See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317232322

A Hierarchical Theory of System Topology and Distributed Functional Fusions

Conference Paper · October 2017

DOI: 10.1109/SMC.2017.8123120

CITATIONS READS
2 213

1 author:

Yingxu Wang
The University of Calgary
749 PUBLICATIONS   9,885 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Big Data Algebra (BDA) for Data Science and Engineering View project

Deep Machine Learning and Cognitive Knowledge Learning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yingxu Wang on 27 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Hierarchical Theory of System Topology and
Distributed Functional Fusions
Yingxu Wang, Senior Member, IEEE
President, International Institute of Cognitive Informatics and Cognitive Computing (ICIC)
Schulich School of Engineering and Hotchkiss Brain Institute
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
Tel: (403) 220 6141, Fax: (403) 282 6855
Email: yingxu@ucalgary.ca

Abstract — It is recognized that systems are the most
complicated entities in abstract, physical, information,
cognitive, brain, and social worlds across a wide range of
science and engineering disciplines. This paper presents a
theory of distributed system topologies and adaptive fusion
mechanisms. It reveals that structural and functional relations
play a centric role in system behavior modeling. A special
phenomenon of system incremental fusion is discovered and
formally described in order to explain the adaptive mechanisms
of system gains. The hierarchical topology theory of systems
provides a methodology for efficiently handling distributed
structural and behavioral complexities in system representation,
modeling, analysis, synthesis, inference, and implementation.
Applications of the formal theories of distributed system
topology and adaptive hierarchical relations are explored in
distributed, adaptive and cognitive system engineering.
Keywords — System theory, system topology, system
coordination, adaptive systems, relation theory, system fusion,
incremental fusion mechanism, hierarchical relations,
distributed system composition.
I. INTRODUCTION
A system is a collection of a set of coherent and interactive
entities that has stable structures and functions, as well as a clear
boundary with the external environment. Systems are the most
complicated artefacts pervasively general across contemporary
science disciplines and engineering applications. The concept
of systems was proposed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the
1920s [12], though the notion of systems can be traced back to
the 17th Century when R. Descartes (1596-1650) noticed the
interrelationships among scientific disciplines as a system.
System science is a discipline that studies structures,
mechanisms, behaviors, principles, properties, theories, and
formal models of abstract systems and their applications in
concrete systems in engineering and societies [1-9, 11, 13-15].
A general system is a hyperstructure with recursive and
embedded relations between any two adjacent layers of a
system. The abstract system theory [14] is introduced as a
mathematical model of general systems, which attempts to
provide a rigorous treatment for the formal properties and
principles of general systems.
Because of the extremely frequent and pervasive usability
as well as intricate complexity, system properties attract a wide
range of interests and intensive studies. It is recognized that
structural and functional relations play a centric role for
embodying system theories. A relation is an association of a pair
of objects, which can be extended to those of multiple objects
and hyperstructures [17]. Relations may be classified as
primitive or complex relations as well as binary or n-ary
relations. It may also be classified as parallel or serial relations
as well as horizontal (interactive) or vertical (hierarchical)
relations, respectively. These categories of relations may be
combined in order to model hybrid relations or system of
relations in system science.
This paper presents a theory of hierarchical topology of
systems towards efficiently handling the structural and
behavioral complexities of distributed and adaptive systems. A
mathematical model of abstract and general systems is
introduced in Section II. The incremental fusion of distributed
system relations and functions are explained in parallel, serial,
and complex topologies in Section III and IV, respectively. A
set of fundamental properties of abstract systems is formally
analyzed in order to rigorously explain real-world applications
in distributed, adaptive and cognitive systems.
II. MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF SYSTEM
TOPOLOGY
The natural and abstract worlds as typical systems can be
perceived as an enclosure of objects and relations. General
systems can be rigorously represented by a mathematical
structure known as the hyperstructure which is an n-tuple of
typed objects with associated constraints. Therefore, the
universe of discourse of systems can be denoted as a triple, i.e.,
U  (C , B, R ) , where C is a nonempty set of components, B a
finite nonempty set of behaviors, and R a finite nonempty set
of relations, i.e., R = C  C | B  B | B  C .
 Definition 1. The abstract system S in the universe of R1 2  R1  R2  R1  R2  R12 (2)
discourse of systems U is a 7-tuple, i.e.:
The incremental fusion of relations in a system can be
S  (C, B, Rc , Rb ,R f ,Ri , Ro ) (1) illustrated in Fig. 2 where the fusion effect is denoted by dash
lines. Fig. 2 and Definition 2 indicate that a primitive relation is
where C is a finite set of components of system S, C  ÞC U simply a binary relation. On the basis of primitive relations,
where Þ denotes a power set; B a finite set of behaviors (or complex relations can be derived by horizontal extensions
functions), B  ÞB U ; Rc = C  C a finite set of component known as tuples (multi-dimensional relations) and vertical
relations, Rc  ÞR c U ; Rb = B  B a finite set of behavioral compositions such as lattices, trees, and layered hierarchies.
relations, Rb  ÞR b U ; Rf = B  C a finite set of functional
relations, Rf  ÞR f U ; Ri = Q ´ S a finite set of input
relations, Ri  ÞR U, where  a set of external systems,
Q = ni=1 (Si'  U  Si'  S ) ; and R = S ´ Q a finite set of
o
s21 S32 s21 s32
output relations, Ro  ÞR U .  S31  S31
The formal model of abstract systems as described in S33 s22 s33
s22
Definition 1 does not only elicit the generic model of widely
various real-world systems, but also represent the most S2 S3 R23  R2  R3 S23
common attributes and properties of arbitrary systems. The
structure of the abstract system model
S = (C, B, R , R ,R ,R , R )
c b f i o
can be illustrated in Fig. 1 where C, Fig. 2. The incremental creation of relations in R2  3
B, and  ,  = { R , R ,R ,R , R } , denote the components,
c b f i o

behaviors, as well as its structural, behavioral, functional, input, Example 1. Given two sets of relations
and output relations, respectively. Natural relations may be R1 on S1  {s11} and R2 on S 2  {s21 , s22 }, the incremental fusion
classified as physical, chemical, biological, behavioral, and
R1 2  R1  R2 is determined according to Definition 2 as
social relations. However, abstract relations may be perceived
as structural, functional, logical, mathematical, and follows:
systematical relations.
R12  R1  R2  R1  R2  R12
U S  {( s11 , s11 )}  {( s21 , s21 ),( s21 , s22 ),( s22 , s21 ),( s22 , s22 )} 
C
i c o {( s11 , s21 ),( s11 , s22 ), ( s21 , s11 ),( s22 , s11 )}
R R R
i
R1 C1 C2 Ro1
where the four newly generated relations are

 R12  {( s11 , s 21 ), ( s11 , s 22 ), ( s 21 , s11 ), ( s 22 , s11 )} .
Ri3 Rf Ro3

Lemma 1. The basic unit of system relations is a binary

Ri2 B1 B2 Ro2 relation (bir). Any complex relations can be measured by bir.
b
R 12
B Bir is the basic unit of any abstract and concrete relations
in systems. Bir is also the basic unit of knowledge [16] as that
of bit (binary digit) for information [10], which is supported by
Fig. 1. The hyperstructural model of abstract systems the synaptic connections in the nerve systems of the brain.

A basic property of system gain is the creation of

incremental relations and/or functions in any system. It is III. BASIC TOPOLOGICAL MODELS OF SYSTEMS
discovered that an incremental fusion of two sets of relations
into a coherent system results in a set of newly generated
The relational operations in system topology encompass
relations beyond the traditional conjunctions of relations.
|S | |S | parallel, serial, and hierarchical compositions of relations. In a
Definition 2. Let S  { x } and S  { y } be two sets of
1 2
general system hierarchy, compositions of relations can be
1 R i 2 R j
i 1 j 1
conducted at the same or different layers. It is recognized that,
objects, the incremental fusion,  , between the sets of relations although all higher layer compositions of relations are parallel
R1(S1) and R2(S2), in U conjuncts the local relations R1(S1) and in a hierarchical system, the bottom layer compositions of
R2(S2) plus a set of newly generated incremental relations relations may be represented by either serial or parallel
R12(S1, S2) , i.e.: compositions.
3.1 Formal Models of Parallel System Topology Definition 5. The general parallel composition of n
n
relations, n ( R (S  { s })) , at the same layer denoted by
i

A parallel structure of relations is a fundamental relation of R

i 1
i i Rj 1
ji

system topology as illustrated in Fig. 3. The parallel n

composition of relations deals with pear relations on a certain || R i , is an iterative n-ary composition of n pairwise parallel
layer of a hierarchical system. A star structured system is a i 1

typical parallel topology of systems. relations, i.e.:

n
R||  || Ri
R i 1
(5)
 R1  n [(S , S ) || ( S , S )]
 || i||1 || i i ||
 n
R1 R2 … Rn  R||0  || Ri   Si
n

 i 1 i 1

Fig. 3. The parallel structure of relations in a system Example 3.Let R1 (S1  {s11}), R2 (S2  {s21 , s22 }) and
R3 (S3  {s31, s32 , s33}) be three sets of relations of a system at the
Definition 3. A parallel relation between two subrelations,
3
R1 || R2 , in U is a concurrent association of the subrelations by a same layer. A ternary parallel composition R
1||2||3  || Ri
bi-Cartesian product  on both sets of objects, i.e.: i 1

yields a two-layer structure of a system topology that interfaces

R1 ||R2  R (( S1 , S 2 )  ( S 2 , S1 )) to the subrelations according to Definition 5 as follows:
(3)
 S1 S 2  S1  S 2  S 2  S1
 R1  3 (S , S ) || (S , S )
 1||2||3 i||1 1||2||3 i i 1||2||3
Definition 4. A parallel composition of a pair of relations 
  [(S1||2||3 , S1 ),(S1||2||3 , S2 ),(S1||2||3 , S3 )]
R1 (S1 ) and R2 (S 2 ) at the same layer, denoted by R1 || R2 , is an
 || [(S1, S1||2||3 ),(S2 , S1||2||3 ),(S2 , S1||2||3 )]
integration of two relations into a superrelation R by a bi-
0

1
3
 0 3 n
Cartesian product with an interface R at a higher layer, i.e.: R1||2||3  || Ri   R1||2||3  || Ri   Si
i 1
i 1  i 1

R1||2  R1 || R2
(4)
 R1||21  [( S , S1 ) || ( S , S 2 )] || [( S1 , S ) || ( S 2 , S )]
 0
 R1||2  R1 || R2  S1  S 2
where ( S , Si ) and ( Si , S ) denote the newly created input and
output relations, respectively, between the superrelation and a
subrelation.
Example 2. Let R1 (S1  {s11}) and R2 (S 2  {s21 , s22 }) be two
relations in a system. The parallel composition R1||2  R1 || R2
yields a two-layer structure of a system topology that interfaces
to each subrelation according to Definition 4 as follows:
  {( s11 21 , s31 ),( s11 , s21 , s32 ),( s11 , s21 , s33 ),
, s
 (s11, s22 , s31 ),(s11, s22 , s32 ),(s11, s22 , s33 )} 

 {(s31, s21, s11 ),(s32 , s21, s11 ),(s33 , s21, s11 ),

 (s31, s22 , s11 ),(s32 , s22 , s11 ), (s33 , s22 , s11 )}
3.2 Formal Models of Serial System Topology
A serial structure of relations is another fundamental type
of relations in system topology as illustrated in Fig. 4. The serial
composition of relations at the same layer is a local composition
of relations at the bottom layer of a hierarchical system, because
all other relations at a higher later are related as parallel except
those at the bottom (R0) layer.

R1||2  R1 || R2 …
R R1 R2 Rn
 R1||2
1
 [( S1||2 , S1 ) || ( S1||2 , S 2 )} || [( S1 , S1||2 ) || ( S 2 , S1||2 )}
 0
  R1||2  R1 || R2  S1  S 2
 Fig. 4. The serial structure of relations in a system
  {( s11 , s21 ),( s11 , s22 ),( s21 , s11 ),( s22 , s11 )}
Definition 6. A serial relation between two subrelations,
The pairwise parallel composition of relations on a system
R1  R2 , in U is a sequential concatenation of both relations by
can be generally extended to n-ary parallel compositions in
system topology. a Cartesian product on both sets of objects, i.e.:
 R1  R2  R1 ( S1 )  R2 ( S 2 ) n ni 1
(6) R0  R( Ri (Si  {Rs ji })) with an interface R at a higher layer
= R ( S1 , S 2 )  S1  S 2 i 1 j 1

according to Definition 8 as follows:

Definition 7. A serial composition of a pair of relations
3
R1 (S1 ) and R2 (S 2 ) at the same layer of a system, denoted by R123   Ri
R1  R2 , is a sequential concatenation of both relations into a i 1

