Reply to Comments on “Simple measure for complexity”
- 1 August 2000
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Physical Society (APS) in Physical Review E
- Vol. 62 (2) , 3000-3003
- https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.62.3000
Abstract
We respond to the comment by Crutchfield, Feldman, and Shalizi [Comment in this issue, Phys. Rev. E 62, 2996 (2000)] and that by Binder and Perry [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. E 62, 2998 (2000)], pointing out that there may be many maximum entropies, and therefore “disorders” and “simple complexities.” Which ones are appropriate depend on the questions being addressed. “Disorder” is not restricted to be the ratio of a nonequilibrium entropy to the corresponding equilibrium entropy; therefore, “simple complexity” need not vanish for all equilibrium systems, nor must it be nonvanishing for a nonequilibrium system.Keywords
All Related Versions
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comment II on “Simple measure for complexity”Physical Review E, 2000
- Comment I on “Simple measure for complexity”Physical Review E, 2000
- Simple measure for complexityPhysical Review E, 1999
- Disorder and complexity in an ideal non-equilibrium Fermi gasPhysics Letters A, 1998
- Statistical complexity of simple one-dimensional spin systemsPhysical Review E, 1997
- Complexity as thermodynamic depthAnnals of Physics, 1988
- How to measure self-generated complexityPhysica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 1986
- Toward a quantitative theory of self-generated complexityInternational Journal of Theoretical Physics, 1986
- Can entropy and “order” increase together?Physics Letters A, 1984
- Two general problems in quantum biologyInternational Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 1984