Talk:Complexity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] WTF etymology

-plex and -plic- are the same etymon, not different ones. In Latin, the combining form of a noun ending in -ex is -ic, for example index versus indices. The root is plico, "I fold", and it's only colloquially used to indicate weaving.

I'm changing the article, speak now or forever hold your peace (and learn a little Latin while you're at it.) 35.10.172.97 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

oh, but complexity is not restricted to computer science and complexity theory! maybe we had better make this a disambig. page that would in turn point to

  • complexity (computer science)
  • complex systems
  • ...?

[edit] Another characteristic of complex systems (complex adaptive systems)

For the definition of complex adaptive systems, three characteristics are mentioned: hih-dimentionality, non-linearity and sensitivity to initial conditions. There is also a fourth characteritic: emergent behaviour. Shouldnt this also be included?

While Complex adaptive systems are of current hot interest, they are by no means the only type of complex system. I currently have observed 4 types of complex systems. The typing reflects the manner with which the system interacts with its chaotic context (environment). (This requires you to understand the 4 zones of chaos.) If the environment is truly random or white noise (Zone 3) then the best complex system is usally robust to withstand the totally unpredictable changes. The zone 1 and 2 chaotic enviroments lend themselves usually to flexible and adaptive complex systems. With flexible complex system changing near real time to transients but going back to previous state when transient subsides. The adaptive complex system changes over time to the new state. When operating in zone 4 ("edge of chaos"), the agile complex system changes based on short term predictions to leverage the upcoming change. There may be more types of complex systems, but these are the current. Anyone who uses just adaptive complex systems is assuming a solution and type of chaotic context that may or may not be real for the case in consideration.

Wikipedia is a complex system with many emergent behaviors, sensitivity to initial contributors. I think the definition of complex - meaning to "weave" indicates that the underlying characteristic of a complex system is the focus on the interelationships rather than the nodes. It is the interaction that gives rise to the behaviors such as non-linearity, sensitivity to initial conditions, emergence, and hi-dimentionality. Counting connections misses the point that complex systems can have few but non-linear interrelationships. I would recommend sticking with basic definition of the terms and current fields of application. If you have to make references I would definitely include Wolfram's book A New Kind of Science.

[edit] This page needs work

It'd be nice if we could have an overview of what is generally meant by complexity and how different fields approach it. All those concepts are somehow related, so we need more than mere disambiguation.

I'm trying to improve the article :-P "The opposite of simplicity" seems a bit dubious to me (and I wrote it ^-^) but refering to simplicity seems necessary. How about randomness ? Computational irreducibility ? Determinism ? A distinction between what is complex and what is complicated ? Flammifer 09:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've been reorganizing the page. I've removed the disambig link, for one - I think there should be a general discussion of complexity, and how different fields approach it. This overlaps a bit with complex systems, but the term is meaningful outside of complex systems, and it isn't a case of "many different meanings".

The general structure I see is :

  • what is complexity ? (edge of chaos, etc.)
  • study of complexity in itself (maybe just a summary of complex system)
  • complexity in different fields - and how they relate to complex systems (are they talking about the same thing ?); and measures of complexity in different fields.

(Also, some fields aren't mentioned much here, such as design, engineering ... complexity of a user interface is a problem, etc. Flammifer 09:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for getting things started in a good way; I appreciate your desire to keep the entry generally applicable. In that vein, I edited the word "chaotic" to be "random", since (as I see it) "chaos" has scientific meaning which includes possible explanation of behavior; "randomness" is that which has unexplainable variation. Please let me know if you think otherwise, I welcome any input. 1diot 04:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs More Work

I would also like to say that this page is in dire need of improvement in both content and structure.

Structurally, the basics of Complexity and its various notions are not covered very well. The general outline seems like random fragments of vague descriptions rather than a systematic outline covering the concepts in any sort of rational structure. A better examples of good outlines for introducing Complexity might be found here:

http://www.calresco.org/intro.htm

(although I wouldn't necessarily advocate the overall approach to Complexity on this site at large)

In terms of content, the current Wikipedia article does nothing to communicate the sheer magnitude of importance Complexity has to nearly every science, major branches of philosophy, business models, and even being crucial to comprehending many of the basic perspectives of the universe in our time.

Although not exactly encyclopedic in their approach, good content sources to look at might include:

http://www.prototista.org/E-Zine/WhatisComplexity.htm

And (humbly) my own:

http://dtstrainphilosophyblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/big-deal-about-complexity.html

I would be happy to cook something up that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia article than my above examples, but I don't want to duplicate any efforts that might be going on right now. If this is appropriate to others here, please feel free to email me at dtstrain@yahoo.com (I will also look back here after a time).

[edit] Is this a joke?

Much of this paragraph seems a parody or satire, is it?

