Re: top-down vs. bottom-up

DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY%VCUVAX.BITNET@letterbox.rl.ac.uk)
Fri, 29 Sep 1995 09:46:33 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Search archive
Previous message: Bruce Edmonds: "Re: complexity...what exaclty is complex here?"
Maybe in reply to: Jeff Prideaux: "top-down vs. bottom-up"
Next in thread: Bruce Edmonds: "Re: top-down vs. bottom-up"

Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU,Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
Reply to Jeff:
I'll be interested in Bruces reply too, but seem to differ with Jeff's
interpretation of Rosen again (sorry!). The top-down...bottoms-up
classification seems not to be all encompassing or dichotomous.
Whereas, Rosen's classification is all encompassing. Models are
either analytic or synthetic and the definition is precise.
What makes them different is that the one you allign with reductionism is a
relation between parts, while the other is a relation between functional
components. In simple systems, they are the same. Kampis' component
systems captures this distinction. The distinction becomes really
imprtant when there is noncomutability involved in the relationship between the
components.
Best regards,
Don Mikulecky

Next message: Bruce Edmonds: "Re: truth and other properties"
Previous message: Bruce Edmonds: "Re: complexity...what exaclty is complex here?"
Maybe in reply to: Jeff Prideaux: "top-down vs. bottom-up"
Next in thread: Bruce Edmonds: "Re: top-down vs. bottom-up"