Talk:Computer simulation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is said that computer simulations build on, and are a replacement for mathematical models. In my opininion, this only tells half of the story. Computer simulations also build on and are replacements for experiments. E.g., experiements in silico are used a lot in biology, and biology is not very much mathematized. In this case, the experiment is more a replacement of traditional experimentation than a replacement of mathematical modelizing. However, I agree it needs a modelization phase. Well, to summarize, IMHO the current article reflects only one side of the story: the modeling apsect (similar to maths) and totally avoids the experimentation aspect of computer simulations. Should be completed to aknowledge both aspects... See also: experiements in silico--Powo 14:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] references
this article needs references (citations of examples of the models)Anlace 02:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Correction
It is not true that Richard Feynman considered computer models to be a "disease" ... this is a fallacy that was written by Michael Crichton and is oft-repeated by global warming deniers
What Feynman said was: "There is a computer disease that anybody who works with computers knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is that you 'play' with them!"
Feynman was a pioneer of computer modeling
Java-man 06:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] proposal
There could be a "simulation software comparison list" for "commercial product" and "open source".
Recently I did some study in simulation software(mostly commercial product). It is quite few comparison for different simulation softwares. An example is here[1]. But there are still many software not on the list.
And I think this[2] is good evaluation criteria.
is this proposal practicable? There so many major simulation software, and many information can not be easily found on internet.
84.162.77.95 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- This proposal seems somewhat unwieldy. It seems as though the focus of this page should be on the theory and history of computer simulation. The list of viable software simulations could be endless and is certainly an invitation for commercial exploitation of this page. Regards. Anlace 19:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the above proposal, while meritorious in principle, is unwieldy in practice. Sadly, I am the culprit who introduced some of the External links, including the Tool links for what I thought were significant and widely used commercial tools. Since that time a few, let's say, "less-significant" tools have crept in. We are therefore potentially embarked on the slippery slope of commercial exploitation. Since there are so many tools on the market for a wide variety of needs, the solution may be to only include external links to "good" third party tool survey pages. This would provide some modicum of utility to the prospective reader, while avoiding direct commercialization. Alternatively, we may wish to consider eliminating the Tools portion of the external links altogether. I'm not sure which is the best way to go. Any thoughts? ThreePD 00:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Computer?
Not sure what the computer does in the name of this lemma. It is just a tool that makes simulation easier to perform, and nothing more. The lemma should simply be Simulation, imho.--Guido den Broeder 14:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
