|
From: | Daniel Calhoun |
Subject: | Re: [Swarm-Modelling] GEPR on life-cycle requirements |
Date: | Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:55:32 -0800 |
----- Original Message ----- From: "glen e. p. ropella" <address@hidden>
To: "Agent-based modeling" <address@hidden> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [Swarm-Modelling] GEPR on life-cycle requirements If there's a modeling requirement
that isn't being met by the ABM packages, then _progress_ is defined according to that unmet requirement. I haven't read "The Cheyenne Nation" either. Is it possible for someone who has read it to lay out the modeling requirements it might imply?
I hope it is possible. I once mined Moore mercilessly for real-history parameters to use in a trade-and-warfare models of band (not individuals) as agents. I didn't feel I had biassed when it produced something like the Rocky Mountain rendezvous systems, and in a plausible "time" frame. But that is a no-brainer, something like showing that it does not take much bias in residence choices to produce a segregation pattern. Anything different would be the oddity
But I put all that to one side in order to go back to some writing. Now, I have thought about resuming the model. The ethnogenesis question is more interesting, more difficult, and challenging. In many things, that kind of resumption is chancy. And it turns out that Swarm and Repast are now moving targets. True, there are now better instructional materials for Objective C (if one wants to translate from the Cocoa). But drang nach innovation runs strong . . .
Daniel Calhoun address@hidden
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |