On Complexity: after you've read a while you'll discover that there may be a highest complexity principle in play in _this_ universe. This goes with physics, math and all else (astronomy incl.). This highest complexity is thus given for each descriptive component out of everything and exhaustively covering everything this component can possibly describe. Therefore, the Universe is not inifinitely complex. No, it has a highest complexity prinicple to it, regardless, I think this covers all aspects given by each and every aspect by themselves and potentially for all human beings have the possibility to describe! Good?
Note on Cantor and related: it's not complex to utter that simply because you have an infinite scope of numbers running or a scope you certainly will not get to know by experience that this scope is complex because it holds "a lot". No, we are only concerned with the complexity of formula and usually people begin to insert probability calculus into the equations (by Boltzmann or so) and think that this is complex and they're RIGHT. This is one expression of complexity we're looking for in addition to other complex patterns of nature, including of course, the mathematical formulas and wordly descriptions of all else! Cheers!
This note on complexity goes without the mathematical writings on Complexity that I imagine can exist over the number of equations taking part in inferences of mathematical arguments. You can also add the actual numbers to this and make a probability calculation to how big by numbers and equations this complexity can ever get by this mathematical definition and possibly come out with a kind of rating or score that enters its own grading system over works in mathematics! Good again?
ReplyDeleteThe first paragraph above has first, moments ago, been written to Facebook.
ReplyDeleteComplexity by:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_economics
In case people may want to dispute me, making the opposite case, I require them to show or envision a complexity case where the complexity escapes us. It is one thing to cite "infinite complexity" and another to cite "a deep mystery like that of any "soul""! ("Soul", by the way, is something I personally believe in. You can check with Van Lommel studies, Dr. Dick Bierman and quantum states and various other reports of supernatural phenomena.)
ReplyDelete1. One has a fine system of grading difficulty in Figure Skating and this can be transferred to the various mental feats in Mathematics and the rest of the sciences where this "Complexity rating/grading" is supposed to take place!
ReplyDelete2. The next is how to grade and I think one should start with the basic levels and grade upward for various feats. This can get tough and it's going to be exciting to see what grading/rating system(s) one ends up with! Good?
(For that matter, I note the "Bacon-number" and it's several equivalents. You find more on this elsewhere.)
One must separate between "exact expression" and "pedagogics" in dealing with Complexity.
ReplyDeleteThere's no serious way to reduce complexity if complexity is justified as exact and effective expression.