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.
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.