looking for a word
Locked
123
123
 
|
I need a word (or short phrase) to refer to the portion of a network where the edges converge or diverge (more than other parts of the network. Examples might be a river delta or the branching (debranching?) of blood vessels or lungs. "Plexus" or "knot" don't work because they could ambiguously refer to something like a tapestry or ... well, a knot, where each thread remains separate, but winds around other threads. Something close to "canalization" seems appropriate. But I don't want to imply the generation (or dissolution) of the thing. E.g. [arter|ang]iogenesis are not the type of words I'm looking for. There's got to be a good word for such, perhaps from graph theory or "network theory". Any help will be rewarded by an IOU for a pint of beer. 8^) -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
A hub?
On 8/17/18, 11:47 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: I need a word (or short phrase) to refer to the portion of a network where the edges converge or diverge (more than other parts of the network. Examples might be a river delta or the branching (debranching?) of blood vessels or lungs. "Plexus" or "knot" don't work because they could ambiguously refer to something like a tapestry or ... well, a knot, where each thread remains separate, but winds around other threads. Something close to "canalization" seems appropriate. But I don't want to imply the generation (or dissolution) of the thing. E.g. [arter|ang]iogenesis are not the type of words I'm looking for. There's got to be a good word for such, perhaps from graph theory or "network theory". Any help will be rewarded by an IOU for a pint of beer. 8^) -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Maybe. But I tend to think of a hub as a kind of homogenous mixing point. E.g. a bicycle hub has all the spokes connnecting to the hub at equal distances. For water flow, something like a sewage treatment plant might have a reservoir into which pipes or canals feed, where the pipes/canals are all roughly the same length and enter the reservoir at similar distances and (possible) flow rates (pipe sizes, etc.).
A river confluence, for example, might have 2 streams merge at one point, then a 3rd stream merge in later, a stream merging with a big stream, etc. So, there's some implication that the merging/branching is heterogeneous. Abstracting the detail of such a thing would definitely make it some sort of "mixing hub". But it wouldn't be "well-mixed" if you zoomed in. All concrete hubs (e.g. Unilever in a supply chain model or whatnot) *do* have some sort of internal structure you can see when you zoom in, though. So, maybe a qualified phrase like "fractal hub" would work? On 08/17/2018 10:53 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > A hub? > > On 8/17/18, 11:47 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: > > > I need a word (or short phrase) to refer to the portion of a network where the edges converge or diverge (more than other parts of the network. Examples might be a river delta or the branching (debranching?) of blood vessels or lungs. "Plexus" or "knot" don't work because they could ambiguously refer to something like a tapestry or ... well, a knot, where each thread remains separate, but winds around other threads. Something close to "canalization" seems appropriate. But I don't want to imply the generation (or dissolution) of the thing. E.g. [arter|ang]iogenesis are not the type of words I'm looking for. > > There's got to be a good word for such, perhaps from graph theory or "network theory". Any help will be rewarded by an IOU for a pint of beer. 8^) -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Persistent homology?
On 8/17/18, 12:09 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Maybe. But I tend to think of a hub as a kind of homogenous mixing point. E.g. a bicycle hub has all the spokes connnecting to the hub at equal distances. For water flow, something like a sewage treatment plant might have a reservoir into which pipes or canals feed, where the pipes/canals are all roughly the same length and enter the reservoir at similar distances and (possible) flow rates (pipe sizes, etc.). A river confluence, for example, might have 2 streams merge at one point, then a 3rd stream merge in later, a stream merging with a big stream, etc. So, there's some implication that the merging/branching is heterogeneous. Abstracting the detail of such a thing would definitely make it some sort of "mixing hub". But it wouldn't be "well-mixed" if you zoomed in. All concrete hubs (e.g. Unilever in a supply chain model or whatnot) *do* have some sort of internal structure you can see when you zoom in, though. So, maybe a qualified phrase like "fractal hub" would work? On 08/17/2018 10:53 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > A hub? > > On 8/17/18, 11:47 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: > > > I need a word (or short phrase) to refer to the portion of a network where the edges converge or diverge (more than other parts of the network. Examples might be a river delta or the branching (debranching?) of blood vessels or lungs. "Plexus" or "knot" don't work because they could ambiguously refer to something like a tapestry or ... well, a knot, where each thread remains separate, but winds around other threads. Something close to "canalization" seems appropriate. But I don't want to imply the generation (or dissolution) of the thing. E.g. [arter|ang]iogenesis are not the type of words I'm looking for. > > There's got to be a good word for such, perhaps from graph theory or "network theory". Any help will be rewarded by an IOU for a pint of beer. 8^) -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Excellent! I suppose the things I'm talking about would exhibit something like a persistent homology. Of course, I'm looking for a word to describe a subset of those (the particular way something like a capillary bed branches out from the large blood vessels). So, it would have to be a type of persistent homology.
