Scott Stephens wrote:
>
> True. Hundreds of hours of control systems, calculus and laplace and four or
> five of fuzzy from introductory articles and app-note. So I do have an
> ignorant perspective. I don't wan't to pay the price in time & $$ to find
> out how ignorant I am.
>
> & other good stuff..

Thanks for the thoughts.

I know on the surface it seems that the conventional math models are a
close analog of real physical processes, but this is largely an
illusion. It seems that way because we are so used to seeing it that
way. This is what Pursig refered to (in Zen & the Art of Motorcycle
Maintainence) when he talked about being on the train as opposed to
being on the front of the train, with actual reality whipping by your
face..

Consider this: the three body problem wasn't actually solved until the
late 70's or early 80's, with the aid of computers. How many more terms
are there to the actual closed solution for pushing the gas pedal?

-- Tom

P.S.: Remember that you're only likely to measure what you go looking to
measure..