>Doug thinks my definition of complexity was a little too complex. He
>offers an amendment that requires high connectivity, as illustrated by an
>underlying graphic form. It reminds me of the often cited quote:
>"Everything is connected to everything else."
>
>Perspective on connectivity is not terribly easy to obtain. Here are
>some things that help me with the matter:
(snip)
According to Buckminster Fuller in his book "Synergetics Volume 1"
(Macmillan, New York) underlying order in randomness is easy to explain.
Refer to chapter 227.00 Principle of order Underlying Randomness
as quoted below...
"Definition: The number of relationships between events is always
2
N - N
------
2
Where: N = the number of events of considerations
The relationships between four or more events are always greater in
number than the number of events. The equation expresses the
conceptuality of the number of the most economical relationships
between events or the minimum number of interconnections of all events.
The number of telephone lines necessary to interequip various numbers
of individuals so that any two individuals will always have their unique
private telephone line is always
2
(N - N)/2 where N is the number of telephones.
This is to say that all the special interrelationships of all experiences
define comprehension, which is the number of connections necessary to
an understanding of 'what everything is all about.'"
2
Sum of adjacent relationships is (N-1) where N is number of events.
See also Synergetics Volume 1 (Macmillan, New York)
table 227.01 "Underlying order in Randomness"
copyright 1965 R. Buckminster Fuller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Donato DiPietrantonio
ABI Group
(Another Bright Idea Group - Creativity & Learning)
1944 Michigan Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 6Y2
Phone: (613) 526-3392 Internet:af819@Freenet.Carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------