Talk:Mathematical model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] Discussion of axiomatic set theory

Shouldn't the list of prominent scientists be edited? Isn't more appropriate to list Fourier, Lagrange, Newton etc instead of some guy that least I have never heard of.


Should we include here the formal meaning of 'model' from axiomatic set theory?

I would suggest just having a link here to an entry of its own. BTW I consider this article to be an excellent introduction to the topic (Kwaku)

I agree (that you should just add an link). --Tbackstr

Well the entry under set theory doesn't even mention the word 'model'. (Kwaku)

Is the model theory -link the right one? At least it sounds like it has something to do with mathematical modelling :) --Tbackstr#

Yes it is. I have tidied the links where each article references the other. -- The Anome

I've changed the dab line a bit. Model theory is not really part of set theory, except in the sense that, say, algebraic geometry is part of set theory (that is, it can be formalized in set theory). Neither is set theory part of model theory (I very recently changed a claim to that effect in model theory). Plus I've clarified that this meaning of "model" is distinct from the one used in this article. --Trovatore 19:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re-creation of Category:Mathematical model

I propose the re-creation of Category:Mathematical model. Please discuss. Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 19:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Kbdank71#Category:Mathematical_model Regards,--Carl Hewitt 19:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
No, according to arguments posted at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 26. -lethe talk 19:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to a category called Category:Mathematical models (note plural), provided there are some reasonable number (say, four plus) of existing articles that genuinely belong there. However, I would be strongly opposed to any attempt to put articles about models in the sense of model theory into that cat, and I wouldn't be too happy about seeing articles of marginal independent utility created instrumentally for the purpose of populating the category, or existing articles modified in a Procrustean attempt to make them fit. --Trovatore 19:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
How about modelling complex systems through means of math equations? Say, Logistic model and Lotka-Volterra equation refer to mathematical models in population dynamics. I am sure other models exists in other fields, physics, chemistry and so on.(Igny 19:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC))
Yeah, that's the kind of thing that belongs in the proposed cat, without stretching any points. --Trovatore 19:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
If that's the proposed content of the cat, why not name it Category:Mathematical modeling as User:Mdd suggested? It would be less ambiguous. Melchoir 21:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. --Trovatore 21:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Category:Mathematical modeling is fine by me.--Carl Hewitt 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
In other news, "Procrustean" is an awesome word, and I must find an opportunity to use it myself. Melchoir 22:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we have an emerging consensus to re-create the category as Category:Mathematical modeling? If so, what about the article? I.e., should the article Mathematical model be renamed Mathematical modeling? Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 17:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Category:Mathematical modeling has a green light. Mathematical model may as well stay put, however; it's already got a dab notice on top. Melchoir 09:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for new external link

Here is my site with mathematical modelling example problems. Someone please put this link in the external links section if you think it's helpful and relevant. Tbsmith

http://www.exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/PDE:Mathematical_Modeling

[edit] Mathematical model using Defferential Equation

[edit] Mention and explain more fully gray-box modelling

I think in the "A priori information" section gray-box (semi-physical) modelling needs to be explicitly mentioned. Further, serial-/parallel-modelling approaches should be explained. There are numerous articles on this subject which could be added as references. -- Aripari 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which sections are applicable to which types of modeling?

Some of this article appear to be written from within specialized types of modeling. Others are much more general. I've tried to add a little discussion of other types of modeling. I think this article would be made clearer and more accurate if we could compartmentalize discussion such that it is clear which comments apply to which types of modeling. For example, the philosophical discussion in "Model Evalution" seems nearly universal, whereas the "Building Blocks" section seems applicable more to certain types of modeling than others. Cazort 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)