feedbackdroids at yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message news:<8d8494cf.0409041703.1dab094 at posting.google.com>...
>zzbunker at netscape.net (ZZBunker) wrote in message news:<e4a0829b.0409041043.6a9e2cf at posting.google.com>...
> > r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message news:<prdjj05ns83p7vkntojv256ost5gvklv7r at 4ax.com>...
> > > On 3 Sep 2004 23:11:01 -0700, zzbunker at netscape.net (ZZBunker) wrote:
> > >
> > > >r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message news:<jrohj09c5s7pl63r904cqlmdgn2hkh1v7e at 4ax.com>...
>> > > >
> > > > And of course "biologists" still don't believe that
> > > > physics includes a little bit of math (among other notions).
> > >
> > > Worse. Biologists know all too well that physics requires math, that
> > > is why they avoid it like the plague. The problem is that too many
> > > biologists still don't believe that biology includes a little bit of
> > > math.
> >
> > Biology obviously requires zero math, since Biology
>>> Actually, if you look back at the book "General Systems Theory"
> written sometime in the 1950s or 60s, you'll see it was written by
> Ludwig von Bertalanfy, who was a "biologist", and who takes credit for
> developing many systems theory ideas as far back as the 1930s - prior
> to the invention of cybernetics. His book is heavy into math, and sets
> up the form of state variable equations that are in wide use in
> engineering and maths/etc, today. Classical stuff.
That is known in *cybernetics*. but two men named
Oppenheimer & Schaefer invented *Systems* Theory.
What they invented in the 1930's was called
*Signal Processing*, not Systems Theory.
The primary difference is obviously that
Oppenhiemer & Schaefer happen to also
know things about Digital Systems, in addition
to Analog Sytems, so Bertalanfy et. al. actually invented what's
called "Systems" Theory for Minskys's et. al., ibid.,
with a Fusion pipeline. Not Real Systems Theory.
