Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Complexity: A Primer

A new book about Complexity is available at
Complexity is a new approach studying how interconnected parts give rise to the collective behavior of large systems and how the systems interact with their environment. It cuts across all traditional disciplines: science, engineering, medicine, management, etc. This book introduces the readers to 
·        the key issues associated with Complexity,
·        the main approaches to study Complexity,
·        the ways of describing complex systems, 
·        the process of formation of complex systems,
·        how local interactions give rise to global patterns of behavior, 
·        emergent phenomena,
·        analytical and computational tools for studying Complexity,
·        the main application areas of Complexity.
      This book is an introduction to Complexity Science. By its nature, it is highly interdisciplinary. Therefore, we attempted to use only as little elementary mathematics as possible. 
1.Why Complexity?
2.What is Complexity?
2.1. Agents
2.2. Nonlinearity
2.3. Emergence
2.4. Self-organization
2.5. Information
2.6. Additional properties of complex systems
2.7. Measuring complexity
3. General System Theory
4. Cybernetics
5. Chaos
6. Adaptation and Evolution
6.1. Adaptation
6.2. Evolution
      6.2.1. Classifier Systems
6. 3. Genetic Algorithm 
7. Swarms
7.1. Bacteria
7.2. Slime molds
7.3. Ants
7.4. Bees
7.5. Birds
7.6. Swarm optimization
7.7. Human crowds
8. Networks
8.1. Power laws
      8.1.1. Self-organized criticality 
8.2. Small-world networks
8.3. Scale-free networks 
8.4. Neural networks 
      8.4.1. The living neuron
      8.4.2. The Perceptron
               8.4.3. Multi-layer neural network
9. Fractals
9.1. Early fractals
9.2. Fractal dimension
9.3. The Mandelbrot Set
10. Search
10.1. Basic tree search strategies
      10.1.1. Depth-first search 
      10.1.2. Breadth-first search
      10.1.3. Steepest descent search
      10.1.4. Branch and bound search
      10.1.5. Bidirectional search
      10.1.6. Problem reduction by the use of AND / OR trees
10.2. Simulated Annealing
10.3. Dynamic Programming
10.4. Mathematical optimization
10.5. The Traveling Salesman Problem
11. Cellular Automata
11.1. John Neumann
11.2.  The Parity Model
11.3. The Gossip Model
11.4. The Majority Model
11.5. The Finite Difference Method
11.6. The Game of Life
11.7. One-dimensional Cellular Automata
11.8. Random Boolean Networks 
12. Games
12.1. Two-person constant sum games
12.2. General two-person games
      12.2.1. Prisoners’ Dilemma 
      12.2.2. Chicken
      12.2.3. Benevolent Chicken 
      12.2.4. Leader 
      12.2.5. Battle of the Sexes
      12.2.6. Stag Hunt 
      12.2.7. Deadlock 
      12.2.8. Dilemmas
12.3. Axelrod’s tournaments
12.4. N-person Games
      12.4.1. Agent personalities
      12.4.2. Transition from 2-person to N-person games
      12.4.3. Experiments
      N-person Prisoners’ Dilemma
               Pavlovian agents
               Greedy agents
               Mixed personalities
      N-person Chicken Dilemma
               Pavlovian agents
               Greedy agents
      N-person Battle of Sexes game.
      N-person games with crossing payoff functions
      N-person Game of Life
      Transitions between different N-person games
      12.4.4. Analytical solutions of N-person games
     12.4.5. Practical applications
     12.4.6. Conclusion
13. Modeling
13.1. Agent-based simulation
      13.1.1. Sugarscape 
      13.1.2. ECE 408/508
14. Decision heuristics
15. Case studies
15. 1. Artificial Life
15.2. Artificial Intelligence
15.3. Complexity Economics
15.4. Human Society
15.5. Organizations
15.6. Public Policy
15.7. Traffic jams
16. Resources
16. 1. Journals
16.2. Articles in Scientific American
16.3. Web sites

17. References and Additional Reading

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Is Russia our enemy?

