Ernesto Estrada

The way of thinking of mathematicians and chemists in their respective disciplines seems to have very different levels of abstractions. While the firsts are involved in the most abstract of all sciences, the seconds are engaged in a practical, mainly experimental discipline. Therefore, it is surprising that many luminaries of the mathematics universe have studied chemistry as their main subject. Others have started studying chemistry before swapping to mathematics or have declared some admiration and even love for this discipline. Here I reveal some of these mathematicians who were involved in chemistry from a biographical perspective. Then, I analyze what these remarkable mathematicians and statisticians could have learned while studying chemical subjects. I found analogies between code-breaking and molecular structure elucidation, inspiration for statistics in quantitative analytical chemistry, and on the role of topology in the study of some organic molecules. I also analyze some parallelisms between the way of thinking of organic chemists and mathematicians in terms of the use of backward analysis, search for patterns, and use of pictures in their respective researches.

The study of complex systems, although an interdisciplinary endeavor, is considered as an integrating part of physical sciences. Contrary to the historical fact that the field is already mature, it still lacks a clear and unambiguous definition of its main object of study. Here, I propose a definition of complex systems based on the conceptual clarifications made by Edgar Morin about the bidirectional non-separability of parts and whole produced by the nature of interactions. Then, a complex system is defined as the system where there is a bidirectional non-separability between the identities of the parts and the identity of the whole. Thus, not only the identity of the whole is determined by the constituent parts, but also the identity of the parts are determined by the whole due to the nature of their interactions. This concept allows, as shown in the paper, to derive some of the main properties that such systems must have as well as to propose its mathematical formalization.

We provide here irrefutable facts that prove the falsehood of the claims published in [1] by Dehmer and Mowshowitz (DM) against our paper published in [2]. We first prove that Dehmer’s definition of node probability [3] is flawed. In addition, we show that it was not Dehmer in [3] who proposed this definition for the first time. We continue by proving how the use of Dehmer’s definition does not reveal all the physico-mathematical richness of the walk entropy of graphs. Finally, we show a few facts about the failure of DM themselves to cite properly the relevant literature in their field. We also show here how the Editors of Complexity have failed to manage the publication of [1] in an appropriate way according to the accepted guidelines given in the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The study of complex systems, although an interdisciplinary endeavor, it is considered as an integrating part of physical sciences. Contrary to the historical fact that the eld is already mature, it still lacks a clear and unambiguous denition of its main object of study. Here, I propose a denition of complex systems based on the conceptual clarications made by Edgar Morin about the bidirectional non-separability of parts and whole produced by the nature of interactions. The concept to which I arrived here is clear, not circular, neither too cryptic nor to explicit, and does not include any accompanying features of the own system dened. It allows, as shown in the paper, to derive some of the main properties that such systems must have as well as to propose its mathematical formalization.