Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/18/2013 11:39 AM: > Well, I've done this before on a real problem using a monadic interface > of Bullet physics to Haskell.
Nice. Is it open? Or lost in some well of secrecy somewhere? > The increasingly irrelevant point was that > choosing strong or weak typing in a simulation implementation (model > description, whatever) isn't a function the need to estimate a physical > environment. It's not related as far as I can tell. Well, I think the point maintains its relevance. And I agree that the choice of typing for an implementation can be unrelated to the requirements for the simulation. That point is something I try to make clear to the many biomedical modelers with whom I traffic. They tend to be convinced of reduction. Some stop at differential equations, claiming that the underlying "stuff" can vary as long as it can be quantitatively, precisely described. Others insist that biophysics is crucial. I try to convince them that the choice of tool depends fundamentally on the requirements for the model, which they often leave implicit and unstated. I.e. they assert that the types are already defined by reality and every simulation ought to map to them directly. In the context of this conversation, my interest revolves around when/how to identify and remove tautologies from the inferences made by the model. More generally, I want algorithms for detecting and removing inscription error. Because the types are an assumed ontology, inferences made by the simulation can be classified into "yeah, we programmed it that way" vs. "hey, that's interesting". The extent to which strong or weak typing matters should depend on the requirements, the use cases for the simulation. I'd like to find a way to choose strong or weak typing depending on what I'm trying to do. To be clear, a _way_ that is transpersonal, more than just me ... i.e. I'd like to be able to describe what I do to others so they also do it. Writing it down in prose or log form is one thing. Instantiating it in a workflow is something else. -- =><= glen e. p. ropella To watch me blow my mind ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
