Timeline for Homogeneous and complex nuclei
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2017 at 14:48 | vote | accept | Hans-Peter Stricker | ||
| Aug 28, 2017 at 16:48 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | Nevertheless, there is possibly some truth in the dichotomy (as in most dichotomies). And why throw the baby out with the bathwater? | |
| Aug 28, 2017 at 16:42 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | Exactly - in my opinion it's an ill-posed problem. So, the issue isn't trying to approach the problem, but deciding not to. I think it's more helpful to appreciate and embrace the diversity of nuclei; the same approach is important in biology in general. It's much harder to reduce biological concepts to strict rules the way other fields sometimes strive for. If you pick any two nuclei, and claim one is simpler than the other, I can almost guarantee someone can make an argument for the inverse based on a different definition of complexity. | |
| Aug 28, 2017 at 16:35 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | You are right! But why do you say "the simple/complex continuum is also not one-dimensional"? Isn't this at the very heart of the problem? Given this "problem": How could one ever approach it? | |
| Aug 28, 2017 at 16:29 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | Okay - your questions #2 and #4 don't work if that is true. #3 maybe but I think it's still a problematic; the simple/complex continuum is also not one-dimensional (i.e., there are different potential types/definitions for complexity). | |
| Aug 28, 2017 at 16:16 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | I am aware that there is no strict dichotomy between "simple" and "complex" but a continuum. Maybe I should have pointed this out. | |
| Aug 28, 2017 at 15:55 | history | answered | Bryan Krause♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |