![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've just made a major (read: total:-) rewrite of the page. Hope I haven't trodden on any toes; I just felt that not only did the page need expanding but that I could put some of the points in earlier versions better in my own words. Feel free to flame me on my talk page if offended. I do have quite a few SOC-related research interests, so it's possible some aspects of my rewrite may be too POV (though I've tried to avoid it). Advice on this appreciated.
Although broadly my aim was just to give an expanded picture, I have deliberately removed certain things said in the previous version. Here's a list of what and why:
I have expanded the reference list but deleted the link to Amazon since I don't think it's our job to tell people what bookshop to go to. However, I do plan to update the reference section so that all references to scientific papers have a link to the online copy of the article (original and preprint, where possible).
I plan to make a couple of further updates in the near future, most importantly, to give one or two examples of SOC algorithms (I'm thinking BTW sandpile and Bak-Sneppen evolution model). When I really have time (not now, not now) I'll try to add some handy graphics to help readers visualise what's going on and to show examples of the sorts of scale-invariance that result.
Comments eagerly awaited! Peace and love, — WebDrake 03:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Great work, WebDrake! I've done a minor copy-edit, but I think your article is excellent.
Although it's correct as it applies to what was written, I don't entirely agree with your comment above on no one asserting "whenever": I think Per Bak's How Nature Works was criticised, at least initially, for his claims about the ubiquity of power laws (see [1] for a sample along these lines). But that's a small point. Thanks for your new version. -- JimR 06:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Further to the above, I've also slightly revised one of the paragraphs JimR edited, the 2nd para of the Overview, since I didn't quite feel comfortable with the way that was rephrased (sorry:-). Also, in the 3rd para, I was not comfortable with the removal of the word "some" from "some reservations" regarding SOC with local dissipation. The reservations are very minor and do not concern SOC as a whole, just some types of dynamics; SOC with local dissipation has not really been contentious in the scientific literature for the last 10+ years. So I put "minor" in brackets before the word reservations. WebDrake 22:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I like it! The definition as "having a critical point attractor" is elegant and succinct. You then relate the attractor to the absence of tuning, and the scale invariance to the criticality, sensibly leaving the details about power laws and fractals till later. The new second paragraph then explicitly acknowledges the lack of a general theorem or guarantee (so far), thus drawing the teeth of the criticisms directed against (mis?)perceptions of Bak's implications. It's good. -- JimR 11:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added a section on examples of SOC dynamics, with links to other pages rather than take up a load more room here. That can also allow for the individual model pages to get relatively lengthy. I've created the model pages as stubs so if anyone wants to write them, go for it! :-) — WebDrake 02:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I've just created a stub page for the Oslo ricepile experiment, with a reference to the paper published in Nature.
In addition we need to create pages on the Gutenberg-Richter law and the Omori law for earthquakes.
Further ideas welcome! — WebDrake 23:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Now that Category:Self-organization exists and it is a subcategory of most of the categories Self-organized criticality is in, what is the rationale for keeping SOC in additional categories? Karol 07:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE: After thinking about this further I've removed several of the higher categories. The remaining ones are Category:Applied and interdisciplinary physics, Category:Fractals and Category:Self-organization. I know that the first of these is a parent category of self-organization, but I think in this context it's important, since its use as an applied and interdisciplinary physics theory is one of the key aspects of SOC. Good compromise? — WebDrake 16:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
To repeat the above (since some people keep trying to remove it), it is understood that Category:Applied and interdisciplinary physics is a parent category of Category:Self-organization. The choice is deliberate. SOC is clearly related to self-organization, but is not limited to that area of interest: it has wide applications in interdisciplinary studies. The categories are chosen to reflect both these aspects.
If you want to remove the category, please give a good reason on these talk pages first. — WebDrake 13:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Where did the comment come from that SOC is sometimes referred to as "the Neo effect"? I've never heard of this term and was unable to find any reference to links with SOC except the comment in this article. So, I've removed it for now, but if anyone can convince me otherwise, I'll let it be put back in. — WebDrake 09:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Can the person who made these edits please identify themselves and give some justification for this edit?
I am going to rewrite these edits on the following grounds:
I agree that we could mention, in the discussion of the history, that some earlier similar models to the sandpile model had been published. — WebDrake 12:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
My thanks to the anonymous contributor who added the Bak-Sneppen references. I'm going to move the Sneppen interface depinning reference to Bak-Sneppen model where it is more appropriate. The Bak-Sneppen reference itself I think should stay as it represents the introduction of the second general kind of SOC dynamics: extremal models as opposed to threshold/avalanche models. — WebDrake 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe there were interesting precursors of Bak's first SOC models. I think one of them was by Sue Coppersmith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.40.183 ( talk) 03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Webdrake, could you complete the model section with a literature reference on SOC in networks of IaF neurons. Many thanks.
Both paragraphs in the section on Criticism seem to be excessive in their tone.
The first starts "There is a debate on the relevance of SOC theory to the real world." and then proceeds to offer a single example about sand which seems like an inappropriate synecdoche.
The second paragraph then boldly states that "These criticisms are obsolete." and again, describes a single example of a physical system which SOC models well.
These are both hasty generalizations (the second much more so than the first) and they smell a little bit of ego. -- 2601:19B:801:5180:0:0:0:2B05 ( talk) 17:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
If there is a way to create infographics to better illustrate the concepts. I have a graphics designer who could help with visualization. I am an autodidact who just two year dago iscovered Complex System theory and I fell in love with sthe cientific field. My hope is to faciliate a better understandingf the field for the public. I would also love to chat with people who created the article to interview them and highlight the articles and the people behind them. o f Able D. Paryon ( talk) 15:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've just made a major (read: total:-) rewrite of the page. Hope I haven't trodden on any toes; I just felt that not only did the page need expanding but that I could put some of the points in earlier versions better in my own words. Feel free to flame me on my talk page if offended. I do have quite a few SOC-related research interests, so it's possible some aspects of my rewrite may be too POV (though I've tried to avoid it). Advice on this appreciated.
Although broadly my aim was just to give an expanded picture, I have deliberately removed certain things said in the previous version. Here's a list of what and why:
I have expanded the reference list but deleted the link to Amazon since I don't think it's our job to tell people what bookshop to go to. However, I do plan to update the reference section so that all references to scientific papers have a link to the online copy of the article (original and preprint, where possible).
I plan to make a couple of further updates in the near future, most importantly, to give one or two examples of SOC algorithms (I'm thinking BTW sandpile and Bak-Sneppen evolution model). When I really have time (not now, not now) I'll try to add some handy graphics to help readers visualise what's going on and to show examples of the sorts of scale-invariance that result.
Comments eagerly awaited! Peace and love, — WebDrake 03:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Great work, WebDrake! I've done a minor copy-edit, but I think your article is excellent.
Although it's correct as it applies to what was written, I don't entirely agree with your comment above on no one asserting "whenever": I think Per Bak's How Nature Works was criticised, at least initially, for his claims about the ubiquity of power laws (see [1] for a sample along these lines). But that's a small point. Thanks for your new version. -- JimR 06:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Further to the above, I've also slightly revised one of the paragraphs JimR edited, the 2nd para of the Overview, since I didn't quite feel comfortable with the way that was rephrased (sorry:-). Also, in the 3rd para, I was not comfortable with the removal of the word "some" from "some reservations" regarding SOC with local dissipation. The reservations are very minor and do not concern SOC as a whole, just some types of dynamics; SOC with local dissipation has not really been contentious in the scientific literature for the last 10+ years. So I put "minor" in brackets before the word reservations. WebDrake 22:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I like it! The definition as "having a critical point attractor" is elegant and succinct. You then relate the attractor to the absence of tuning, and the scale invariance to the criticality, sensibly leaving the details about power laws and fractals till later. The new second paragraph then explicitly acknowledges the lack of a general theorem or guarantee (so far), thus drawing the teeth of the criticisms directed against (mis?)perceptions of Bak's implications. It's good. -- JimR 11:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added a section on examples of SOC dynamics, with links to other pages rather than take up a load more room here. That can also allow for the individual model pages to get relatively lengthy. I've created the model pages as stubs so if anyone wants to write them, go for it! :-) — WebDrake 02:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I've just created a stub page for the Oslo ricepile experiment, with a reference to the paper published in Nature.
In addition we need to create pages on the Gutenberg-Richter law and the Omori law for earthquakes.
Further ideas welcome! — WebDrake 23:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Now that Category:Self-organization exists and it is a subcategory of most of the categories Self-organized criticality is in, what is the rationale for keeping SOC in additional categories? Karol 07:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE: After thinking about this further I've removed several of the higher categories. The remaining ones are Category:Applied and interdisciplinary physics, Category:Fractals and Category:Self-organization. I know that the first of these is a parent category of self-organization, but I think in this context it's important, since its use as an applied and interdisciplinary physics theory is one of the key aspects of SOC. Good compromise? — WebDrake 16:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
To repeat the above (since some people keep trying to remove it), it is understood that Category:Applied and interdisciplinary physics is a parent category of Category:Self-organization. The choice is deliberate. SOC is clearly related to self-organization, but is not limited to that area of interest: it has wide applications in interdisciplinary studies. The categories are chosen to reflect both these aspects.
If you want to remove the category, please give a good reason on these talk pages first. — WebDrake 13:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Where did the comment come from that SOC is sometimes referred to as "the Neo effect"? I've never heard of this term and was unable to find any reference to links with SOC except the comment in this article. So, I've removed it for now, but if anyone can convince me otherwise, I'll let it be put back in. — WebDrake 09:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Can the person who made these edits please identify themselves and give some justification for this edit?
I am going to rewrite these edits on the following grounds:
I agree that we could mention, in the discussion of the history, that some earlier similar models to the sandpile model had been published. — WebDrake 12:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
My thanks to the anonymous contributor who added the Bak-Sneppen references. I'm going to move the Sneppen interface depinning reference to Bak-Sneppen model where it is more appropriate. The Bak-Sneppen reference itself I think should stay as it represents the introduction of the second general kind of SOC dynamics: extremal models as opposed to threshold/avalanche models. — WebDrake 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe there were interesting precursors of Bak's first SOC models. I think one of them was by Sue Coppersmith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.40.183 ( talk) 03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Webdrake, could you complete the model section with a literature reference on SOC in networks of IaF neurons. Many thanks.
Both paragraphs in the section on Criticism seem to be excessive in their tone.
The first starts "There is a debate on the relevance of SOC theory to the real world." and then proceeds to offer a single example about sand which seems like an inappropriate synecdoche.
The second paragraph then boldly states that "These criticisms are obsolete." and again, describes a single example of a physical system which SOC models well.
These are both hasty generalizations (the second much more so than the first) and they smell a little bit of ego. -- 2601:19B:801:5180:0:0:0:2B05 ( talk) 17:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
If there is a way to create infographics to better illustrate the concepts. I have a graphics designer who could help with visualization. I am an autodidact who just two year dago iscovered Complex System theory and I fell in love with sthe cientific field. My hope is to faciliate a better understandingf the field for the public. I would also love to chat with people who created the article to interview them and highlight the articles and the people behind them. o f Able D. Paryon ( talk) 15:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)