>From: "Ross A. Finlayson" <email@example.com>
>Russell Whitaker wrote:
> > >From: "Ross A. Finlayson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > [SNIP]
> > >
> > >About the simulation, if you ask a question, and the simulation has an
> > >answer,
> > >and it's different than the expected result, then you can tell it why
> > >it
> > >could explain how it arrived at its conclusion.
> > >
> > What if the "expected result" is wrong, but the "simulated
> > result" is the once actually consonant with reality? Where
> > do you get the data for the "actual result"?
> > This is why we do flight tests, and the profession of
> > test pilot is not going away anytime soon, no matter how
> > useful the simulations are.
> > Russell
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>The flight test data goes back into the simulation. If you asked a bank
>simulation if a plane would fly, it would probably not have an idea, if you
>told it the expected result is that it would, then that's what it would
>unless there was contradictory knowledge.
I think you missed my point. Please re-read with emphasis
on my reaction to your phrase "different than the expected result".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me
that you were advocating this cycle:
1.) run a simulation of a physical system
2.) if the simulation produces results *contrary to expectation*,
"educate" the simulation program to produce _expected_
3.) goto #1
You then respond with what seems a partial modification -
feed real world results back into the simulation... OK, but
what does the follow-on utterance about domain specificity have to do
with anything? We weren't talking about that.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:22 MDT