在空间句法中，并没有关于最简单路线的路径选择假设，尽管我们有时说得好像有。原因之一是存在一个明显的反例:沿网格对角移动。你越是试图在你的位置和你认为你的目的地之间近似成一条直线，你就越容易转弯。更有趣的是，线性规划涉及到行人路线，这是相对较小的规模，在两个方面:首先，我们认为我们的位置和我们想要去的地方之间的关系，就像乌鸦飞一样;然后我们尝试使用中间网格的线结构来近似。Ruth Conroy对此提出了一个非常有趣的建议:我们一开始试着将我们选择的假想线与现实线之间的偏差最小化，而且我们可能会以这种方式不断地修正这个偏差。这似乎是我自己一贯的导航错误的一个关键因素，我在上次研讨会的《观察和行走的架构》中报告了这一点。Mark Major还提出了一个关于“对角化”网格的有趣建议:通过对角化路段，我们减少了角度变化，并积累了较小的距离，相比于通常更简单的路线边缘。对于更大规模的车辆运动，它往往是相当不同的，时间将被更多地涉及。我过去常常从伦敦市中心经由M25公路前往Tunbridge Well，这与想象中的路线有很大的距离，但路程时间却减少了一半。  

There is not really a route choice assumption about simplest routes in space syntax, although we sometimes talk as though there were. One reason，there is not, is that there is an obvious counter example: moving diagonally accros a  grid. The more you try to approximate a straight line between where you are and where you think your destination is, the more turns you will tend to make. It is more interesting to see linearity as being involved in planning pedestrian routes, which are relatively small scale, in two ways: first we think of the relation between where we are and where we want to go as a an 'as the crow flies' line; then we try to use line structure of the intervening grid to approximate that. Ruth Conroy makes a very intersting suggestions about this: that we try initially to minimise the deflection from the imaginary line to the real line we choose, and it may be that we continually correct this on this way. This seemed to be a key factor in my own consistent navigational errors I report in 'The architectures of seeing and going' at the last Symposium. Mark Major also made an interesting suggestion about 'diagonalising' grids: that by diagnalising road segment we reduce angle change  and accumulate small distance savings compared the often simpler route around the edges. With larger scale vehicular movement it is often quite different, and time will be much more involved. I used to go to Tunbridge Well from central London via the M25 - a substantial detour from the imagined line, but which halved the journey time.

在更普遍的问题上，我对似乎即将出现的竞争语气感到惊讶。句法模型绝不会试图非常有效地模拟传输模型已经做的事情，而且也不存在谁具有最好相关性的竞争。空间句法起源于建筑，最初关注的是微观尺度和建筑问题，比如:如果我们这样做会发生什么?设计是一种高度受理论思想和假设影响的活动，而空间句法所表明的是空间形态本身塑造了运动模式，通过理解这一点，我们可以理解众所周知的可达性、运动和土地利用之间的宏观联系，也可以被证明在微观尺度上运作，并在创造复杂的本地移动模式和土地使用差异中发挥关键作用，我们在城市中发现，这有助于使城市变得令人愉快。如果我们想要与交通模型竞争，那么当然我们可以将所有其他因素添加到模型中，并改善相关性，事实上，在某些情况下，通常是在可访问性，移动和土地使用已经被不敏感的设计和规划所打破——我们通过步行指数来做到这一点。但句法的基本观点是理论的:空间形态塑造运动，而这反过来又影响城市的生活模式，因此需要成为城市理论的一部分。事实上，这样一个简单的代表可以做这么多的事情，这也应该是所有那些试图理解城市为什么是这样和它们是如何工作的人的理论兴趣。  

On the more general issues, I am surprised by the competitive tone that seems to be coming in. Syntax models in no way seek to emulate whattransport models already do very efficiently, and there is no competition about who has the best correlations. Space syntax originated in architecture, with an initial focus on the micro scale, and architectural questions like: what will happen if we do it this way ? Design is an activity which is highly informed by theoretical ideas and assumptions, and what space syntax has shown is that in and of itself spatial configuration shapes movement patterns, and that by understanding this we can understand how the well known macro-scale linkages between accessibility, movement and landuse, can be shown also to operate at the micro scale, and play a key role in creating the intricate patterns of local movement and land use differentiation that that we find in cities, which help make cities as pleasureable as they are. If we wanted to compete with traffic models, then of course we can add all the other factors into the model and improve the correlations, and indeed in some circumstances - usually where the natural relations between accessibility, movement and land use have been ruptured by insensitive design and planning - we do exactly this through the Walkability Index. But the fundamental point that syntax is making is a theoretical one: that spatial configuration shapes movement, and this in turn affects the life patterns in cities, and so needs to be part of a theory of the city. The fact that so much can be done with such a simple representation ought also be a matter of theoretical interest to all those who are trying to understand why cities are as they are and how they work.

- Bill

（空间认知与解析）

Hillier的回复很经典