Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Complexity Explained

complexityexplained.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 128 posts

Re: Complexity Explained

#101

Post by joe_the_user »

hliyan wrote: post #23

I recently had the (possibly flawed) epiphany that all behavior is emergent . If you think about it, all things that we consider objects are just semi-permanent aggregations of fundamental particles that we recognize and label as objects for convenience of thought. When the patterns in such aggregations are outside the space and time scales that allow human minds to recognize them, the only label available is "comple…

If you are discussing the macroscopic day-to-day reality we human live in, sure, all things and all characteristics-of-things are emergent in broad sense. Every distinct, discreet thing here comes out of the interactions of quantum fields and gravitational fields, so yeah.

The problem is saying "everything is X" makes X useless as an adjective.

Usually, when you talk about this stuff, you look just a couple layers of reality. For example, if your lower level is water molecules and the upper level is observation, then "waves" "whirlpool" and so-forth are emergent objects/characteristics and water is a primitive object/characteristics - never mind that water molecules emerge from still lower level processes.

Re: Complexity Explained

#102

Post by ColinWright »

ncfausti wrote: post #28
jmatthews wrote: post #8

many of the examples are based from this site https://www.complexity-explorables.org/ if you're looking for additional examples.

Thank you! This is why I read the comments on HN. I was thinking while reading that I'd like to find some good resources to explore complexity theory in more depth, this looks great. Side note: 14 people created something of value and distribute it for free, and still many of the comments here are just complaints about auto-scroll, websites, and JS. Pretty sad to see.

> 14 people created something of value and distribute it for free, and still many of the comments here are just complaints about auto-scroll, websites, and JS.

Or, to put it another way, 14 people created fantastic material with all sorts of genuinely wonderful animations, then put links to them on a page that was so annoying that potential readers clicked away before finding the useful and intriguing stuff that had been shared so freely. Pretty sad to see.

Re: Complexity Explained

#103

Post by ColinWright »

complexcomplex wrote: post #70

I hope to see the end of LaTex only explanations. The site already has simulations so one must assume it has code that could codify those LaTex eqs. Perhaps a ‘things ever ___ should know about ___’ is needed for mathematicians and notation. Ala, “some disciplines use the same symbols for different functions” and “many symbols are intended to obfuscate details for ease of hand writing”. Perhaps this is meant as a col…

> I hope to see the end of LaTex only explanations.

I don't know what you mean by this. LaTeX is a type-setting system ... in what way is this site/page a "LaTex only explanation"?

I'm also confused by this:

> The site already has simulations so one must assume it has code that could codify those LaTex eqs.

I don't know what LaTeX equations you might be referring to.

Also:

> ... code and its underlying abstractions are going to better explain to a higher percentage of people who click through than LaTex.

What LaTeX are you referring to?

Seriously, LaTeX is a type-setting system, and LaTeX equations are just markup. I see neither of those on this page, so I don't understand your comment at all. Could you explain?

Re: Complexity Explained

#104

Post by mattnewton »

ColinWright wrote: post #89

Oh, FFS. Now it's been pointed out[0] that there are links and animations embedding in the page. And there are! But their existence is beautifully hidden by the bloody annoying, horribly slow "Swoosh! Swoosh" of the animation. It's a perfect example of having potentially fantastic content, then making it really, really hard to notice. Urgh. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26048154

I honestly don’t know what you mean by the “swoosh” - the initial fade animation?

Re: Complexity Explained

#105

Post by complexcity »

ColinWright wrote: post #103
complexcomplex wrote: post #70

I hope to see the end of LaTex only explanations. The site already has simulations so one must assume it has code that could codify those LaTex eqs. Perhaps a ‘things ever ___ should know about ___’ is needed for mathematicians and notation. Ala, “some disciplines use the same symbols for different functions” and “many symbols are intended to obfuscate details for ease of hand writing”. Perhaps this is meant as a col…

> I hope to see the end of LaTex only explanations. I don't know what you mean by this. LaTeX is a type-setting system ... in what way is this site/page a "LaTex only explanation"? I'm also confused by this: > The site already has simulations so one must assume it has code that could codify those LaTex eqs. I don't know what LaTeX equations you might be referring to. Also: > ... code and its underlying abstractions a…

If you click past the landing page to the explanations you’ll see LaTeX there.

Clicking dynamics leads here:

https://www.complexity-explorables.org/explorables/ride-my-k...

Re: Complexity Explained

#106

Post by hntrader »

hliyan wrote: post #23

I recently had the (possibly flawed) epiphany that all behavior is emergent . If you think about it, all things that we consider objects are just semi-permanent aggregations of fundamental particles that we recognize and label as objects for convenience of thought. When the patterns in such aggregations are outside the space and time scales that allow human minds to recognize them, the only label available is "comple…

So-called emergent properties are just categorical abstractions that we've created in our mind to cognitively handle the complexity of the macroscopic world around us. These are evolved mental heuristics.

There's nothing beyond fundamental physics that's required, in principle, to explain these emergent properties, so in this sense I'm a philosophical reductionist. Emergence is just an illusion created by our brain's inability to deal with the true nature of fundamental reality.

