(This is a revealing post, in that it takes the problem of values and treats it in a mathematically-precise way, and received many downvotes without any substantive objections to either the math or to the analogy asserting that the math is appropriate. I have found in other posts as well that making a mathematical argument based on an abstraction results in more downvotes than does merely arguing from a loose analogy.)
Peter deBlanc is a better mathematician than I am, so I’d better look at them.
ADDED. I see I responded to them before. I think they’re good points but don’t invalidate the model. I’ll retract my huffy statement from the post, though.
The point of his remarks, in my view, was that your model needed validation in the first place. Every mathematical biology or computational cognitive science paper I’ve read makes some attempt to rationalize why they are bothering to examine whatever idealized model is under consideration.
(emphasis added.)
Except Peter de Blanc’s comments.
Now that the huffy remark has been removed, I can’t see what post it used to refer to!
Peter deBlanc is a better mathematician than I am, so I’d better look at them.
ADDED. I see I responded to them before. I think they’re good points but don’t invalidate the model. I’ll retract my huffy statement from the post, though.
The point of his remarks, in my view, was that your model needed validation in the first place. Every mathematical biology or computational cognitive science paper I’ve read makes some attempt to rationalize why they are bothering to examine whatever idealized model is under consideration.