But the concept of "a filtration" is also evocative, both in its math and biological/physical meanings. Much of what the tissue samplers are doing is counting/indexing objects and branches in an attempt to identify weirdness. On 08/17/2018 11:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Persistent homology? -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Here's a paper (2010) that describes a hub attraction dynamical growth model (HADGM) that exhibits fractal and probabilistic behavior for forming nodes in a complex network. But you are looking for a descriptive word or phrase. Perhaps, "dynamic growth models with fractally-associative (or nonassociative) hubs." It seems to have something to do with the behavior of forming nodes (connections); so that seems to be the focus for your description. Not sure, but would agree that fractile behavior seems at the root of what you are trying to describe: some "hubbing" and "hubbing-resistance," so to speak. I like the amber Belgian beers ... 😋 On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:52 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: Excellent! I suppose the things I'm talking about would exhibit something like a persistent homology. Of course, I'm looking for a word to describe a subset of those (the particular way something like a capillary bed branches out from the large blood vessels). So, it would have to be a type of persistent homology. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Complex junction? ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 1:31 PM Robert Wall <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen -
I haven't converged on precisely what you are looking for here... but am fascinated with the question. My best guess at the general area you are contemplating would involve the graph theoretic idea of a "cluster" and/or imply something about (dis)assortativity. I think maybe what you are talking about are (collections of) nodes with high local clustering coefficients and I *think* with high assortativity. If I understand your question, Marcus' suggestions, and the finer points of these graph measures, a typical "hub" in the normal sense would have high disassortativity, or in laymans terms, nodes with high degree would connect more to nodes with low degree, etc. while what you are looking for might be nodes with (relatively) high degree *and* high assortativity, or nodes that connect to nodes of similar degree... I know this is far from providing "a word"... but the resulting phrase might be "an assortative cluster" or "a cluster with high assortativity"? Can you say anything more about the underlying system being modeled? Are you trying to fit this to the known/observed structure or it's function, or one implying the other? - Steve On 8/17/18 12:52 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > Excellent! I suppose the things I'm talking about would exhibit something like a persistent homology. Of course, I'm looking for a word to describe a subset of those (the particular way something like a capillary bed branches out from the large blood vessels). So, it would have to be a type of persistent homology. > > But the concept of "a filtration" is also evocative, both in its math and biological/physical meanings. Much of what the tissue samplers are doing is counting/indexing objects and branches in an attempt to identify weirdness. > > On 08/17/2018 11:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> Persistent homology? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Wall
I immediately think of Geoffrey West’s work. (Although that doesn’t immediately provide a catchy phrase.) http://science.sciencemag.org/content/276/5309/122 From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Robert Wall <[hidden email]> Here's a paper
(2010) that describes a hub attraction dynamical growth model (HADGM) that exhibits fractal and probabilistic behavior for forming nodes in a complex network. But you are looking for a descriptive word or phrase. Perhaps, "dynamic growth models with fractally-associative (or nonassociative) hubs." It seems to have
something to do with the behavior of forming nodes (connections); so that seems to be the focus for your description. Not sure, but would agree that fractile behavior seems at the root of what you are trying to describe: some "hubbing" and "hubbing-resistance,"
so to speak. I like the amber Belgian beers ... 😋 On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:52 PM uǝlƃ
☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
I *really* want to use some form of "plectic" like plexus or complex. But its explanatory power is limited. As I'll soon respond to Steve, I need something that evokes the concept of merging/confluent flow but without the overtones of generation (like Robert's growth/dynamism). Even the "filtration" concept derived from Marcus' suggestion of persistent homology, implies a temporal component.
On 08/17/2018 01:03 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > Complex junction? -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
The explanatory power of all words is limited. See Wittgenstein. Wovon Mann nicht sprechen kann daruber muss Mann schweigen. ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 4:11 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: I *really* want to use some form of "plectic" like plexus or complex. But its explanatory power is limited. As I'll soon respond to Steve, I need something that evokes the concept of merging/confluent flow but without the overtones of generation (like Robert's growth/dynamism). Even the "filtration" concept derived from Marcus' suggestion of persistent homology, implies a temporal component. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
I always call it the Zweigneiderlassung. On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Interesting. Robert's mention of "fractally-associative" was attractive to me and seems similar to your [dis]assortativity. But I'm too ignorant (so far) to know whether that has any heuristic power.
I now owe ~4 pints, but only have any confidence I'll have to pay up on 1. 8^) Here's the context. In our *analogy* from our computational model of the liver to a referent liver, we use a directed graph (without degenerate cycles) to simulate the lobules in various livers (perfused rat, whole animal mouse, etc.). In that graph, some of the "sinusoidal segments" feed into our "central vein". But they do so in a computationally coherent way that is physically incoherent. It's a DAG. The edges don't actually *conduct* the molecules. It's a magical attachment. One of my more biologically inclined colleagues was trying to analogize to the referent liver, which is much more ... "organic" ... whereas our analog is much more ... "schematic", if that makes any sense. My colleague is attempting to point out the difference between an actual liver's complex "bed" of flowing integration versus our analog's engineered ... "managed" ... "magical" ... transference. Part of my motivation for posting this question, here, is that I'm pitching for us to implement a more "space-filling" lobule structure than that exhibited by our current DAG. Although my colleague thinks I'm arguing against him, I'm actually trying to bolster his argument that, in order to build a *strong* structural analogy (and thereby a strong behavioral analogy), we might need a computational structure that is more analogous to the referent lobule. And part of my *rhetoric* requires a relatively catchy word/phrase to use to indicate our our current DAG is easily face-falsifiable. On 08/17/2018 01:37 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > Glen - > > I haven't converged on precisely what you are looking for here... but > am fascinated with the question. > > My best guess at the general area you are contemplating would involve > the graph theoretic idea of a "cluster" and/or imply something about > (dis)assortativity. I think maybe what you are talking about are > (collections of) nodes with high local clustering coefficients and I > *think* with high assortativity. If I understand your question, Marcus' > suggestions, and the finer points of these graph measures, a typical > "hub" in the normal sense would have high disassortativity, or in > laymans terms, nodes with high degree would connect more to nodes with > low degree, etc. while what you are looking for might be nodes with > (relatively) high degree *and* high assortativity, or nodes that > connect to nodes of similar degree... > > I know this is far from providing "a word"... but the resulting phrase > might be "an assortative cluster" or "a cluster with high assortativity"? > > Can you say anything more about the underlying system being modeled? > Are you trying to fit this to the known/observed structure or it's > function, or one implying the other? -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes-3
Bah! If you are, as I am, a post-modernist, explanatory power reduces to evocative power. Whatever I can do to evoke a predictable response in the audience is adequate. Although I count myself a fan of Wittgenstein's STFU approach, I can't deny the power of those who just never STFU. (Witness the interminable chants at the various pro-this, anti-that rallies.) It's a kind of hypnosis ... a droning on and on until you win over your audience with tone and rhythm more so than content.
But w.r.t. Zweigneiderlassung, I'm currently enthralled with McShea and Brandon's concept of the ZFEL and "pure complexity", which (in my ignorance) disallows reliance on "branching" as a core concept. Simple counting seems more appropriate, especially since that makes sense to most people. I admit that McShea and Brandon seem to be relying fundamentally on some implicit spatial sense. But perhaps that's OK in this context? On 08/17/2018 03:21 PM, Robert Holmes wrote: > I always call it the Zweigneiderlassung. > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> The explanatory power of all words is limited. See Wittgenstein. Wovon >> Mann nicht sprechen kann daruber muss Mann schweigen. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen -
hmmm... "Plexus" as a portmanteau of Plectic and Nexus then? I sense in your groping/grasping/grappling for this word/phrase that you are seeking *both* explicit and implicit connectivity? "Weaving" suggests to me that you are thinking implicit connections as much as explicit your use of "Confluent Flow" suggests function/dynamism rather than structure. Your description makes me think of (as you may intend) of the braiding of rivulets within a delta (or any flat section of river, alluvial fan, or pleneplain).... if I understand the dynamics at all, sedimentation is deposited relatively uniformly, causing a "flat" region and the most minor of differences define where water will canalize... and variations over time of those differences (wind, rates of evaporation, etc) lead to *multiple* channels which appear to be independent of one another, even crossing. When they "cross" I am left to wonder if they are formed or flow concurrently or represent an evolution over time where many may carry water at one time, but as flow increases, one (or another) is preferred for a time, reinforcing an old or cutting a new channel. Braided rivers are considered distinct from Meandering rivers, but I wonder if that isn't just a (time)scale difference? I have been casually studying the Platte ("flat") River for unrelated reasons... This is part of the reason for asking about the function(s) of the system(s) you are studying. You seem to want to avoid any implications of growth... does that mean you don't expect the structure to reflect a response to some dynamic element or to not have "evolved" from something more simple (like from a very sparse or fully connected graph to the one in question)? I am also curious (in a hair splitting way) about your (Marcus' ?) use of homology in this context. Would you be referring to the patterns of similarity across subgraphs of the whole graph? When you invoked fractal, I heard an implication of patterns of similarity at different scales. - Steve > I *really* want to use some form of "plectic" like plexus or complex. But its explanatory power is limited. As I'll soon respond to Steve, I need something that evokes the concept of merging/confluent flow but without the overtones of generation (like Robert's growth/dynamism). Even the "filtration" concept derived from Marcus' suggestion of persistent homology, implies a temporal component. > > > On 08/17/2018 01:03 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> Complex junction? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Clusterf**k ?
