"What I am offering, is not a scientific theory, but a method; the first step in the construction of a model is to describe the dynamical models compatible with an empirically given morphology, and this is also the first step in understanding the phenomena under consideration. [...] We may hope that theoreticians will develop a quantitative model [for specific processes described by catastrophe theory ...] But this is only a hope." (René Thom, "Structural Stability and Morphogenesis", 1972)
"The catastrophe model is at the same time much less and much more than a scientific theory; one should consider it as a language, a method, which permits classification and systematization of given empirical data [...] In fact, any phenomenon at all can be explained by a suitable model from catastrophe theory." (René F Thom, 1973)
"First, nature's line patterns are not all of the same sort; the triple junctions generic in mud cracks cannot occur with caustics. Second, the geometrical optics of cylindrically symmetric artifacts such as telescopes, where departures from the ideal point focus are treated as 'aberrations', is very different from the geometrical optics of nature, where the generic forms of caustic surfaces are governed by the mathematics of catastrophe theory." Michael V Berry & John F Nye, "Fine Structure in Caustic Junctions", Nature Vol. 267 (3606), 1977)
"the claims made for the theory are greatly exaggerated and its accomplishments, at least in the biological and social sciences, are insignificant. [...] Catastrophe theory is one of many attempts that have been made to deduce the world by thought alone [...] an appealing dream for mathematicians, but a dream that cannot come true." (Héctor J Sussmann & Raphael S Zahler, Nature, 1977)
"A catastrophe, in the very broad sense [René] Thom gives to the word, is any discontinuous transition that occurs when a system can have more than one stable state, or can follow more than one stable pathway of change. The catastrophe is the 'jump' from one state or pathway to another." (Alexander Woodcock & Monte Davis, "Catastrophe Theory", 1978)
"It is not enough to know the critical stress, that is, the quantitative breaking point of a complex design; one should also know as much as possible of the qualitative geometry of its failure modes, because what will happen beyond the critical stress level can be very different from one case to the next, depending on just which path the buckling takes. And here catastrophe theory, joined with bifurcation theory, can be very helpful by indicating how new failure modes appear." (Alexander Woodcock & Monte Davis, "Catastrophe Theory", 1978)
"The unfoldings are called catastrophes because each of them has regions where a dynamic system can jump suddenly from one state to another, although the factors controlling the process change continuously. Each of the seven catastrophes represents a pattern of behavior determined only by the number of control factors, not by their nature or by the interior mechanisms that connect them to the system's behavior. Therefore, the elementary catastrophes can be models for a wide variety of processes, even those in which we know little about the quantitative laws involved." (Alexander Woodcock & Monte Davis, "Catastrophe Theory", 1978)
"Two assumptions are needed to apply catastrophe theory as it now stands: first, that the system described be governed by a potential, and second, that its behavior depend on a limited number of control factors. Without these assumptions, the classification of the elementary catastrophes is impossible." (Alexander Woodcock & Monte Davis, "Catastrophe Theory", 1978)
"It is more a philosophy than mathematics, and even as a philosophy it doesn't explain the real world [...] as mathematics, it brings together two of the most basic ideas in modern math: the study of dynamic systems and the study of the singularities of maps. Together, they cover a very wide area - but catastrophe theory brings them together in an arbitrary and constrained way." (Steven Smale)
"While it must be granted that a number of immoderate claims in the form of 'catastrophe theory can do everything' have been made in the literature, on the basis of too little experience, it doesn't seem that the proper response is an equally immoderate claim that 'catastrophe theory can do nothing' on the basis of that same body of experience." (Robert Rosen)
No comments:
Post a Comment