On 01/06/07, Hoon Park <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> So, if applying this 'rule' and rephrasing my question, can we say that a
> little droop in the lower-tail of an observed degree distribution may
> reflect the incompleteness of the data in keeping a consistent mapping
> resolution? Or consequently, if continuity aggregation, or any other,
> makes the power-law hold better, can we say it is therefore a better way
> of representing a street network? Or else, is a 'street' perhaps any
> linear aggregation of spaces that entails a power-law degree distribution
> at the higher-order level?
It can reflect both things. The experiment is not independent from the
scientist. The lower-tails may be a problem with the data or just the
real phenomenon, why discard this hyphotesis? On the other hand, the
scientist may be well 'tweaking' the aggregation process, not to
'observe' the phenomenon, but to 'create' it.
Apparently, as scientists does not care anymore to explain what they
are assuming before the experiments, being allowed even to ignore the
existence of whole fields such as space syntax, it is difficult to
judge what is the phenomenon and what is simple play with different
methods that will generate the phenomenon.
Are we observing things or simulating things?
Are we starting from questions or from answers?
Best Regards,
Lucas Figueiredo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucasfigueiredo/
Mindwalk
http://www.mindwalk.com.br
|