Re: complex

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

My preference is to add a qualifier prefix to "complex" in order to
distinguish Rosennean types of complexity from the myriad other
interpretations.

So, I am thinking of something like:
p-complex = predicatively complex (for all 'simple' or computable systems)
ip-complex = impredicatively complex (for all Rosennean complex systems)

This is quite easy to write, and allows people to immediately understand
that one is talking about complexity, but in very specific terms.

The drawback is that while predicativity vs. impredicativity is certainly a
well-defined way of distinguishing the two categories, using that
characteristic as a defining qualifier might draw attention away from other
equally (or moreso) important distinctions between simple and complex
systems.

So....perhaps we use something closer to Rosen's definition for simple vs
complex (EL p. 306) where simplicity is gauged in terms of simulability
(Turing-computability) of all models, and Rosennean complexity is the
failure of that requirement.

In that case, we could use terms like:
c-complex = computable complex
nc-complex = noncomputable complex

This also retains much of the etymological meaning of "complex": a c-complex
system will have entailment structures entwined only within the constraints
of computability of its models, whereas nc-complex systems can have more
richly entwined entailment structures.

Another alternative might be "r-complex" for "rosennean complex". And then
perhaps "s-complex" for "simple" systems. But that also requires separately
defining "simple" and "rosennean".

Just tossing out ideas....

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Jeff
> Pridaux
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:08 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: complex
>
>
> I agree with Mike's argument.  There is so much momentum with the non-
> Rosennean usage of the term "complex" that the world isn't going to adopt
> The Rosennean definition of "complex" unless some practical application of
> it has such utility as to get everyones attention.
>
> Its kind of a question of if you are a launguage purist or not.
> A language
> purist may not want to "give up" on the word "complex".