Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!TAURUS.CS.NPS.NAVY.MIL!shimeall
From: shimeall@TAURUS.CS.NPS.NAVY.MIL (timothy shimeall)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Tolerance  (was Re: Reusability considered harmful??(!!))
Message-ID: <9102041706.AA12499@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 4 Feb 91 17:06:16 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 18

In article <777@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes:
>Numerical analysis aside, I can't imagine a single instance of "close is good
>enough".

There are a lot of device-control problems where a certain amount
of imprecision is acceptable (e.g., the automatic transmission doesn't have
to shift at EXACTLY 32001 rpm, but reasonably close).

There are also a lot of acceptable-but-not-optimal problems.  Two quick 
examples:
   Network traffic routing
   Memory management
There is a reasonably large class of problems where an OPTIMAL solution is 
very difficult to calculate, but where you can get a REASONABLY CLOSE
to optimal solution very rapidly.  
					Tim
-- 
Tim Shimeall ((408) 646-2509)