[Hans Blom, 960222b]
(Rick Marken (960220.1100))
One of the first things that control engineering students learn is
how to reduce expressions of form (2) into expressions of form (1).
(1) effect = f(cause)
(2) effect = f(cause, effect)
They learn to analyze a closed loop system as though it were open
loop? Why?
In order to get a global picture of what goes on rather than a local
one; this moves the analysis up a level, one could say. Note that, if
there is any noise or uncertainty in the system, an expression like
effect = f(cause, effect) forces the analysis to be local to the
point in time where the effect occurs. This is maybe clearer when the
expression is rewritten as effect (t) = f (cause (t-1), effect (t-1))
where the time is made explicit. This local analysis makes answering
higher level questions like "what is the ultimate effect of a cause"
difficult, which is readily answerable from (1).
So to say that there is a "fundamental difference" between the two
"types of causality" will not be appreciated by many control
engineers.
But do _you_ appreciate it? (My guess: no)
Sometimes. Depends on the type of question that needs an answer. When
considering stability, for instance, an expression of type (2) is
more helpful. From
effect := constant_cause + 2 * effect
I see immediately that we have an unstable system. Sometimes an
expression of type (1) is more helpful. From
effect := 2 * cause
I see immediately that the underlying control system (if there is
one) is stable, and that there is a linear relation between cause and
effect. Form (1) has the advantage that it is a "higher level" view
which does not contain unnecessary detail anymore.
Greetings,
Hans
ยทยทยท
================================================================
Eindhoven University of Technology Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Dept. of Electrical Engineering Medical Engineering Group
email: j.a.blom@ele.tue.nl
Great man achieves harmony by maintaining differences; small man
achieves harmony by maintaining the commonality. Confucius