Some indication exists that, pari passu, computer programs become slowly less reliable as their size increases because the statistical and geopolitical meanings of individual bits and bytes of information comprising the program are lost at the extreme of their implications in the environmental thermodynamics of the system. This can be resolved better as computer design becomes better adapted to the ordinary covariant relativistic space-time frame (x, y, z,-ct).


--jonathan

I agree, since I can't figure out what it means, or if it means anything at all. For memory, the deleted piece was:

Information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are related through statistics, an area that is only emerging recently. The connection is not well determined, but clearly range from trivial inessentials to possibly great value. Entropy, for instance, can be eliminated as a common variable in both the information entropy equation S = - k log (p) and G = U - T*S (archaic notation...) but then the information content immediately disappears, and only by chasing the equations again, will it reappear often in a somewhat different way like Proteus. Some indication exists that, pari passu, computer programs become slowly less reliable as their size increases because the statistical and geopolitical meanings of individual bits and bytes of information comprising the program are lost at the extreme of their implications in the environmental thermodynamics of the system. This can be resolved better as computer design becomes better adapted to the ordinary covariant relativistic space-time frame (x, y, z,-ct).

... if anyone feels like salvaging that, feel free. Flammifer 04:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on work by Wolfram in his book, A New Kind of Science, the second law of thermodynamics and entropy are in question. I think this discussion is beyond the scope of Wikipedia and is best left to theorists in the New Science.

[edit] so is this just a random list of cultural references with the word complexity in them?

I'm not seeing it. yes i've been studying this stuff for 30 years, but this article doesn't seem to sum up what i've been studying.

i don't think the field of computational complexity goes here at all. I don't think it has to do with what the authors have in mind.

This goes along with those systems wikis. It's simply too broad to be a topic. perhaps it needsd to just be a list to all the wikis that have some notion of complexity? A large redirect page?

the opening paragraph states:

Complexity in specific usage is the opposite of independence

but then the article never discusses independence or lack of in complex systems.

another definition:

some would say that only what is somehow complex – what displays variation without being random – is worthy of interest.

really that's too braod. so the natural numbers are complex? The periodic chart is complex? What is NOT complex then? wave phenomenon i suppose...

oh here is the def:

The use of the term complex is often confused with the term complicated. In today’s systems, this is the difference between a myriad of connecting “stovepipes” and effective “integrated” solutions. (Lissack and Roos, 2000) This means that complex is the opposite of independent, while complicated is the opposite of simple.

come out and say what we mean! what do we mean? i don't get it.

i give up! there's nothing here.Wikiskimmer 07:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

This article gives an overview of meaning of the term complexity, the study around it, and an overview of complex phenomenon. This seems to me like a good start. -- Mdd 15:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The article attempts 3 definitions. none of them are clearly explained. If the dependence/independence idea is important, we should explain it. i have only a vague guess here as to what the author of this wiki means by dependence.Wikiskimmer 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The situation is almost the same as we talk about in Talk:Complex system? - Mdd 23:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe best to concentrate first on subject and leader

The leader paragraph raises the immediate questions of the meaning of general usage and specific usage, and of the difference between the two. It may be that a better way to a respectable article starts with narrowing the article's subject to system complexity - it would focus the mind, it seems. -- Iterator12n Talk 19:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have had an kind of interesting discussion with Duracell about this subject om the Talk:Complex system about the original intention of that article. The interesting thing was the discussion around the scholardepia article on complex systems, see here. Duracell suggested to copy that article there (which isn't allowed because of copyright). I further suggested that that article could be used to improve this article on complexity. So: the scholarpedia article gives a good example how this article could be improved.
Now you suggest to narrow this article to "systems complexity". I don't quite understand why we should do this? and where this should lead to? - Mdd 20:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. why we should do this. Reason: My experience elsewhere is that a discussion about complexity may easily lead to a discussion about the complexity of WHAT, followed by a lot of talk about the object that manifests the complexity (and whether or not that object is "truly" complex, etc.), and not enough about complexity itself. Use of system would abstract us (insulate us, at least to some degree) from the object with the complexity. If you like, it introduces 'systems thinking' into the discussion about complexity. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 20:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In short, the title that I propose is "Complexity (systems)," leaving room for other views of complexity. -- Iterator12n Talk 21:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This article in its current form tells a lot about the things Wikipedia has to offer about the subject complexity.
If you want to write a specific article about Complexity (systems) or Complexity in systems science be my guest. If you have wrote it then we can add that article to this article. - Mdd 21:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll put it on my to-do list. I'll probably make it Complexity (systems), covering both systems science and systems engineering. -- Iterator12n Talk 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion: Complexity + Complex system + Complex systems

