On the subject of thinking graphically someone mentioned getting 500+  
citations for some paper.

I think this shows up the difference in approaches between different  
paradigms.

With space syntax graphs we know size changes things and we have to be  
careful when
comparing different graphs. In other subjects graph size (or multiple  
graphs) has never been an issue and so it makes
no sense to consider size. If I had been writing and email talking  
casually about 500+ citations it would have
immediately occurred to me to say to my self.
"Well in physics is much better funded than architecture so having  
1000,000 times number of people in the field
means that in absolute terms  a citation of 500+ means 0.00001% of the  
field has used the paper where as in
a comparatively tiny field like academic architecture 500+ citations  
is more than 10% of the whole field. "

even for a passing comment I would have felt the need to justify the  
need to use absolute terms, but then
I do space syntax and I think about graphs in different ways and it  
comes out in every day conversations.

Makes you wonder if a paradigm is more of a hindrance than a benefit?

sheep


On 28 Feb 2008, at 15:54, Lucas Figueiredo wrote:

> 2008/2/28 Michael Batty <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> Lucas, I really don't understand this. Are you talking about  
>> physicists not
>> understanding what has gone on in architecture with respect to  
>> graph theory?
>
> Actually, I wanted to say exactly this, that no one needs to bother
> about old books thanks to physicists. They take over older ideas so
> fast, that 'mass replacement' process produces the advantage of
> offering older ideas renewed and improved in a novel and update
> language (of the popular science).
>
> I have a copy of Newman et al's (edited) book and I read Watts' book.
>
> I do not know about space syntax / architectural morphology not
> dealing with statistics of graphs, at least some very basic statistics
> we can find. For me the novel approach of network science is the focus
> on modules or 'structural' arrangements, as well the dynamics, whereas
> configurational and social models tended to focus on distance
> relations and static systems.
>
> The challenge is to invert this tendency of 'importing ideas' or
> 'being replaced' and create ideas from architecture that spread out in
> other fields. From my limited knowledge, I can point out, for
> instance, Alexander's pattern language, which has been embraced by
> computer scientists.
>
> The usual is to bring other people's ideas to urban studies through
> metaphors and 'caricature' models...
>
> Lucas
>
>> It is well known that network science is about the statistics of  
>> networks
>> and that this field only emerged from 1999 onwards with Barabasi's  
>> Science
>> paper. Erdos and Reynoi had worked on random graph statistics but  
>> there was
>> nothing about scale free networks until Barabasi. Watts worked on  
>> his PhD on
>> small worlds and generated a lot of statistical material about  
>> graphs in
>> 1995-1998 but then the field took off and the book I mentioned has a
>> wonderful history of all this. Try looking at it Lucas. We have a  
>> copy in
>> CASA as you know because I fed it to you when we bought it.  
>> Incidentally
>> Watts didn't invent small worlds, Milgram coined the term in 1969  
>> but it
>> goes back before then to the early 20th century. The history is all  
>> in the
>> book: M.Newman, A.-L. Barabasi, D.J. Watts (Eds.), The Structure and.
>> Dynamics of Networks, Princeton University Press, 2006.
>>
>> Network science is the statistics of graphs/networks. Space syntax  
>> has
>> never worked with the statistics of graphs. My own work in the  
>> 1970s on
>> hierarchies and social networks never involved the statistics of  
>> graphs for
>> all this built on what was widely regarded as a structural theory  
>> dealing
>> with lines and arcs and depths and connectivity. All this stuff  
>> goes back to
>> the invention of graph theory in the 19th century where ideas about
>> connectivity and distance are central - topological distance that  
>> is.  See
>> the books by Harary and back to Claude Berge even.
>>
>> If you don't believe any of this, Lucas, then I advise you to look  
>> at my
>> papers which are in the public domain but not yet online.
>>
>> (with K. J. Tinkler) Symmetric Structure in Spatial and Social  
>> Processes,
>> Environment and Planning B, 6, 3-27, 1979
>> Social Power in Plan Generation, Town Planning Review, 45, 291-310,  
>> 1974
>> An Approach to Rational Design: Part 1: The Structure of Design  
>> Problems,
>> Part 2: Design Problems as Markov Chains, Architectural Design,
>> Architectural Design, 41, 436-439; 498-501, 1970.
>>
>> Don't even look at my papers. Look at Lionel March and Phil  
>> Steadman's
