Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!egnr76
From: egnr76@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory.cell-automata
Subject: Re: questions
Message-ID: <6910@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 29 Oct 90 15:01:40 GMT
References: <KIDO.90Oct27113809@cabbage.math.keio.ac.jp> <1990Oct28.204508.22984@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Edinburgh University Computing Service
Lines: 10

In article <1990Oct28.204508.22984@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>most of the people who do CA simulations wouldn't say that CA's are
>better than DE's, but that they are a useful tool in cases where the
>essential features of the problem are clear but the DE's are either too
>complicated to be conveniently solved, or the system under consideration
>is not sufficiently well understood to be modelled by DE's.  (Writing DE's after
>all requires in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of a system.)
	Well, the polymer CA models I am working on needed an indepth knowledge of
the PHysics as well. In fact I had to sit down with a couple of Polymer/MD
simulation experts at one point to make sure I hade the physics right.