Stachowiak’s K-System of Modelling

Beyond the colloquial fundamental model properties (mapping, reduction, pragmatics) Stachowiak gives a more formal description of model. The definitions of the terms used in the explication of the concept of model take a whole chapter in the book, however I want to give a rough idea what I think it all means:

k is an intelligent modeller, that is able to recognize the signs relevant to it (1), that express the original O and the model M as appropriate. It is assumed that the original model can be expressed by propositions P (2, 3). The O to M mapping takes place between the corresponding propositions (4) where not all of them need to be mapped. (5) seems actually redundant, saying mainly the same as (4) on the level of signs allocated to propositions. Finally, in the eye of the organism k, M replaces O.

So far it is just some allocation of any M to an O performed by k, satisfying the mapping and reduction properties. However in order to make ‘sense’ the pragmatic aspect is required, that is explicated by the remaining points (6 – 12). Therefore the M*, P* and finally O* are introduced, where O* represents an “improved” original (by inverse mapping from M* via P*), in the sense that it provides some improved understanding of the original O to k. In other words, modeling created something new, a new insight to the modeller! (replace model by abstraction if you like)

Stachowiak’s original “explication” looks like this:

Explication of the Concept of Model

Thus, [by the tuple (M, O, k, t, Z)] the concept of model can be presented in the following more rigorous way:

Let M and O be some (semiotic or non-semiotic) objects. Then for a K-organism k the object M is said to be a model of the object O in the time interval t wrt. the operation objective (the aim, the intention of the modelling) Z, if k in the time interval t

  1. is L-rational,
  2. realises a description Po of O,
  3. realises a description Pm of M,
  4. realises an icostructural mapping F from Po to Pm,
  5. realises a transcoding T from Po to Pm in the transcoding class TK,
  6. realises the replacement of O by M,
  7. realises certain operations Op(i, Z), with i=1, 2, …, n for the (partial or complete) attainment of Z for M, s.t. M is transformed to an object M*,
  8. realises a description Pm* of M*,
  9. realises a revers of the icostructural mapping F from P m to Po with the result Pm*,
  10. accepts the predicate class Po* as description of O*,
  11. accepts the replacement of O* by M*, and
  12. realises the re-coding of the transcoding T of Po in Pm wrt. Po* and Pm*

(Notice that the reduction property is satisfied, since 1. the domain and the codomain of F, UO and UM contain the same number of of elements, 2. this number is less or equal the number of elements of PO, 3. the number of elements of PM is less or equal of that of PO.  The boundary cases mentioned in 2 and 3, usually never be reached in real modelling.)

Stachowiak, Herbert (1973) (in german (DE)). Allgemeine Modelltheorie [General Model Theory]. Springer. ISBN 3-211-81106-0.

Have fun
|=

For a discussion on the interpretation of the K-system see also:

About modelpractice

Modeling Theory and Abstraction Awareness in strive for scientific rigour and relevance to information systems engineering.
This entry was posted in Epistemology, Herbert Stachowiak and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Stachowiak’s K-System of Modelling

  1. TY says:

    The 1 to 12, don’t understanding…
    but I see, if say it’s a definition of models, that’s indeed model-as-use: especially appears at the “iff(*) k in the time interval t” – the time the models be using under the situation.
    🙂

  2. will try to explain the terms used later, but will take a while …

  3. TY says:

    Good job 🙂
    Seem the numbers in the first part corresponding to the 12 items listed in the latter part?
    I think the discussion is quite closed to the cognitive subject. It’s reminds me of the thought about that what called cognitive cycle.

  4. thx! 😉
    yes, the numbers are the listed items, and yes, it should be seen in strong connection with cognitive science, I think (what is actually not my subject).
    |=

  5. Pingback: General Model Theory by Stachowiak | modelpractice

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s