On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 23:59:53 -0800, "Eric Pederson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm decades behind on economics research, but I remember >modeling clustering based on mass and distance (the gravity model). >On a decision making basis there seems to be an aspect of it that is >binary: (0) either give in to gravity and gain shared advantage as >part of a massive object, or (1) choose an alternate "location" far >enough away not to be much affected by the force of the massive >objects, and try to build "mass" there. I suspect Python is a (1) in >that regard, but I may be wrong. Frankly, I find such models to be built on over-stretched analogies to physics - how _exactly_ is gravity supposed to be an analogy equivalent to economic "forces"? Sure such model can be built - but is it adequate in explaining real-world phenomenons? Analogy tends to be the weakest form of reasoning. I'd be wary of making such analogies. Models like this probably tend to be built by French engineers from this joke: The American and French engineers work together on some product (that would look strange nowadays but it's not impossible in principle). The Americans show the French engineers a working prototype. The French engineers scratch their heads and ask warily: "OK, it works in practice; but will it work in theory?" -- Real world is perfectly indifferent to lies that are the foundation of leftist "thinking". -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
