Talk:Model: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Why description?) |
(reply) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{attack|#(number): |Why is a model a description of the computation procedure and not the procedure as such? Or an "incarnation" or a "software"?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 12:12, 14 May 2008 (EEST)}} | {{attack|#(number): |Why is a model a description of the computation procedure and not the procedure as such? Or an "incarnation" or a "software"?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 12:12, 14 May 2008 (EEST)}} | ||
:{{comment|#(number): |Because the computation [[procedure]] is the '''doing''' of it (after you have taken the [[input]] to compute and before you have got the [[output]] as the result; the whole thing is a [[process]]). Or, in other words, the running of the software is a procedure, the software is a description of a procedure. But you are right, the definition is not very clear.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 22:07, 14 May 2008 (EEST)}} | |||
Revision as of 19:07, 14 May 2008
Why description?
⇤--#(number):: . Why is a model a description of the computation procedure and not the procedure as such? Or an "incarnation" or a "software"? --Alexandra Kuhn 12:12, 14 May 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ----#(number):: . Because the computation procedure is the doing of it (after you have taken the input to compute and before you have got the output as the result; the whole thing is a process). Or, in other words, the running of the software is a procedure, the software is a description of a procedure. But you are right, the definition is not very clear. --Jouni 22:07, 14 May 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)