Goals for me is a set state in this world you want to achieve. The goals can be long term as short term. They can be implausible(things you can't control) or possible(chance to happen). They don't describe the path to reach this state. And if a goal is to follow a certain path, then still the amount of different possibilities to follow the path is tremendous. The goals can be reached in many different ways. The goals can be open or restrictive. But if a goal would be the only way it would be a very long recorded goal encompassing all possibilities(which I doubt anyone could create).
Systems on the other hand is for me a sort of method. It describes how you should do something or how to reach something, as a goal, or at least go in the right direction(removing or reducing non-goal possibilities).
I agree that to think about the restrictions and the possibilities to reach a goal and implement a system to deal with these parameters is better than focusing on the goal.
But I think the article makes it more confusing with terms when it takes examples of systems that could as much be set as goals or the other way around.
I think the author mixes variables with numbers. If you add units in to the mix then you have to think like it variables so for example that’s taken “2 baskets × 3 apples per basket = 6 apples” would correspond to 2x3y/x=6y removing the numbers and the equation becomes clear xy/x=y or we the numbers for them selves 23=6, That is because numbers are like their own variable but with connection to other numbers(variables). So if we would define 1 as x then 2 would be 1+x or we could call it y but y would still be 1+x in relation to 1.
And also”3 cm + 3 cm = 6 cm” as 3x+3x=6x and removing the numbers it become 3x/3+3x/3=6x/3 => x+x=2x it makes more sense.
And”2 cm × 3 cm = 6 cm^2″ can be then seen as 2x*3x=6x^2.
Multiplication doesn’t change anything. We must see what we add, in this case the unit and calculate accordingly both for addition as for multiplication.
Goals for me is a set state in this world you want to achieve. The goals can be long term as short term. They can be implausible(things you can't control) or possible(chance to happen). They don't describe the path to reach this state. And if a goal is to follow a certain path, then still the amount of different possibilities to follow the path is tremendous. The goals can be reached in many different ways. The goals can be open or restrictive. But if a goal would be the only way it would be a very long recorded goal encompassing all possibilities(which I doubt anyone could create).
Systems on the other hand is for me a sort of method. It describes how you should do something or how to reach something, as a goal, or at least go in the right direction(removing or reducing non-goal possibilities).
I agree that to think about the restrictions and the possibilities to reach a goal and implement a system to deal with these parameters is better than focusing on the goal. But I think the article makes it more confusing with terms when it takes examples of systems that could as much be set as goals or the other way around.