Ian Manners wrote:
> <snip some nattering about some pic I also liked a lot>
> The problem with engineers is that they cheat in order to get results.
Never been an engineer, but somehow this seems unduly harsh. I was a
physics major at Cal for a while. And I've read up on Chaos and
Complexity theory a bit.
The problem is - a physicist who doesn't cheat can't build anything much
useful. A physicist who does cheat is on the way to becoming an
engineer. The non-linear factors we used to think we could one day
calculate turn out to be non calculable in any exact fashion. Only
ranges, limits and probabilities are even theoretically calculable.
So if you want to build a bridge, hire an engineer. He's not cheating.
There is no simple, best solution.
> The problem with mathematicians is that they work on toy problems in order to
> get results.
I know in some sense what mathematics is, but not enough to have an
opinion on the statement.
> The problem with program verifiers is that they cheat on toy problems in
> order to get results.
>
In the third stage, I don't even know what the subject is. :-)
Aaaaaah...
An Ignorant Blissful Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|