Skip to main content


We're creating a new version of this page. See preview

  • Editorial
  • Open Access

Monkeys, trees, and the right abstraction!

Complex Adaptive Systems Modeling20186:9

  • Received: 14 October 2018
  • Accepted: 14 October 2018
  • Published:

“A mathematician who can only generalise is like a monkey who can only climb up a tree, and a mathematician who can only specialise is like a monkey who can only climb down a tree. In fact neither the up monkey nor the down monkey is a viable creature. A real monkey must find food and escape his enemies and so must be able to incessantly climb up and down. A real mathematician must be able to generalise and specialise.”

George Polya quoted in D MacHale, Comic Sections (MacHale 1993).

Seventh of September marks the death anniversary of the famous mathematician George Polya. Polya is famed for his specific problem-solving techniques given in the bestseller “How to Solve it” (Polya 2004). Polya rightly notes the importance of abstraction.

Complex adaptive systems involve the interaction of numerous components or agents. To be able to effectively model these systems, it is extremely important to use abstraction.

Abstraction, however, is not limited to a particular domain. We use abstraction in our everyday lives and in social interactions. The sciences are filled with examples of abstraction—double-helix/staircase model for the DNA molecule (Watson 2012), Maxwell’s demon in Physics (Maxwell 1891) or rules in Medical diagnosis systems (Iantovics 2012; Iantovics et al. 2018).

Not lacking behind are the humanities with concepts such as truth, liberty, or freedom among others.

Perhaps the importance of abstraction can be highlighted by the fact that the way humans learn is by means of mechanisms entirely based on abstraction—e.g. a child once affected by something “hot” can later be guided to stay away from other dangerous items by means of a suitable simile. Perhaps being able to easily abstract and frequently use abstraction in our cognitive and thought processes is what separates us from the machines that we design—this being true, at least to-date.


Authors’ contribution

MAN concieved the idea of the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

COSMOSE Research Group, Computer Science Department, COMSATS University, Islamabad, Pakistan
University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology of Targu Meres, Targu Mures, Romania


  1. Iantovics BL (2012) Agent-based medical diagnosis systems. Comput Inform 27(4):593–625Google Scholar
  2. Iantovics LB, Gligor A, Niazi MA, Biro AI, Szilagyi SM, Tokody D (2018) Review of recent trends in measuring the computing systems intelligence. BRAIN Broad Res Artif Intell Neurosci 9(2):77–94Google Scholar
  3. MacHale D (1993) Comic Sections: The Book of Mathematical Jokes, Humour, Wit and Wisdom, Boole Press, ISBN 1-85748-006-6Google Scholar
  4. Maxwell JC (1891) Theory of heat. Longmans, GreenMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Polya G (2004) How to solve it: a new aspect of mathematical method, vol 246. Princeton University Press, PrincetonMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Watson J (2012) The double helix. Hachette UK, AbingdonGoogle Scholar


© The Author(s) 2018