I'm not sure I understand the distinction here:  isn't tailoring a
system to fit the need the same thing as solving a problem?

For example, Dave's system of using "Dilberts" to measure the
angle is just an example of him making a system which nicely
fits the need at hand.

I suppose "tailor" may not be the best word.  Perhaps "fabricate"
or "create" fits better?

I do agree that "tweaking" until your test works is NOT the best
way to go.  Unfortunately, though, that seems
to be the "preferred" (read: most common) method of system
development which was taught at least at my university.  :-(

Mike H.


On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:51:39 +0200, Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> wrote:
> > I think in the end, one just has to figure out what the end
> > result of the data has to be and tailor the system to fit.
> >
> > Remember, this sort of thing is why creative problem solvers
> > with a good
> > grip on the underlying concepts will have jobs for a good
> > long time to come.
> > So be grateful these problems exist!
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> I would say that a real problem solver would 'simply' find a (the?)
> correct way to solve the problem. Vectorial addition is such a correct
> way, I think it is the only way. Everything else (tayloring the system
> depending on the result - juk!) is just fiddleing with a wrong solution
> until it happens to give the correct anwer for the particular test data
> set you use.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouter van Ooijen
> 
> -- -------------------------------------------
> Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
> consultancy, development, PICmicro products
> docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.piclist.com
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist