Cliff wrote:
>Be careful: are you assuming any a priori relation between the "entity" and
>the "system"? In particular, in there an assumption here that the "entity"
>as a "part" of the "system"? Furthermore, is the identity of the entity
>necessarily in the context of its embedding in the system? A liver is still
>a liver if I remove it from my body. But if you remove a hurricane from the
>earth it will not be a hurricane any more. But you don't want to call a
>hurricane a component, and I think you would my liver.
I wrote:
>>#2: An entity that retains its identity and definition when separated from a
>> system.
>>Example: resistor, transistor, capacitor, engine, wheel, etc.
>>Suggested term: part
Cliff Wrote:
>According to the semiotics of artifacts, and in keeping with Wittgenstenian
>philosophy of language, tools (like words) have no identify or definition
>(function) removed from their USE AS tools within a larger semiotic
>community. A hammer can be used as an anvil, and vice versa. Take out a
>transister from the machine, it really ISN'T a transistor: it's now just a
>hunk of silicon.
Hmmmm .... lets think through these ideas....
The idea I'm trying to express in this part-component distinction is
that "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts"...
What happens if we make the following distinction?
A "part" is something that is only used in one way by a system. For
example, an inductor is used in the same way in computers, televisions,
radios, etc... It establishes a voltage across its leads
that is proportional to the derivative of the current passing through it.
We can therefor establish a one-to-one structure-function relationship
for the inductor for the systems described above. One the other hand,
if you could imagine the same inductor being used functionally in two
different ways by a particular system (perhaps additionally as a spring
where the force of which it pushes or pulls is proportional to some
physical displacement) then there wouldn't necessarily be a one-to-one
structure-function relationship for this entity. The "inductor" taken
out of one system ("system A"-the system that used it in two different
ways) would be degenerate (in respect to system A) if it is placed in
another system ("system B"-a system that only uses it in only one way).
Consider that our goal is to formally characterize system A. Consider
that we take out the physical entity of the "inductor" and place it in
system B. We formally characterize the functional transfer function of
the "inductor" while it is in system B. We then attempt to build a formal
model of system A using this incomplete (degenerate) characterization
of the "inductor". We consequently find that our attempted model of
system A doesn't match the behavior of system A.
Could this be an example where the whole is greater than the sum of the
parts? (The whole is greater than the sum of the degenerate parts).
Could we then define "component" (or use a better term??) to only
refer to a functionality of something (divorced from the physical
substance). Therefor, the "inductor" as described above would consist
of two components (both having the same physical structure).
Jeff Prideaux