> > >
> > > 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.
Who said this? ... "Biology obviously requires zero math, since
Well, you obviously know more history than me, but the point is that
L.v.B's General Systems Theory was all maths and differential
equations, analog stuff not digital, and he WAS a biologist and he DID
work with maths.
And looking at L.v.B's equations, interesting that they are "... Not
Real Systems Theory ...", considering they are pretty much exactly the
same multi-dimensional, differential-equation-base, state-variable
formulation I learned in school, in a course called Systems Theory.
Unbelievably the arguments people make around here.