Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 10/12/2009 05:48 PM: > 1. *Operators.* What do you mean by an operator? Would you give a few > examples.
It's nothing special. It's defined as: a mapping between two function spaces. 1) The perception of a "glider" while watching the game of life. 2) Square root: R -> C. 3) Hydrolysis. > 2. *Properties. *It seems to me that one of the most basic properties is > mass. Another is electric charge. Do you not see these as properties? Or is > it your position that only primitive (and perhaps circular) properties make > sense? Ultimately both mass and charge are relational operators. Mass is measured against a normalized reference object (a convenient fiction) and negative, neutral, and positive charges don't make sense if you remove any one of them. So, both mass and charge are _definitely_ phenomena because they are measured with respect to some extrinsic object. However, the dominant way we USE the concept of mass allows us to trust in the abstraction that mass is an intrinsic property (at least as long as we don't consider relative inertial frames). So, I usually trust that abstraction and consider mass a property. But, for example, a negative charge is definitely NOT intrinsic to an electron. Charge is a relational operator between different objects, e.g. one negative and one positive. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