Oops, sorry, I was thinking of Trump. Also it’s after 5 on a Friday here on the east coast. --Barry On 17 Aug 2018, at 18:42, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > Bah! If you are, as I am, a post-modernist, explanatory power reduces > to evocative power. Whatever I can do to evoke a predictable response > in the audience is adequate. Although I count myself a fan of > Wittgenstein's STFU approach, I can't deny the power of those who just > never STFU. (Witness the interminable chants at the various pro-this, > anti-that rallies.) It's a kind of hypnosis ... a droning on and on > until you win over your audience with tone and rhythm more so than > content. > > But w.r.t. Zweigneiderlassung, I'm currently enthralled with McShea > and Brandon's concept of the ZFEL and "pure complexity", which (in my > ignorance) disallows reliance on "branching" as a core concept. > Simple counting seems more appropriate, especially since that makes > sense to most people. I admit that McShea and Brandon seem to be > relying fundamentally on some implicit spatial sense. But perhaps > that's OK in this context? > > On 08/17/2018 03:21 PM, Robert Holmes wrote: >> I always call it the Zweigneiderlassung. >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> The explanatory power of all words is limited. See Wittgenstein. >>> Wovon >>> Mann nicht sprechen kann daruber muss Mann schweigen. > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen, I believe what you are trying to achieve is what we used to call "face validity." To achieve accreditation among the domain experts, the model had to appeal on an empathic level or it was toast. This was not easy to do at the program level (DAG?) but easier to do a higher level of abstracted modeling (organic level). Beyond that, the model had to produce outcomes (verification) that the model was not, say just overfitting the data. So it seems you are saying that you are trying to convey an organic feel from a mechanistic process. With Herny Markam's Blue Brain project, for example, I think they were doing this same thing by starting with a digital reconstruction of recognizable parts of a mouse brain's neocortex. Analogously, I think, you are starting with a digital reconstruction of a rat's liver lobules. So the wordsmith challenge is to describe how the mechanistic structure overlay one-for-one on to the organic structure. I would think that this relationship must be functional. Not sure. This understanding doesn't "answer the mail" for you but it might help with the wordsmithing. Robert On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:28 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: Interesting. Robert's mention of "fractally-associative" was attractive to me and seems similar to your [dis]assortativity. But I'm too ignorant (so far) to know whether that has any heuristic power. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
"Peneplain" is a very cool word that you just taught me. But I think that's too well-mixed. In terms of the liver, the (3D) peneplain might be simply the central vein that flows out after all the filtering is done. I want to indicate the region "just prior" to the peneplain ... or just after the the portal vein, where blood flows in.
