Talk:Complex system

message: 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)
thread_title:  Potential Addition on Complex Systems Modeling 

message: 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)
replies: text: First, there may be interactions that are mediated by other components which lie in the intersetcion of the cosmological horizons of the two endpoints one is considering. Second, would it better epress the meaning if we wrote "the behaviour of the entire observable universe"? EpicScizor (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complexity 

message: 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)
replies: text: I just can't see what an article on complex systems that ommitted all theory would have to offer - it might even stoke the fires of confusion in that it would just be a list of "complicated things", which is not the same as a complex system. Morevoer, the scholarpedia article is an excellent introduction. At the moment I'm busy researching the brain as a complex system, for my PhD in "complex systems", and if I took time to write something as I did in 2005, I reckon it would just end up deleted. Duracell 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Both these terms have multiple meanings in the English language. But as far as technical, scientific meanings go, "complexity" and "complex system" are so close in meaning that they are effectively the same thing. All complex systems exhibit complexity. All things that exhibit complexity are complex systems. Duracell 16:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new design in two seperate articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: I do agree that a historical section can add some coherence to this article. I will give it some thoughts. - Mdd (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There are some remarks in the historical section in the system article which could also fit in here. And you also start looking in the historical sections of other related Wikipedia articles. Now I will leave that you to decide. Good luck. - Mdd (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, I guess that section moved towards the complex systems article. -- Mdd (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so there's two articles now. I see, thanks for the note ! --Childhood's End (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the first sentence here should be more precise. Maybe the two articles should be merged after all. There are other voices telling, those two articles should be merged with complexity. And an other voice telling ther three articles should be removed and the citizendium article should take their place. These discussions are small in compare to the argumentations you seemed to be in. But if you have other idea's here, please let me know. -- Mdd (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep an eye on the complex system(s) articles. Besides, nice work there Mdd, and hats off for all the effort. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non-linear = dependent on initial conditions? 

message: I have removed the link to Adam M.Gadomski and to Socio-cognitive systems because:
* Remarks like this in an overview article in the introduction are generally not accepted.
* Adam M.Gadomski shouldn't be mentioned here, because he is not considered a notable scientist in Wikipedia (yet??). There are a dozens complex systems scientists who are. 
* Socio-cognitive systems is removed because it hasn't got an article of its own. If you want to add this text this should be done Socio-cognitive article. Or just start an article. 
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)
replies: text: Good for you to delete this drivel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.222.218 (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed links to Adam M.Gadomski and to Socio-cognitive systems 

message: I have been checking if unintentionally  various parts of Wikipedia articles have been copy-paste here without proper attribution. Now it seems:
* The situation here is actually the other way around
* Aug 2007 I split this article in two, see here, copy/pasting half it into the new complex systems article. 
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles into this article  

message: "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)
thread_title:  Complex structures 

message: 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: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. 
* 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.
Thoughts on that section by other independent editors? 13:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting take on the subject but I doubt the taxonomy has universal acceptance.  I haven't seen it in other literature but its pretty recent so not many citations yet.  Given its recent I think you are right to delete it - good catch I missed that and its one of the pages I monitor ----Snowded TALK 13:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex systems modeling section and [[WP:SELFCITE]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hyper Emotional Society 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722075059/http://www.crm.cat/ComplexSystems_Lines/defaultsistemescomplexos.htm to http://www.crm.cat/ComplexSystems_Lines/defaultsistemescomplexos.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123171158/http://www.irit.fr/COSI/training/complexity-tutorial/history-of-complex-systems.htm to http://www.irit.fr/COSI/training/complexity-tutorial/history-of-complex-systems.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123171158/http://www.irit.fr/COSI/training/complexity-tutorial/history-of-complex-systems.htm to http://www.irit.fr/COSI/training/complexity-tutorial/history-of-complex-systems.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426052819/http://predictivemodeler.com/sitecontent/book/Ch06_Applications/Actuarial/HEC_Model/Healthcare%20Exchange%20Complexity%20Model%20-%20Report%20-%20Aug2011.pdf to http://predictivemodeler.com/sitecontent/book/Ch06_Applications/Actuarial/HEC_Model/Healthcare%20Exchange%20Complexity%20Model%20-%20Report%20-%20Aug2011.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110220054920/http://www.oeaw.ac.at/byzanz/repository/Preiser_WorkingPapers_Calculating_I.pdf to http://www.oeaw.ac.at/byzanz/repository/Preiser_WorkingPapers_Calculating_I.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: He is one of the most notable!   Wrote some of the defining books -----Snowded TALK 10:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough for me. Kauffman stays. GoodDay (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable figures. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First paragraph of "General form of complexity computation" is not clear 

message: 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) 
*if this is not okay please change them back but do not revert the whole edit.
Thanks! Sabaybayin (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerous grammatical and spelling changes (British to English)  

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Lorenz attractor]]