Closed rhgarcia closed 1 year ago
Va de suyo
Me pongo con ello.
In \cite{garcia2015world} we analyzed the effect of the model parameters such as the map size available food per virtual day or initial number of agents and found out that the existence of conflicts is essential for the emergence of most of our archetypes, that different archetypes need different types of conflicts and that, in many cases, conflicts are also emergent.
Frase muy larga, cambiarla a:
In \cite{garcia2015world} we analyzed the effect of the model parameters such as the map size available food per virtual day or initial number of agents. Several conclusions were attained: the existence of conflicts is essential for the emergence of most of our archetypes, different archetypes need different types of conflicts and, in many cases, conflicts are also emergent.
However, this methodology for the emergence of backstories did not use formal models to define the archetypes or the facts of the virtual world and no {\em a priori} rules could be provided to establish whether or not a design of an agent could lead to the appearance of the archetypes.
Esta frase no me queda clara qué quieres decir. Podrías ponerla como "El principal problema de esta metodología es TAL, ya que no se usó tal cosa" (y ya enlazas guay con el párrafo de abajo)ok, lo reviso. Gracias!
On 22 March 2015 at 14:22, Pablo García Sánchez notifications@github.com wrote:
- For this reason in the present paper we formally model -> For this reason, in the present paper, we formally model
- to define requirements of the ABM -> to define the requirements of the ABM
- In \cite{garcia2015world} we analyzed the effect of the model parameters such as the map size available food per virtual day or initial number of agents and found out that the existence of conflicts is essential for the emergence of most of our archetypes, that different archetypes need different types of conflicts and that, in many cases, conflicts are also emergent.
Frase muy larga, cambiarla a:
In \cite{garcia2015world} we analyzed the effect of the model parameters such as the map size available food per virtual day or initial number of agents. Several conclusions were attained: the existence of conflicts is essential for the emergence of most of our archetypes, different archetypes need different types of conflicts and, in many cases, conflicts are also emergent.
- However, this methodology for the emergence of backstories did not use formal models to define the archetypes or the facts of the virtual world and no {\em a priori} rules could be provided to establish whether or not a design of an agent could lead to the appearance of the archetypes. Esta frase no me queda clara qué quieres decir. Podrías ponerla como "El principal problema de esta metodología es TAL, ya que no se usó tal cosa" (y ya enlazas guay con el párrafo de abajo)
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/geneura-papers/2015-MADE-MONOMYTH/issues/22#issuecomment-84606359 .
Terminología: Ya no estoy usando "actions" o "logs" del mundo. en su lugar, hablo de "facts" (quizá podría usar "truths"). Es un término más preciso para definir que en realidad se tratan de hechos o verdades del mundo (pueden ser acciones o no serlo ... ) y en última instancia de instanciaciones de valores de argumentos en predicados lógicos. Por ejemplo, Father(1,5) es un hecho que define que 1 es padre de 5. Me parece que llamarlo "action" es más impreciso. Qué opináis @JJ, @fergunet y @pacastillo?
"Events" es mejor.
El 22 de marzo de 2015, 19:32, Rubén Héctor García <notifications@github.com
escribió:
Terminología: Ya no estoy usando "actions" o "logs" del mundo. en su lugar, hablo de "facts" (quizá podría usar "truths"). Es un término más preciso para definir que en realidad se tratan de hechos o verdades del mundo (pueden ser acciones o no serlo ... ) y en última instancia de instanciaciones de valores de argumentos en predicados lógicos. Por ejemplo, Father(1,5) es un hecho que define que 1 es padre de 5. Me parece que llamarlo "action" es más impreciso. Qué opináis @JJ https://github.com/JJ, @fergunet https://github.com/fergunet y @pacastillo https://github.com/pacastillo?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/geneura-papers/2015-MADE-MONOMYTH/issues/22#issuecomment-84671723 .
JJ
Cierto :-) :+1:
Agh, estoy gilipollas, esto era en el abstract :/
Sobre la parte que tenía que revisar en este issue:
Hola @fergunet , puedes ver los cambios directamente en el changeset (son pocos realmente): https://github.com/geneura-papers/2015-MADE-MONOMYTH/commit/94ec1e4834f2d00d39023338375161ee39de1321 Si te parecen bien, cierra y si no, reasigna :-) GRACIAS!
Proposed: En la introducción, hablar de los avances de las investigaciones anteriores para poder justificar los pasos que se van dando: logros