The reason for avoiding concepts of growth/evolution is because we (*I*, my colleagues might not approve of my asking a mailing list of random nerds) need to contrast one "fluvial network" with another. And, especially in the case of disease, we'll need to indicate a "healthy state", which I suspect involves a nice space-filling structure, versus an unhealthy state, which shows too much flow, not enough filtering. The idea is that the different morphology between a healthy and unhealthy state can hint at various treatments. Growth, repair, etc. will be part and parcel of any such treatment. But first, it would be nice to be able to refer to the different "homology" exhibited by the 2 different states. And "yes", the reason "persistent homology" is attractive is because the same property should apply when considering an acinus, as well as a lobule, as well as a whole liver. To boot, it would be nice if such a property would be applicable to structures like the pancreas as well as the liver. On 08/17/2018 03:48 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > Your description makes me think of (as you may intend) of the braiding > of rivulets within a delta (or any flat section of river, alluvial fan, > or pleneplain).... if I understand the dynamics at all, sedimentation is > deposited relatively uniformly, causing a "flat" region and the most > minor of differences define where water will canalize... and variations > over time of those differences (wind, rates of evaporation, etc) lead to > *multiple* channels which appear to be independent of one another, even > crossing. When they "cross" I am left to wonder if they are formed or > flow concurrently or represent an evolution over time where many may > carry water at one time, but as flow increases, one (or another) is > preferred for a time, reinforcing an old or cutting a new channel. > Braided rivers are considered distinct from Meandering rivers, but I > wonder if that isn't just a (time)scale difference? I have been > casually studying the Platte ("flat") River for unrelated reasons... > > This is part of the reason for asking about the function(s) of the > system(s) you are studying. > > You seem to want to avoid any implications of growth... does that mean > you don't expect the structure to reflect a response to some dynamic > element or to not have "evolved" from something more simple (like from a > very sparse or fully connected graph to the one in question)? > > I am also curious (in a hair splitting way) about your (Marcus' ?) use > of homology in this context. Would you be referring to the patterns of > similarity across subgraphs of the whole graph? When you invoked > fractal, I heard an implication of patterns of similarity at different > scales. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Wall
Yes, "face validation" plays a role. But quantitative "data validation" plays a stronger one, as I implied with my reference to "pure complexity". If I could bridge the gap between counting ambiguous things like "sinusoids" and our very quantitative analog, then it would be relatively easy to not only Turing test the analog's output against people who look at tissue slices, but it would be easier to automate such validation (including with ML and ANN).
But it all starts with being able to *describe* what these fractal-like structures look like. Not having a word or catchy phrase seriously inhibits our ability to communicate. If you're there in meat space, you can dangle your fingers on the top and wiggle the fingers of your other hand on bottom to indicate the "interesting region" where your fingers are wiggling. But when limited to a text interface, it's a difficult concept to grok. On 08/17/2018 03:57 PM, Robert Wall wrote: > Glen, > > I believe what you are trying to achieve is what we used to call "face > validity." To achieve accreditation among the domain experts, the model > had to appeal on an empathic level or it was toast. This was not easy to do > at the program level (DAG?) but easier to do a higher level of abstracted > modeling (organic level). Beyond that, the model had to produce outcomes > (verification) that the model was not, say just overfitting the data. > > So it seems you are saying that you are trying to convey an organic feel > from a mechanistic process. With Herny Markam's Blue Brain project, for > example, I think they were doing this same thing by starting with a digital > reconstruction of recognizable parts of a mouse brain's neocortex. > Analogously, I think, you are starting with a digital reconstruction of a > rat's liver lobules. > > So the wordsmith challenge is to describe how the mechanistic structure > overlay one-for-one on to the organic structure. I would think that this > relationship must be functional. Not sure. > > This understanding doesn't "answer the mail" for you but it might help with > the wordsmithing. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Barry MacKichan
Perhaps
Texas is key to putting a stop to all this? On 8/17/18, 4:52 PM, "Friam on behalf of Barry MacKichan" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Clusterf**k ? Oops, sorry, I was thinking of Trump. Also it’s after 5 on a Friday
here on the east coast. --Barry On 17 Aug 2018, at 18:42, uǝlƃ
☣ wrote: > Bah! If you are, as I am, a post-modernist, explanatory power reduces
> to evocative power. Whatever I can do to evoke a predictable response
> in the audience is adequate. Although I count myself a fan of
> Wittgenstein's STFU approach, I can't deny the power of those who just
> never STFU. (Witness the interminable chants at the various pro-this,
> anti-that rallies.) It's a kind of hypnosis ... a droning on and on
> until you win over your audience with tone and rhythm more so than
> content. > > But w.r.t. Zweigneiderlassung, I'm currently enthralled with McShea
> and Brandon's concept of the ZFEL and "pure complexity", which (in my
> ignorance) disallows reliance on "branching" as a core concept.
> Simple counting seems more appropriate, especially since that makes
> sense to most people. I admit that McShea and Brandon seem to be
> relying fundamentally on some implicit spatial sense. But perhaps
> that's OK in this context? > > On 08/17/2018 03:21 PM, Robert Holmes wrote: >> I always call it the Zweigneiderlassung. >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
>> wrote: >> >>> The explanatory power of all words is limited. See Wittgenstein.
>>> Wovon >>> Mann nicht sprechen kann daruber muss Mann schweigen. > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |