begin quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as of Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:33:10AM -0800: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:52:25PM -0800, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > > Now, to be fair, if the book really deals with non-linear mechanics, > > then computer simulation is a pretty good way to go as *all* of our > > non-linear analysis methods are approximate. However, that's a far cry > > from "precise and unambiguous". > > No. Sussman isn't claiming the physics theories he presents are perfect or > unable to be improved. He is claiming that by communicating said > theories with software his *communication* of those potentially > imperfect theories is precise and unambiguous. Big difference.
I think the comparision to teaching is a better one. When you program the computer to solve a problem, you are teaching a particularly stupid student to solve the problem. It's the act that assists in understanding, not the product. > Think about it for a minute. It grows on you. Like mold? -- A softly creeping slime All over everyone. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
