Online Book Reader

Home Category

Complexity_ A Guided Tour - Melanie Mitchell [152]

By Root 462 0
and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology, 6, 1980, p. 120.

“The view of evolution due to the Modern Synthesis ‘is one of the greatest myths’ ”: Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 43.

“I am of the opinion that nothing is seriously wrong with the achievements”: Mayr, E., An overview of current evolutionary biology. In Warren, L. and Koprowski, H. (editors), New Perspectives on Evolution. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1991, p. 12.

“The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection”: Dawkins, R., The Extended Phenotype (Reprint edition). Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 317. Originally published 1982.

Chapter 6

“the cell’s flash cards”: Hofstadter, D. R. The Genetic Code: Arbitrary? In Metamagical Themas. New York: Basic Books, 1985, p. 681.

Chapter 7

“what the term gene refers to”: See Pearson, H., “What is a gene?” Nature, vol. 441, 2006, pp. 399–401.

“The physicist Seth Lloyd published a paper in 2001”: Lloyd, S., Measures of complexity: A non-exhaustive list. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, August 2001.

“This is called the algorithmic information content”: A detailed reference to Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and Solmonoff’s ideas is Li, M. and Vitanyi, P., An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications, 2nd Edition. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997.

“Murray Gell-Mann proposed a related measure”: Gell-Mann, M. What is complexity? Complexity, 1 (1), 1995, pp. 16–19.

“the subjectivity of its definition remains a problem”: See, e.g., McAllister, J. W., Effective complexity as a measure of information content. Philosophy of Science 70, 2003, pp. 302–307.

“Logically deep objects”: Bennett, C. H., How to define complexity in physics, and why. In W. H. Zurek (editor), Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990, p. 142.

“It is an appealing idea”: Lloyd, S., The calculus of intricacy. The Sciences, 30, 1990, p. 42.

“Seth Lloyd and Heinz Pagels proposed”: Lloyd, S. and Pagels, H., Complexity as thermodynamic depth. Annals of Physics, 188, 1988, pp. 186–213.

“the most plausible scientifically determined” and “the total amount of thermodynamic and informational resources”: Lloyd, S., The calculus of intricacy. The Sciences, 30, 1990, p. 42.

“As pointed out by some critics”: Crutchfield, J. P. and Shalizi, C. R., Thermodynamic depth of causal states: When paddling around in Occam’s pool shallowness is a virtue. Physical Review E, 59 (1), 1999, pp. 275–283.

“Stephen Wolfram, for example, has proposed”: Wolfram, S., Universality and complexity in cellular automata. Physica D, 10, 1984, pp. 1–35.

“However, as Charles Bennett and others have argued”: e.g., see Bennett, C. H., Dissipation, information, computational complexity and the definition of organization. In D. Pines (editors), Emerging Syntheses in Science. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1985, pp. 215–233.

“statistical complexity”: Crutchfield, J. P. and Young, K., Inferring statistical complexity, Physics Review Letters 63, 1989, pp. 105–108.

“the atomic structure of complicated crystals”: Varn, D. P., Canright, G. S., and Crutchfield, J. P., Discovering planar disorder in close-packed structures from X-ray diffraction: Beyond the fault model. Physical Review B, 66, 2002, pp. 174110-1–174110-4.

“the firing patterns of neurons”: Haslinger, R., Klinkner, K. L., and Shalizi, C. R., The computational structure of spike trains. Unpublished manuscript, 2007.

“the universe is fractal-like”: Mandelbrot, B. B., The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1977.

“in general a fractal is a geometric shape”: Strogatz, S., Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994.

“fractal dimension”: A great introduction to fractals and the concept of fractal dimension is Mandelbrot’s book The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1977.

“I’ll do a calculation out of your sight”: For the Koch curve, 3 dimension = 4. To solve for dimension, take the logarithm (using any base) of both sides:

log(3dimension)

Return Main Page Previous Page Next Page

®Online Book Reader