[Avery Andrews 930117.715]
I may be wrong on this, but my suspicion is that if you tell people to
`look at any book on X' in order to find examples of absurd
presentations of something, they aren't actually likely to do it
(for one thing, because they have to figure out where these books
are to be found in their library), but if you give them a title,
author & page, something is more likely to happen.
Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
[Avery Andrews 930117.1000]
(Rick Marken (939116.1330))
>Your suspicion is probably correct. But I wasn't talking to anyone;
>I was trying to direct you to sources for the "input blunder" that
>you asked about. I gave enough information for you to find two books
Yes, for which thanks. The point I was getting at is that I think that
PCT writings in general don't give enough specific documentation of
the thesis that the establishment is seriously confused - I've had to
work pretty hard to extract the references I've been getting out of
people. This sort of material ought to be very easy to find by
random AI/Robotics lurkers on CSGNet, instead of having to be dug
out by people who are already interested enough to work at it.
Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Avery Andrews (930117.1000) --
The point I was getting at is that I think that
PCT writings in general don't give enough specific documentation of
the thesis that the establishment is seriously confused - I've had to
work pretty hard to extract the references I've been getting out of
people. This sort of material ought to be very easy to find by
random AI/Robotics lurkers on CSGNet, instead of having to be dug
out by people who are already interested enough to work at it.
OK. Very good point. Of course, you risk raising some serious
hackles when you start listing specific articles as examples of
this blunder or that blunder. But maybe it would be fun to
have a "Devil's Bibliography" available on CSG-L which would list
the articles, books and reports with the best examples of the
worst mistakes made in applying (or rejecting) control theory. This
would be an expansion of the list of references for the "feedback
too slow" myth. It would take some work to do this, but it might
be a lot of fun. I will get you some Input blunder references on
monday (tuesday for you).
Best
Rick