R1 3
1 2 3   (Si 1, Si ), S0  S4  S1 2 3
0 1
superrelation R by a Cartesian product with an interface R at
 i 1
a higher layer, i.e.:   (S123 , S1 )  (S1, S2 )  (S2 , S3 )  (S3 , S123 )

R1 2  R1  R2  0 3 3

 R123   Ri   Si
 R11 2  ( S , S1 )  ( S1 , S2 )  ( S2 , S ) (7) i 1 i 1
 0 
  { s }  {s 21 , s22 }  {s31 , s32 , s33}
 R1 2  R1  R2  S1  S2 11
  {(s11, s21, s31 ),(s11, s21, s32 ),(s11, s21, s33 ),

Example 4. Let R1 (S1  {s11}) and R2 (S 2  {s21 , s22 }) be two  (s11, s22 , s31 ),(s11, s22 , s32 ),(s11, s22 , s33 )}
relations. The serial composition R 1 2  R 1  R 2 yields a
two-layer structure of a system topology that interfaces to the IV. GENERAL HIERARCHICAL MODEL OF
subrelations according to Definition 7 as follows: SYSTEM TOPOLOGY

R12  R1  R2 The hierarchical composition of relations in system

topology is an aggregation of relational operations form simple
 R102  R1  R2  S1  S2 parallel or serial compositions at the same layer to those of
 complex topologies at multiple layers in a system. In system
  {(s11, s21 ),(s11, s22 )}
 1 analytics, the layout of general system topology can be modeled
 R12  ( R12 , S1 )  (S1, S2 )  (S2 , R12 ) as a hierarchical structure as shown in Fig. 5.

The pairwise serial composition of relations in a system can

be generally extended to n-ary serial compositions in system R2

topology.

Definition 8. The general serial composition of n relations R11 R21

n ni n

R ( R (Si i  { R s ji })) at the same layer, denoted by  R i , is

i 1 j 1 i 1

an iterative n-ary composition of n pairwise serial relations, i.e.:

s11 s12 s13 s21 s22
n n ni
R   Ri , Ri  R ( R( Ri (Si  {Rs ji })))
i 1 i 1 j 1 Fig. 5. A hierarchical structure of relations in system topology
 1 n
 R   (Si 1, Si ), S0  Si 1  S (8) Definition 9. The hierarchical composition of two relations
i 1
 R k and R k 1 at arbitrarily adjacent layers k and k-1 of a system,
   (S , S1 )  (S1, S2 )  ...  (Sn , S )
 n denoted by Rk  Rk  Rk 1 , is a vertical synthesis of the given
 R0   Ri   Si
n

 i 1
subrelations into a superrelation R k at the higher layer, i.e.:
i 1

nk 1 nk 1

Example 5. Let R1 (S1  {s11}), R2 (S 2  {s21 , s22 }), and Rk  R k  Rik 1  R k ( || Rik 1 )
i 1 i 1
R3 (S 3  {s31 , s32 , s33 }) be three sets of relations at the same (9)
 k nk
k 1 k 1
 R  i||1[( S , Si ) || ( Si , S )]
k k
3
layer. A ternary serial composition R1 2  3   Ri yields a
 nk 1
i 1 nk 1
 R k 1  || R k 1  S k 1
two-layer structure of a system topology  i 1
i i 1
i
 nk 1 3
where the lower layer relations R k 1   S ik 1 can be reduced topology, R3   Rk , can be derived according to Definition
i 1 k 1
onto the terminal (bottom) layer determined by a bi-Cartesian 10 as follows:
product of the sets of terminal objects.
3 2 3 2 n0

Example 6. Given a double-layer relation structure of a R 3   R k ( || Ri2 ( 1

RR || RR )),
p
1
q Si0 , Ri0  R (S i
0
 Si0 )
k 1 i 1 p 1 q 1 i 1
system as shown in the lower two layers of Fig. 5 where
S 10  { s1 1 , s1 2 , s1 3 }, S 20  { s 2 1 , s 2 2 } , the hierarchical  k 1 nk 1 k 1 nk 1 k 1
3 
R  || Ri  Si
 i 1
2
  i 1
composition of the system topology, R2  R1 , can be derived k 1  k
nk 1
R  || [( S k , Sik 1 ) || ( Sik 1 , S k )]
i 1  i 1
according to Definition 9 as follows:
 3 2 3 3
 R  i||1{RIi , ROi }  [( S , S1 ),( S , S 2 )] || [( S1 , S ),( S 2 , S )]
3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3

