NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Gary, you claim to have a 'modeling approach' and to have been using it 'for years'.
This comes as news to readers of your 'theory' and observers of your software. Those aware of both are quite aware that the software carries over nothing at all of the 'model' presented in the "theory".
In fact, the software has been modified over time to the point where it is inaccurate to claim that the 'modeling approach' used now is the same as the one used initially.
Unless, of course, one is willing to be so cavalier about the meaning of 'modeling approach' as those who would call throwing ingredients randomly into bowls a 'haute cuisine approach'.
Your "theory" lacks a clear and coherent model.
Insofar as there is a model in your software, it is the same one used by Avalon Hill, Gary Gygax, and countless other gamers who long ago realized that a hex grid made a good map for representing movement, embedding, as it does, a rough approximation of 'heading'. All those game systems have the equivalent of 'reward cells' and 'punishment cells' as well.
I defy you to lay out for us your 'modeling approach' in plain text, directly rather than by way of example. If you can't, you don't have one. But of course you won't, because you can't, because you don't have one. At all.
You have nothing more than the desperate fantasy of having the requisites to do the things you claim, combined with the complete inability to justify or defend those claims.
Just what have you yourself contributed to modeling, to science, to game theory, or even to the world of biology?
As nearly as we can tell your sole contribution is "He emits carbon dioxide so he must be good for the trees."
Your services in that regard are no longer required. And everything else you do is anti-productive, demonstrably so.
|