>> (1971) book The Geometry of Environment , RIBA Publications, London  
>> which
>> has  very good section on graphs. In fact go and ask Phil. He is  
>> sitting in
>> his office on the 2nd floor.
>>
>> God how parochial can one get ! Sorry.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> PS Incidentally the backlist of all the E and P papers - A, B, C,  
>> and D
>> will go online soon as Pion are just finishing scanning them, so  
>> get your
>> libraries to purchase online access and if they don't subscrine to  
>> E and P
>> B, get them too - blatant advertising!.
>>
>>
>>
>> At 12:07 27/02/2008 -0300, Lucas Figueiredo wrote:
>>
>>
>> Particularly, this network science field may be extremely useful,
>> since it reinvents the wheel and renames everything that has long
>> existed. So one does not need to bother to visit libraries for old
>> books, but just to download last month's paper.
>>
>> (For a self-criticism see this:
>> http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/347.html
>>
>> "Obviously, I wish physicists would bother to master the existing
>> literature in new areas, before we start building models there. It's
>> highly unlikely that all of the previous scholars who worked on the
>> subject were idiotic or totally misguided — and even if they were,
>> it's important to be able to say so with a clean conscience.")
>>
>> I wonder if this 'ignorance for laziness or lack of consideration'
>> plus a 'replacement through mass publication and repetition' has
>> inspires some people to try to 'erase' entire fields from history.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lucas
>>
>> 2008/2/27 Michael Batty <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>> In so far as physicist are involved in graphs and in my experience  
>>> most
>> UG
>>> physics courses in good universities teach a little on graphs - ie  
>>> they
>>> learn graph theory - then a well trained physicist will know all  
>>> this
>> stuff
>>>
>>> In fact the authors of the bible on network science - essential  
>>> reading
>> for
>>> space syntax people who need to know about network science -  
>>> produced by
>> M.
>>> Newman, A.-L. Barabasi, D.J. Watts (Eds.), The Structure and.  
>>> Dynamics of
>>> Networks, Princeton University Press, 2006. are all physicists:
>>>
>>> Mark Newman is Professor of Physics at the University of Michigan.
>>> Albert-László Barabási is Emil T. Hofman Professor of Physics at the
>>> University of Notre Dame. He is the author of Linked: The New  
>>> Science of
>>> Networks (Perseus Books). Duncan J. Watts is Associate Professor of
>>> Sociology at Columbia University. He is the author of Six Degrees:  
>>> The
>>> Science of a Connected Age (W. W. Norton) and Small Worlds: The  
>>> Dynamics
>> of
>>> Networks Between Order and Randomness (Princeton).
>>>
>>> watts trained in physics at Cornell and is a mathematician by first
>>> training i believe
>>>
>>> Mike Batty
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 09:33 27/02/2008, S. N.C. Dalton wrote:
>>>
>>> This makes me wonder if the physics/ complexity community has got  
>>> to the
>>> concept of depth within a radius or is the concept of
>> radius/vicinity/decay
>>> still in essence new for them?
>>>
>>> sheep
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Feb 2008, at 21:19, JOHN COCHRANE wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Please disregard the last email, the picture did not transfer over.
>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot  Alan.
>>>
>>> One clarification though,  so if a line has a radius 3 depth  
>>> measurement
>> of
>>> 4 for example what exactly does that mean?  Does the radius 3 depth
>>> measurement effectively limit your map to a maximum of 3 changes of
>>> direction from the line in question?  In the example that I have  
>>> pasted
>>> below, I can understand why the total depth = 7 but I don't know  
>>> why the
>>> three_depth = 4.  Also it appears clear that the max depth = 3 for  
>>> the
>>> highlighted line but I get 2.8731251.  Why?  Thanks again for any  
>>> help I
>>> really appreciate your time.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> <000701c878bc$cbe49880$6e01a8c0>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Michael Batty | CASA | University College London | 1-19 Torrington  
>>> Place
>>> London WC1E 6BT UK | Tel 44 207 679 1782 | Mobile 44 7768 423 656 |
>>> email: [log in to unmask] | web: www.casa.ucl.ac.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lucas Figueiredo
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Michael Batty | CASA | University College London | 1-19 Torrington  
>> Place
>> London WC1E 6BT UK | Tel 44 207 679 1782 | Mobile 44 7768 423 656 |
>> email: [log in to unmask] | web: www.casa.ucl.ac.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Lucas Figueiredo