An Open Letter to Barack Obama
Composed by Vladislav Krasnov on behalf of Russia & America Goodwill Association
Dear Mr. President:
As your presidential duties will soon expire, I want you make sure your Nobel Peace Prize is deserved: Please instruct your officials to return to the path of negotiations with Russia, be it the Syrian crisis, the lapse of the plutonium nuclear arms control deal or Ukraine.
By so doing, you will bequeath to your successor—whomever it might be—a solid foundation on which to build a healthier and more peaceful Planet Earth. The United States should re-commit to the policy of non-interference in domestic affairs abroad that our Founding Fathers consistently proclaimed and adhered to. Instead of imposing our cherished values of “free-market” and “democracy” abroad, let us rely on the wisdom of a man who risked the reputation of a “traitor” when he defied King George’s war on American colonies.
I am talking about Edmund Burke, the British philosopher and father of modern conservatism. Like ancient Greeks he argued that each country is entitled to its own form of government, be it democracy, republic, monarchy, tyranny or despotism, each of which tend to evolve into its opposite. Therefore, the colonies do not have to bow to the King. Burke’s monument now graces Washington DC.
In respect to Russia, remember that Empress Catherine the Great refused King George’s request to send Russian Cossacks help him quell George Washington’s rebellion. During the Civil War, while Europe’s powers-- Great Britain, France, and Spain—tried to take advantage of President Lincoln’s problems with the South, Tsar Alexander II who had just abolished serfdom in Russia, sent Russian Navy to the harbors of New York and San Francisco as a gesture of Good Will. More recently, in spite of the USSR’s unconcealed hostility to “Capitalist” America, the
two countries were able to co-operate in the defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan, and then keep the bitterness of Cold War in check.
After 1991, the Communist Russia is no more. The New Russia has been espousing the same values of private property, free enterprise, multi-party free elections, secular government, and freedom of speech and religion—as we do. To be sure, the post-1991 Russian road has been rocky, but this because we meddled on the side of the Russian oligarchs and because it takes years and decades to cultivate free enterprise and democracy in a country that had none for 73 years.
Krasnov presents his book to Boris Yeltsin In late 1980s, when I was writing Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth (Westview Press, 1991), Soviet soldiers were forbidden to wear crucifix. Now General Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s Minister of Defense, would not enter the Red Square without crossing himself publicly. President Vladimir Putin is regularly seen in a church in front of an icon and has addressed Russian Muslims in a mosque and Jews in a synagogue. It’s a truly tectonic shift in global affairs since the end of the Cold War in 1991.
Putin in a Russian Church
Therefore, I say, Mr. President, take a breath of fresh air and do what it takes to make your Nobel Peace Prize count: Leave the legacy of peace-seeking negotiations with Russia from which your successor will not deviate lest he or she be called an abominable war monger.
More than any other two countries, Russia and the United States are called upon safeguard Peace, Freedom and Commerce not just from San Francisco to Vladivostok, but on the entire Planet Earth. So help us God!
W George Krasnow, Ph.D. (aka Vladislav Krasnov)
October 10, 2016

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

The beauty of N-person games

The cells of this cellular automaton play an N-person game by choosing among two options: C or D. They copy the choice of their neighbors with the highest reward for their choice.

The C-choosers are colored blue if they also chose C in the previous iteration and green if they changed from D to C. The D-choosers are colored red if they also chose D in the previous iteration and yellow if they changed from C to D. 

We start with cells that initially all choose C except one in the geometrical center of the automaton and watch what happens.

(Excerpted from the author's paper on "An N-person game solver for agents that constitute a cellular automaton.")

Friday, May 22, 2015

Copyright 1999 Miklos N. Szilagyi
Published in the Tucson Citizen on April 21, 1999 as a Guest Opinion under the title
"America can't afford to fight every battle"

In the year 150 BC, Rome was the only superpower. After the conquest of Greece, she defeated Carthage as well. Hannibal took his own life, and Carthage was no longer a threat for Rome. It was, however, not enough for the good Romans. They first took 300 children of the noblest Carthaginian families as hostages, then took all of their ships and weapons of war, finally demanded that all of them leave the city and burn it to the ground. A three-year siege followed this atrocious demand, after which Carthage was burned down, its soil plowed and sown with salt and its remaining inhabitants sold as slaves. The city ceased to exist and Rome celebrated her glory.

It is difficult to be the sole superpower. There are no checks and balances that would stop the thirst for more and more conquests. This, eventually, leads to the destruction of the superpower itself, as the example of Rome (and others) shows.

America now has a unique opportunity to exercise leadership based on principles other than destruction. For the irst time in history, we could use our power to lead the world by example. We could show what informed, educated, and moral people can accomplish. We could clean up our streets so that they are safe to walk and play on. We could remove drugs and guns from our schools. We could improve our educational system and reach the level when we have an informed public opinion that our leaders can rely upon. We could choose qualified and moral leaders who are trusted at home and abroad, and have a long-term vision for America and the world

No country is as perfect as we are. In many countries, most people live in poverty, and they kill each other for ethnic, religious, or other reasons. As the only superpower, we must have a clear policy of what constitutes our strategic interests. The rest of the world should know that we are not going to tolerate any infringements on those interests. We must take action if there is a threat to our national security. President Kennedy was right not to allow Soviet missiles in Cuba and it was right to stop Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Kuwait.

There are, however, limits to how much we can change other countries. We should respect the sovereignty, equality, and cooperation among nations. We must understand that our ideas are not necessarily desirable for people who have a thousand years of history based on different ideas. Bombing, invading, and removing presidents is not leadership but aggression that undermines not only our credibility but also our own freedom. We cannot force our peacekeeping forces on two hundred countries and cannot participate in every civil war that is going on.

It is difficult to be the only superpower. Are we qualified for the job or prefer to follow the path of Rome?

Friday, July 6, 2012

How To Save Our Country

Read this book at

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Elections or Democracy?

   We are told that we have to go to Iraq, Afghanistan,  Lybia, etc., etc. to create democracies there.  When elections are held in a foreign country, we congratulate ourselves.
   There is a huge difference between elections and democracy. An election is a one-time act; democracy is continuous participation in public affairs. Elections are based on manipulated television pictures and 30-second sound bites; the essence of democracy is information and concern for the public good.
   There have been regular elections in the most undemocratic countries of the world, like the Communist German Democratic Republic. On the other hand, Confucian China was practicing almost equal access to public offices for 2500 years without ever holding any elections.
   Democracy is much more than elections. It is the self-government of informed and concerned citizens. Democracy is impossible without continuous, active participation at all levels. Democracy is only possible in highly cultured free societies where people respect each other, the public institutions, and the rule of law. It is based on peaceful negotiations, cooperation, and compromise. It also includes wide-range consultations and public criticism of both elected and appointed officials.
   Public policies should be determined by reason and argument, not by counting noses. The number of votes for or against an idea or a person has nothing to do with the merits of that idea or person. Elections in their present form are as if two foxes and one rabbit were to vote on what to have for breakfast.
   We all know that only those candidates have a chance to be elected who have the support of the powerful special interest groups and the media. As a result, we do not have a real choice at elections. No matter whom we elect, the interests of the country will never be as important as the special interests of those who select and support the representatives. The common interest is not represented at all. As the country becomes increasingly fragmented, it will be increasingly difficult even to define this common interest.
   When everybody is somebody, then nobody is anybody: the right to vote has lost its value. A narrower suffrage meant a certain prestige that is lost now. Universal suffrage that exists today includes an unduly large segment of the population who have little idea either about the issues or about the candidates. According to a Hearst Corporation poll, 45% of Americans believes that the Communist slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is part of our own Constitution. Such people are incapable of a rational choice; they become tools in the hands of manipulators who try to control public opinion. The universal suffrage would make better sense in case of an informed and educated citizenry. Therefore, political reform should start with a reformed educational system.
   The present system of choosing office holders is unfair, and it is not accessible for most people. It is virtually impossible to be elected unless the candidate is supported by one of the two big parties or some powerful special interest group. Ideas do not count, money does.
   Campaign costs are growing like a cancer. To be elected to the House of Representatives one has to raise a lot of money. A Senate seat costs millions. There are only two ways to raise that much money. Either you are so rich that you can afford to pay it from your own pocket, or you rely on the special interest groups. Political campaigns are not about ideas or issues but about visual images that can be manipulated at the will of the media. The money is mostly used for polling people's sentiments, fitting the politicians' images to the results of the polls, and for senseless negative television commercials.
The big campaign providers argue that by contributing money they exercise their fundamental right to participate in the political process. This is a hypocritical and false statement. Manipulating public opinion is coercion; buying politicians is immoral.
   Money should be eliminated from the political process and replaced with an independent information system to provide a broad range of political choices. This information system should be provided free of charge to express the views of anyone who has the qualifications necessary to run for office. Government would have no control over the ideas transmitted.
Paid political advertisements and financial campaign contributions from individuals, political action committees, or corporations should be prohibited as clear examples of coercion and manipulation. The costs of all political campaigns should be financed by the public. All qualified candidates must be put on equal budgets. False campaign statements should be punished by law as any other false advertising.
   All political offices should be accessible to every citizen who meets the constitutional requirements. Participation should be open to any qualified person. To become a candidate for elected office, one should meet only some elementary standards, e.g., collecting a small number of nominating signatures, and passing a simple examination on basic historical, cultural, and political issues.
   As an additional step, the 'None of the Above' option should be included in the election procedure. If more people vote for this option than for any of the candidates, new elections should be held where none of the rejected candidates could participate. This would be a powerful and simple way to remove unfit people from political office.
If none of the above proposals can be accepted, then even selection of office-holders by a lottery would be a better system than the existing one.
   We need a national commitment to political reform. When Americans perceive the alarming extent of the system's failure and the destructive threat it poses to the society, we must start to work to bring about the necessary changes. This effort will require traditional American idealism, energy, persistence, and practicality.

Excerpted from How to Save Our Country, Copyright (c) 1993 by Miklos N. Szilagyi.