On May 16, 4:29 am, zdzis1 wrote:

Why did you change the followup link? Are you dishonest?

Computational mathematical modeling is an extremely narrow field
embedded in a much larger and richer tapestry of mathematics and
physics, and until you develop an appreciation for some of that, and
all that we don't know even know yet, you aren't going anywhere soon.

So your climate modellers aren't going anywhere, and neither is anyone else
who does any kind of modelling. It's as simple as that: model theory is not
used in mathematical modelling.

I never said it was. I said start there. That's where I started, but
you seem unwilling to start at all, only to proudly proclaim on the
usenet that 'MODELS DON'T WORK'. That's your contribution thus far.

I gave you that link to demonstrate to you that models do indeed work.

You can be a great applied mathematician
and never have heard about model theory. But how would YOU know it. And by
the way - I don't believe you know anything about model theory either. You
can just copy and paste, but you do not understand a word.

Your understanding of statistics appears to be at about this level :

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/index.htm

This is not the kind of mathematical modeling that climate scientists
use to model the earth and its environment, this is what they do to
analyze the OUTPUT of the models, which is even a much smaller slice
of the mathematical modeling paradigm. Your understanding of
mathematics as a whole is extremely limited, I just threw out a few
links to try to get you to recognize that.

Don't even try to get me going on set theory.

... because you don't have any idea about it and will not be able to say
anything?

I've already written and published what I had to say about it.