Tom Walker wrote:
> Pete Vincent wrote,
>
> >Most importantly, the simulation will be of no value if it is
> >algorithm-driven. To reflect the true picture, it must be an FSA
> >(Finite State Automata) model. Algorithms may be deduced from its
> >results, but not ordained in its construction. The simulation should
> >model the actions of individual players, and be iterated over cohorts
> >over time. A well constructed simulation should be able to model
> >any form of economy one can imagine, and not be limited by the
> >constrictive assumptions built into an algorithm-driven simulation.
>
> This is so important. It can't be emphasized too strongly.
As someone who studied Finite State Automata and algorithms, I can fully
confirm this. Trouble is, the FSA approach for complex systems requires
_much_ more computing power than the formula approach. Problem is also
to get _all_ start and bound data correct (chosing wrong or incomplete
start data can lead to completely wrong results even if the FSA is perfect).
> Pete is right that a proper simulation is not a trivial project, but I think
> there can be, and need to be, "simulation essays" that take a small corner
> of the economic universe and show how FSA and algorithm-driven models
> differ.
If we on FW -- as a team effort -- only achieve to simulate the Wall Street
corner, we can get real rich ! ;-) Seriously, all is interrelated, so to
simulate "a small corner" sounds like simulating the weather of one city
without the rest of the planet -- hopeless.
> The
> unintended consequences of a solution to one problem become a bigger problem
> than the original problem.
...or to quote Murphy's Microsoft Law:
"The number 1 cause of computer problems is computer solutions."
;-)
Chris
