commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: proposal: numerical models [physics?]
Date Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:33:04 GMT
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Bear Giles <bgiles@coyotesong.com> wrote:

> To be honest I'm not 100% certain how useful the underlying data would be,
> but I keep coming back to the academic question of "how do you know this?"
> on the models.  Most people would be happy to just have a small java library
> that lets them avoid entering data by hand, but researchers would
> legitimately need to know the source of the model.  If we say, by fiat, that
> these concerns will not be addressed then we don't need to worry about
> providing the underlying material beyond a simple reference.
>

The question of "how do you know" is only partly the original data.  It also
requires a careful statement of how the data are analyzed.


 [math] should remain as independent to application as possible.
>
It would definitely be a one-way street.  But there's no point in writing a
> method for, e.g., Hermite polynomials if it already exists in [math].
>  Obviously something general like that would be offered to [math], but there
> wouldn't be any sort of assumption that it would be accepted.
>

A generally useful and new mathematical method that is well written is very
unlikely to be turned down.  Luc and the community are very good about
helping people start with rough submissions and get them polished enough to
fit in well.



-- 
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message