Anybody looking to lampoon Wikipedia doesn’t have to look further than the collection of {Complexity, Complex system, Complex systems} articles. As another editor already asked, is this part of Wikipedia a joke? Being positive and trying to fix Complexity, you will then run into the two other articles. Maybe the most hilarious point is the side-by-side existence of Complex system and Complex systems. I’m sorry for the general reader who stumbles into this part of Wikipedia. Best thing is to scrap all three articles and start over, possibly using Duracell’s work on Complex system from 2 years ago as a bootstrap - that work wasn't half bad. Vyyjpkmi 04:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are now three articles, which explain this matter from slightly different perspectives, which has been talked extensively on the Talk:Complex system page. If you think this is all the same, maybe your problem is that you can see the difference? If you have something new to add here, I'm sure you can find a place to add this. If you just want to mess up the current format I'm sure you have better things to do. - Mdd 09:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Mdd, you said “If you think this is all the same, maybe your problem is that you can see the difference?” Your formulation of my “problem” is on par with the writing of the three articles. Leaving that aside, you know what I think: The collective editors of the {Complexity, Complex system, Complex systems} articles had different ideas on what complexity is all about, mixed in with a good dose of ideas of the half-baked variety. Result: the general reader is thrown for a loss. So concentrate on the articles, concentrate on writing, look for a lot of help, do not concentrate on personalities. Vyyjpkmi 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I got the idea that you are not a general reader, but someone close related to user:Duracell. I had the same discussion with him and his minor contributions on the Talk:Complex system talk page. I have explained the concept of the current state here. I actualy like you tot respond over there, to the argument brought forward. - Mdd 12:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December additions

Hope my moving the materials formerly in sources of complexity to new complex adaptive systems is not too heavy handed. Have focused mainly on definitional area to try to help flesh out basic elements found often in attempts to define complexity without trying to achieve one definition at this time for this article. Though I see criticisms of the structure of the piece, have not tried to reorganized entire article or set of articles. Ordermaven (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I wikified this article on the 22 August 2007, see here, and implemented, what I call, a standard structure into this article. This kind of structure I implemented in maybe more then 100 articles in the field of systems. In this structure all articles start with a definition, and first of all give an overview of the topic. Such an overview could start with what is now the first sentence.
So I don't know what your intentions are, when you want to reorganized the entire article. Do you have a particular article structure in mind, more common in Wikipedia? -- Mdd (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Mdd, I do not intend to reorganize the article. Saw all the comments on structure and did not know that you had recently created a standard structure. Just said I had not attempted to address the criticisms. Apparently you have already done that.
The intro paras are intened to be in the overview mode, but stopping short of attempting a single definition. I could provide such a definition -- I do have such a definition which I employ and have put on the web elsewhere. But if we try to keep things tethered to extant knowledge do not see that there is in all the various forms literature just one that could be said to be the agreed definition at this time. Ordermaven (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not native English speaker and I have no idea what "... has engendered an abundance of definitions..." means. I quess I have to look it up in a dictionary. My online dictionary gives the meaning: "give rise to" in Dutch: verwekken, uitdagen, uitlokken, provoceren, aanleiding geven tot, ophitsen. Now I always try to keep the beginning of an article as simple as possible. I think not native speaker shouldn't needs a dictionary to even start reading an article.
Now it is also common in science, that there are a lot of definitions about general terms. And in systems science this is even worse. But the first sentence of an article shouldn't mention this fact, but should mention the most common meaning of the word, in real life... not just in scientific literature.
It is a mistake to think that an article in Wikipedia starts with a exact definition, even with any definition. A description of the general meaning would be nice. Now I looked for complexity (complexiteit) in the most important Dutch dictionary and this just mentioned: complexiteit 1 samengesteld geheel. Translated: Complexity 1 composed whole. So this article could start with the sentence: Complexity in general has the meaning of a composed whole... or something like that in correct English. And the the sentences can continue with .. but in science there is no general accepted definition of complexity. This is one way to keep it simple. -- Mdd (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Made the lead sentence more direct and simple per your suggestion, but could not in good conscience use the 'composed whole' characterization as the gist of the current usage. I could offer a gist statement, and will assay one if you would like.
By the way, thanks for the clean up of the paragraphing of the complex adaptive systems statement of elements.
Ordermaven (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The lead sentence is much better now, allthought I do like to have a kind of description in the first sentence. As I already stated, this should say something about "the most general meaning of complexity in real life". Googling complexity didn't give me much to go on though. I did notice that:
  • The Principia Cybernetica web definition also start with: "Complexity has turned out to be very difficult to define. The dozens of definitions that have been offered..." [1]
  • A lot of internet definition of complexity seems hardly related to my idea of complexity
  • Complexity not only has multiple definitions, the word itselve has different meaning. It can mean a quality, a kind of composition, a science, and...!? Now this is an other way to define complexity. Just summarize the different meanings...!?
I also saw that the German, French and Spanish Wikipedia articles on complexity don't start with a definition. There seems to be a very complex problem here. - Mdd (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep. And we both seem to know what that means.
So I put in a 'general usage' sentence, drawing on dictionary definitions, following that with the sentence about various approaches in science.
Ordermaven (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)