Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 67–79 | Cite as

Equation or Algorithm: Differences and Choosing Between Them

Regular Article

Abstract

The issue of whether formal reasoning or a computing-intensive approach is the most efficient manner to address scientific questions is the subject of some considerable debate and pertains not only to the nature of the phenomena and processes investigated by scientists, but also the nature of the equation and algorithm objects they use. Although algorithms and equations both rely on a common background of mathematical language and logic, they nevertheless possess some critical differences. They do not refer to the same level of symbolization, as equations are based on integrated concepts in a denotational manner, while algorithms specifically break down a complex problem into more elementary operations, in an operational manner. They may therefore be considered as suited to the representation of different phenomena. Specifically, algorithms are by nature sufficient to represent weak emergent phenomena, but not strong emergent patterns, while equations can do both. Finally, the choice between equations and algorithms are by nature sufficient to represent weak emergent phenomena, but not strong emergent patterns, while equations behave conversely. We propose a simplified classification of scientific issues for which both equation- and/or algorithm-based approaches can be envisaged, and discuss their respective pros and cons. We further discuss the complementary and sometimes conflicting uses of equations and algorithms in a context of ecological theory of metapopulation dynamics. We finally propose both conceptual and practical guidelines for choosing between the alternative approaches.

Keywords

Emergence Ecology Metapopulation Modeling Semantics Spatial dynamics Theory 

References

  1. Aubin D (1997) The withering immortality of Nicolas Bourbaki: a cultural connector at the confluence of mathematics. Sci Context 10:297–342Google Scholar
  2. Bascompte J (2001) Aggregate statistical measures and metapopulation dynamics. J Theor Biol 209:373–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bascompte J (2003) Extinction threshold: insights from simple models. Ann Zool Fennici 40:99–114Google Scholar
  4. Bascompte J, Sole RV (1996) Habitat fragmentation and extinction thresholds in spatially explicit models. J Anim Ecol 65(4):465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bedau MA (2008) Is weak emergence just in the mind? Mind Mach 18(4):443–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berec L (2002) Techniques of spatially explicit individual-based models: construction, simulation, and mean-field analysis. Ecol Model 150(1–2):55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolker B, Pacala SW (1997) Using moment equations to understand stochastically driven spatial pattern formation in ecological systems. Theor Popul Biol 52:179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boogerd FC, Bruggeman FJ, Richardson RC, Stephan A, Westerhoff HV (2005) Emergence and its place in nature: a case study of biochemical networks. Synthese 145:131–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broad CD (1919) Mechanical explanation and its alternatives. Proc Aristotelian Soc 19:86–124Google Scholar
  10. Broad CD (1925) In: Kegan Paul T (ed) The mind and its place in nature. Trubner & Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchberger B (1976) Theoretical basis for the reduction of polynomials to canonical forms. ACM SIGSAM Bull 10(3):19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burris SN, Sankappanavar HP (1981) A course in universal algebra. Springer Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Church A (1941) The calculi of lambda-conversion. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  14. Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C (2001) (eds) Introduction to algorithms, 2nd edn. The Massasuchetts Institute of Technology, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Dewdney AK (1985) Analog gadgets that solve a diversity of problems and raise an array of questions. Sci Am 252(5):18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Epstein J (1999) Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Complexity 4(5):41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Faugeras B, Maury O (2007) Modeling fish population movements: from an individual-based representation to an advection-diffusion equation. J Theor Biol 247(4):837–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gödel K (1931) Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der principia mathematica und verwandter systeme. I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38:173–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gosselin F (1999) Test of mathematical assumptions behind the ‘incidence function’ estimation process of metapopulations’ dynamic parameters. Math Biosci 159(1):21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hales TC (2001) The honeycomb conjecture. Discrete Comput Geom 25(1):1–22Google Scholar
  21. Hanski I (1997) Predictive and practical metapopulation models: the incidence function approach. In: Tilman D, Kareiva P (eds) Spatial ecology—the role of space in population dynamics and interspecific interactions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 21–45Google Scholar
  22. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanski IA, Gilpin ME (eds) (1997) Metapopulation biology, vol 1. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoare CAR (1999) A theory of programming: denotational, algebraic and operational semantics, in, http://www.research.microsoft.com/users/thoare/A_theory_of_programming.pdf
  25. Humphreys P (2004) Extending ourselves: computational science, empiricism, and scientific method. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Humphreys P (2008) Synchronic and diachronic emergence. Mind Mach 18(4):431–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huneman P (2008) Emergence made ontological? computational versus combinatorial approaches. Philos Sci 75(5):595–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huneman P, Humphreys P (2008) Dynamical emergence and computation: an introduction. Mind Mach 18(4):425–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keeling MJ (2002) Using individual-based simulations to test the Levins metapopulation paradigm. J Anim Ecol 71(2):270–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lande R (1987) Extinction thresholds in demographic models of territorial populations. Am Nat 130:624–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Latour B (1987) Science in action, how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MassGoogle Scholar
  32. Law R, Murrell DJ, Dieckmann U (2003) Population growth in space and time: spatial logistic equations. Ecology 84(1):252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levi M (2009) The mathematical mechanic: using physical reasoning to solve problems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. Levins R (1966) Strategy of model building in population biology. Am Sci 54(4):421Google Scholar
  35. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240Google Scholar
  36. Morin E (1982) Science avec conscience. Vol. (new edition). Collection Points, FayardGoogle Scholar
  37. Munoz F, Cheptou P-O, Kjellberg F (2007) Spectral analysis of simulated species distribution maps provides insights into metapopulation dynamics. Ecol Model 105:314–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ovaskainen O, Sato K, Bascompte J, Hanski I (2002) Metapopulation models for extinction threshold in spatially correlated landscapes. J Theor Biol 215:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peck SL (2004) Simulation as experiment: a philosophical reassessment for biological modeling. Trends Ecol Evol 19(10):530–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Plotkin GD (2004) A structural approach to operational semantics. J Log Algebraic Program 60–61:17–139Google Scholar
  41. Saccheri I, Kuussaari M, Kankare M, Vikman P, Fortelius W, Hanski I (1998) Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392Google Scholar
  42. Schmidt DA (1986) Denotational semantics. A methodology for language development. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., BostonGoogle Scholar
  43. Shapiro S (1997) Philosophy of mathematics: structure and ontology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Solé RV, Manrubia SC, Benton M, Kauffman S, Bak P (1999) Criticality and scaling in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 14(4):156–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stephan A (1999) Varieties of emergentism. Evol Cogn 5(1):49–59Google Scholar
  46. Szpiro G (2003) Mathematics: does the proof stack up? Nature 424(6944):12–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Turing AM (1936) On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem. Proc Lond Math Soc 2(42):230–265Google Scholar
  48. Turner R, Eden AH (2007) The philosophy of computer science: introduction to the special issue. Mind Mach 17(2):129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vuorinen V, Peltomaki M, Rost M, Alava MJ (2004) Networks in metapopulation dynamics. Euro Phys J B 38(2):261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wigner E (1982) On science and its evolution. J Phys 43(NC-8):435–438Google Scholar
  51. With KA, King AW (1999) Extinction thresholds for species in fractal landscapes. Conserv Biol 13(2):314–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wolfram S (2002) A new kind of science. Wolfram media, ChampaignGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRA—EFPA, UMR AMAPMontpellier, Cedex 5France
  2. 2.Université Montpellier 2, UMR AMAPMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations