#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

# Blog - The Azimuth Code Project: where we stand today

This is a very rough draft of a short blog article.

The purpose is to inform developers, and scientists, about the Azimuth Code Project, and recruit some participation in our next round of activity, which needs to begin with writing specification for our next programs to be written. It would be great if we can get some specialists to help us out with this. But we can also do this on our own, by digging through the textbooks, discussing our findings amongst ourselves, and asking questions about the science as they come up.

My concrete hope is that the article will lead to some new people signing up for the forum, and chiming in.

• Options
1.

Looks good! As a reminder of where I am coming from: I do mathematical modeling of evolutionary processes.

I didn't like the bit about biology having a range of systems of varying complexity. I know what you mean but it does not represent what mathematical biologists do most of the time. We have have to make a series of models of varying complexity just to deal with a single bacterium. Likewise the whole of evolution. It's just like climate science in that respect. (And isn't the Moon's climate a simple model for the Earth's climate?)

I did like

There is, for example, a lot of probability theory and stochastic processes that underlie the modelling of reality, and so software to educate about these concepts is also part of the Azimuth Code Project.

One of my frustations with working with biologists is that they do not understand probability theory well. (As a pedantic note, I regard stochastic processes as part of probability theory, not soemthing separate. Maybe say 'probability theory, especially stochastic processes'). And I also think that many failures of communications between scientists (very much including climate scientists) and the public are due to a lack of understanding by the public of the language of probability theory. Educating the general public is at a lower level then educating biologists, and probably requires different methods, different software. But really, anything along these lines would be good.

Comment Source:Looks good! As a reminder of where I am coming from: I do mathematical modeling of evolutionary processes. I didn't like the bit about biology having a range of systems of varying complexity. I know what you mean but it does not represent what mathematical biologists do most of the time. We have have to make a series of models of varying complexity just to deal with a single bacterium. Likewise the whole of evolution. It's just like climate science in that respect. (And isn't the Moon's climate a simple model for the Earth's climate?) I *did* like > There is, for example, a lot of probability theory and stochastic processes that underlie the modelling of reality, and so software to educate about these concepts is also part of the Azimuth Code Project. One of my frustations with working with biologists is that they do not understand probability theory well. (As a pedantic note, I regard stochastic processes as part of probability theory, not soemthing separate. Maybe say 'probability theory, especially stochastic processes'). And I also think that many failures of communications between scientists (very much including climate scientists) and the public are due to a lack of understanding by the public of the language of probability theory. Educating the general public is at a lower level then educating biologists, and probably requires different methods, different software. But really, anything along these lines would be good.