ok agreed on that one. just to me "rev X" is not necessarily "X" but if "rev eng" was "eng in reverse" then agreed
-
-
Replying to @synapticlee @o_guest
[160 char brevity!] specifically, agree that sci =/= eng. not sure if rev eng is in set of eng. but if it is, agreed sci =/=rev eng
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @synapticlee
a lot of/most eng esp materials science has been reverse engineering imho. Like when Europeans were figuring out porcelain.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
sorry, forgot about the convo! In this sense would you consider modelling as reverse engineering?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @synapticlee
no cos to me modelling is about understanding. A model is not a copy. A direct copy of a brain is another brain. I can create
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @synapticlee
a human brain in 9 months. Does creating a child make me a good modeller? (Facetious question but perhaps needed.) No.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @synapticlee
To show you understand something you have to create a simpler version of it. A model that is identical to the phenomenon being
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @synapticlee
this is what "reverse engineering" does. At least in the sense that engineers use it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drjtwit @synapticlee
yes, a lot of modelling contains within it engineering principles. Especially in my case software eng principles.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @synapticlee
you said "understanding" was important for modelling, but it's crucially important for reverse engineering too.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I never said these things don't overlap. I feel like this has devolved into a game of gotcha.
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.