Re: Complexity Explained

#107

Post by ColinWright »

complexcity wrote: post #105
ColinWright wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope to see the end of LaTex only explanations. I don't know what you mean by this. LaTeX is a type-setting system ... in what way is this site/page a "LaTex only explanation"? I'm also confused by this: > The site already has simulations so one must assume it has code that could codify those LaTex eqs. I don't know what LaTeX equations you might be referring to. Also: > ... code and its underlying abstractions a…

If you click past the landing page to the explanations you’ll see LaTeX there. Clicking dynamics leads here: https://www.complexity-explorables.org/explorables/ride-my-k...

So, you actually mean that you hope not to see equations. But it's the equations that are the real meat of these things. Pictures are pretty, but they are generated from the equations, and the equations capture the understanding and the modelling. The equations are the content, it's the equations that let us do calculations, predictions, and quantitative analysis.

What would you hope to see instead?

I don't understand what you're asking for. Are you asking to understand these things without doing the actual mathematics? That would seem rather ambitious, so I'm guessing I don't know what you're asking for.

I see elsewhere you've pointed here:

https://github.com/barbagroup/CFDPython

That amounts to an entire course on the subject. So if you're asking to have that sort of thing instead of a page that shows the equations and the maths, then you're asking that someone produce an entire course on the subject, instead of just a primer. That feels like someone complaining that an overview page isn't a degree level textbook.

So I guess I still don't understand what you're asking for.

Re: Complexity Explained

#108

Post by ColinWright »

mattnewton wrote: post #104
ColinWright wrote: post #89

Oh, FFS. Now it's been pointed out[0] that there are links and animations embedding in the page. And there are! But their existence is beautifully hidden by the bloody annoying, horribly slow "Swoosh! Swoosh" of the animation. It's a perfect example of having potentially fantastic content, then making it really, really hard to notice. Urgh. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26048154

I honestly don’t know what you mean by the “swoosh” - the initial fade animation?

When I first load the page I have to wait what is probably only 1/2 a second or so, but feels like an age, for the initial load to fade up. (I've timed it ... from hitting Ctrl-F5 to full text on the first page takes 3 seconds. It looks like the first 2 seconds are load, the last second or so is the "Fade Up".)

The last thing on that page "above the fold" is the quotation:

"There's no love in a carbon atom, No hurricane in a water molecule, No financial collapse in a dollar bill." – Peter Dodds

I don't see the connection with a page about complexity.

So I "PgDn" and the screen is initially empty, then text "swooshes" in from the right. I timed it, from the time I hit "PgDn" to the time the text stops moving is over a second. It feels an absolute age and breaks any flow of reading the content.

It's easy to miss that there's an animation to trigger ... initially I missed it completely. When I find it I see it says:

Jujujajaki networks: A dynamic network model that was designed to capture the emergence of community structures, heterogeneities and clusters that are frequently observed in social networks.

I watch for over a minute and think: "Does it show that?" I can't see it. It's pretty, but it imparts no information to me at all.

Again I hit "PgDn". Again the text "swooshes" in, this time from the left. And again, over a second to stop moving. It's taking an age, and already I'm fed up with the whole experience. Add that to the poor contrast and I'm not inclined to bother reading further. I'm starting to feel that the authors are more interested in showing their leet presentation skilz than they are in presenting the information itself.

And so on.

Does that help you understand my experience and why I found it frustrating?

Re: Complexity Explained

#109

Post by mattnewton »

ColinWright wrote: post #108
mattnewton wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don’t know what you mean by the “swoosh” - the initial fade animation?

When I first load the page I have to wait what is probably only 1/2 a second or so, but feels like an age, for the initial load to fade up. (I've timed it ... from hitting Ctrl-F5 to full text on the first page takes 3 seconds. It looks like the first 2 seconds are load, the last second or so is the "Fade Up".) The last thing on that page "above the fold" is the quotation: "There's no love in a carbon atom, No hurric…

Oh, huh, none of that happens for me on mobile, that explains it.

Re: Complexity Explained

#110

Post by complexcity »

ColinWright wrote: post #107
complexcity wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you click past the landing page to the explanations you’ll see LaTeX there. Clicking dynamics leads here: https://www.complexity-explorables.org/explorables/ride-my-k...

So, you actually mean that you hope not to see equations. But it's the equations that are the real meat of these things. Pictures are pretty, but they are generated from the equations, and the equations capture the understanding and the modelling. The equations are the content, it's the equations that let us do calculations, predictions, and quantitative analysis. What would you hope to see instead? I don't understan…

This feels very personal for you?

The site is called complexity explained and I am challenging the question of ‘explained to whom’?

Someone who already knows the notation or someone interested in having complexity explained to them?

> Are you asking to understand these things without doing the actual mathematics?

This is one of the saddest things that comes from academically trained mathematicians: some believe the notation is the math.

Or worse, pretend to to retain a sense of superiority to those yet to learn it.

Post reply on HN