behaviour (to behavior)
Thanks! Sabaybayin (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Why is there an image of a Lorenz attractor in the current version of this article, yet nowhere in the text of the current version of this article is a Lorenz attractor (or, indeed, any kind of attractor) mentioned or explained? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)