First just to check that in the the connection elements 'flux' should
be 'fluxes'? For example, 'substance_a' component contains no variable
'flux', I assume you meant the set_of_lambda_of_real 'fluxes'?
I think I like this! When will it be released? ;-P
I don't know enough about the lambda
Michael Cooling wrote:
> First just to check that in the the connection elements 'flux' should
> be 'fluxes'? For example, 'substance_a' component contains no variable
> 'flux', I assume you meant the set_of_lambda_of_real 'fluxes'?
>
Thanks for pointing that out - it is hard to validate so
> because if connections don't have directionality, then it makes no
> sense in the language to say
> that a connection is from A to B, as opposed to from B to A, and we
> wouldn't want to force users to duplicate information and provide both
Oops I didn't mean to imply directionality. I shouldn
Michael Cooling wrote:
>> because if connections don't have directionality, then it makes no
>> sense in the language to say
>> that a connection is from A to B, as opposed to from B to A, and we
>> wouldn't want to force users to duplicate information and provide both
>>
>
> Oops I didn't m
> not analogous to public and private in most object orientated
> programming languages
Quite right, I got confused.
> if both state variables have the same initial values and
> rates (which they would...
why should they have the same initial values? I agree if they did then
it makes
no differ
Michael Cooling wrote:
>> if both state variables have the same initial values and
>> rates (which they would...
>>
>
> why should they have the same initial values? I agree if they did then
> it makes
> no difference to the correctness of the model but it seems very possible to
> create a m
> If two models contradict each other (such as by each stating a
> initial value for concentrations of the same species, or a different
> mechanism for the exact same reaction), then this contradiction has
> to be fixed before the models can be composed.
It's not just about composition - dur
Hi Andrew,
This looks quite intriguing. As you mention later in this thread I
currently take the approach of adding an extra real scalar term and
exposing that as a way to hook future (in my case) currents into ion
concentration rate equations. Such and approach works well when I only
have thr
David Nickerson wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> This looks quite intriguing. As you mention later in this thread I
> currently take the approach of adding an extra real scalar term and
> exposing that as a way to hook future (in my case) currents into ion
> concentration rate equations. Such and approac