2 2

R 2  R 2  Ri1  R 2 ( || Ri1 ), S10  {s11 , s12 , s13}, S20  {s21 , s22 } 3
 R 2  || {R 2 , R 2 }  [( S 2 , S 1 ),( S 2 , S 1 ),( S 2 , S 1 )] ||
i 1 i 1  1
i 1
I1i O1i 1 11 1 12 1 13


  [( S111 , S12 ),( S121 , S12 ),( S131 , S12 )]
 2 2 2 1 
 R  i||1[( S , Si ) || ( Si , S )]
1 2 2
 R22  || {RI22 i , RO22 i }  [( S 22 , S 21
1
),( S 22 , S 22
1 1
)] || [( S 21 , S 22 ),( S 22
1
, S 22 )]
  i 1

  [( S , S1 ) || ( S , S2 ,)] || [( S1 , S ) || ( S2 , S )]
2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
 1 3 0 3
 R  || Ri  Si  R1 || R2 || R3 || R4 || R5
0 0 0 0 0 0

 1
2
 i 1 i 1
  R  i||1Ri  (S1  S1 ) || (S2  S2 )
1 1 1 1 1


  {( s11 , s11 ),( s11 , s12 ),( s11 , s13 ), Theorem 1. The incremental fusion of relations,
 ( s12 , s11 ),( s12 , s12 ),( s12 , s13 ), R1 2  R1  R2 , creates a dynamic fusion effect R12(S1, S2)
 beyond the traditional static conjunction of two local relations
 ( s13 , s11 ),( s13 , s12 ),( s13 , s13 )}
 || {( s , s ),( s , s ),( s , s ),( s , s )} R1(S1) and R2(S2), i.e.:
 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 21

R1 2  R1  R2  R1  R2   R12 (11)

The double-layer hierarchical composition of system
 R1  R2  ( R1  R2 )
relations can be generally extended to those of m-layers.

Definition 10. The hierarchical composition of m-layer Proof. Theorem 1 can be proved according to Definitions 2
m m for both the local and interactive relations as follows:
relations RR k
, denoted by  Rk ( Rk 1 ) , is a set of iterative
|S1 | |S2 |
k 1 k 1
m S1  {Rxi }, S2  {R y j },
layered syntheses of RR k
into a hierarchical system topology i 1 j 1

k 1 a) The local relations R1 and R2 are symetric and reflexive:

m nk m

n
| S1 | | S1 |
Rm  RR k
( || Rik 1 ) with k
relations, i.e.: R1  {RR ( xi , x j ) | xi  S1  x j  S1}  S1  S1
k q i 1 k 1 i 1 j 1
| S2 | | S2 |
m nk 1 R2  {RR ( yi , y j ) | yi  S2  y j  S2 }  S2  S2
k 1
Rm   Rk ( RR i ) i 1 j 1
k 1 i 1
b) The interative incremental relations R12 are symetric: (12)
m nk 1 n0 (10) | S1 | | S2 |
  R k ( || Rik 1 ), Si0 , Ri0  R (Si0  Si0 ) R12  {RR ( xi , y j ) | xi  S1  y j  S2 } 
k 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 j 1

 k 1 nk 1 nk 1 | S2 | | S1 |

 R  || Ri  Si
k 1 k 1
m {RR ( y j , xi ) | xi  S1  y j  S2 }
i 1
  i 1 j 1 i 1

k 1  k
nk 1
 S1  S2
R  || [( S k , Sik 1 ) || ( Sik 1, S k )]
 i 1  The total system relations:
R1 2  R1  R2  R12  S1  S1  S2  S2  S1  S2
Example 7. Given a three-layer relation as shown in Fig. 5
where the bottom layer is replaced by five relations underpinned  R1  R2

by layer 0 objects, the hierarchical composition of the system
 Corollary 1. The size of an incremental fusion of system
relations, |R1 2 |  |R1  R2 | , is the sum of the sizes of R1(S1) and
R2(S2) plus the size of the newly generated incremental
relations R12(S1, S2), i.e.:
|R1 2 |  |R1  R2 |  |S |2

|R12 |  |S1  S 2 |  2 |S1| |S 2 |
Proof. Corollary 1 is proven on the basis of Theorem 1 and
Definition 2 as follows:
|S1 | |S 2 |
S1  {Rxi }, S 2  {R y j }, S  S1  S 2 ,
i 1 j 1
|R1 2 |  |R1  R2 |  |R1|  |R2 |  |R12 |
 |S1  S1|  |S 2  S 2 |  |S1  S 2 |
 |S1|2  |S 2 |2  2 |S1| |S 2 |
 (|S1|  |S 2 |) 2  |S1  S 2 |2  |S |2
It is noteworthy that adaptive and dynamic relations gained
by an incremental fusion in system compositions,
| R12 |  2 |S 1 | | S 2 | , may be significantly huge. However, it was
overlooked in traditional theories of system analyses and
syntheses for distributed, adaptive, and intelligent systems.
V. CONCLUSION
This paper has presented a basic study on the theories of
system topology and incremental function fusion in distributed,
adaptive and cognitive systems. A special phenomenon of the
incremental fusion of relations across all types of abstract and
concrete systems has been revealed and formally elaborated.
The hierarchical topologies of general systems have been
rigorously analyzed by the parallel, serial and complex
hyperstructures with rigorous mathematical models. The
system topology theory has been applied for formally
explaining how system structural and behavioral complexities
can be precisely estimated and efficiently reduced in system
engineering. A number of software and knowledge systems
have been quantitatively analyzed based on the discovery of the
incremental system fusion effects.
View publication stats
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work is supported in part by a discovery grant of the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC). The author would like to thank the anonymous
reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments on the
(13) paper.
REFERENCES
[1] Ashby, W.R. (1958), Requisite Variety and Implications for
Control of Complex Systems, Cybernetica, 1, 83-99.
[2] Boulding, K. (1956), General Systems Theory - The Skeleton of
Science, General Systems Yearbook, 1, pp. 11-17.
[3] Bunge, M. (1978), General Systems Theory Challenge to
Classical Philosophy of Science, Int. J. Gen. Sys., 4(1), 3-28.
[4] Ellis, D. O. and J. L. Fred (1962), Systems Philosophy, Prentice-
(14)
Hall.
[5] Gaines, B.R. (1984), Methodology in the Large: Modeling All
There Is, Systems Research, 1(2), pp. 91-103.
[6] Hall, A.S. and R.E. Fagan (1956), Definition of System, General

Systems Yearbook, 1, pp. 18-28.
[7] Klir, G.J. (1992), Facets of Systems Science, Plenum, New York.
[8] Rapoport, A., (1962), Mathematical Aspects of General Systems
Theory, General Systems Yearbook, 11, 3-11.
[9] Simon, H. (1965), Architecture of Complexity, General Systems
Yearbook, 10, pp. 63-76.
[10] Shannon, C.E. (1948), A Mathematical Theory of
Communication, Bell System Tech. J., 27, 379-423, 623-656.
[11] Takahara, Y. and T. Takai (1985), Category Theoretical
Framework of General Systems, Int. J. Gen. Sys., 11(1), 1-33.
[12] von Bertalanffy, L. (1952), Problems of Life: An Evolution of
Modern Biological and Scientific Thought, C.A. Watts, London.
[13] Wang, Y., L.A. Zadeh, et al. (2009), On the System Algebra
Foundations for Granular Computing, International Journal of
Software Science and Computational Intelligence, 1(1), 1-17.
[14] Wang, Y. (2015a), Towards the Abstract System Theory of
System Science for Cognitive and Intelligent Systems, Springer
Journal of Complex and Intelligent Systems, 1(3), 1-22.
[15] Wang, Y. (2015b), A Denotational Mathematical Theory of
System Science: System Algebra for Formal System Modeling
and Manipulations, Journal of Advanced Mathematics and
Applications, 4(2), 132-157.
[16] Wang, Y. (2016), On Cognitive Foundations and Mathematical
Theories of Knowledge Science, International Journal of
Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, 10(2), 1-24.
[17] Wang, Y. (2017), On Relation Algebra: A Denotational
Mathematical Structure of Relation Theory for Knowledge
Representation and Cognitive Computing, Journal of Advanced
Mathematics and Applications, 6(1), 1-28.