You need to understand the right context in which to use this tool, and its limits, and not take the recipe as an absolute, and check the results against common sense and reality.
Oh! After brushing my teeth and before I forget :) maybe this is helpful: When designing an airplane wing, use finite element analysis, not DT. Implementing a network protocol, use a parser, not DT. In hydrology, use percolation theory, not DT.
-
-
I don’t think any of these are “approximations of DT” in any interesting sense. If you declare by fiat that DT is the Theory of Everything, then you could try to force-fit it… but that’s going to come out awkward and unconvincing.
-
If you don't see DT's laws as governing these cases, or if you think it's a critique of the use of DT that some option space is too large to be practically approximated; then I have the sense of pointing to a thing and a use that's still not in your ontology.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
We are in agreement here!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.