Attempted def: an "agent" is a collection of agents whose goals are sufficiently correlated that they *cannot* be achieved independently
Conversation
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian agent := [1..n agents] or agent := ([1..n agents], [1..n goals])?
Also, 0..n, 1..n or 2..n?
1
1
Replying to
I believe that I'm saying an agent is a rose tree with goals at the nodes fulfilling above consistency relation
1
2
Replying to
and if I'm reading you right, I was thinking 2..n though 1..n might make sense? Not sure what 0..n would even mean
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian 0: grounded/base agent (although I'm skeptical here as well)
1: a company with one employee
can agents contain themselves?
2
1
Replying to
actually 0 as "null agent" is totally right for the specification of datatype, same as "empty tree"
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian I was skeptical because there's an alternative way to ground agents and it's mutual recursion. Can't rule it out yet.
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian a 0 agent would leave you with the question how agency emerges, also you'd have two kinds of agents now (0 and >0)