Anonymous user
Talk:Forest fire: Difference between revisions
m
added a kind of categorized discussing on terms (what to call "forest fire"). -- ~~~~
(Undo revision 86900 by 86.96.226.20 (Talk)) |
m (added a kind of categorized discussing on terms (what to call "forest fire"). -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 7:
: Usually CA fall under modeling formalisms and running them is essentially simulation. It would fit in the same category like Monte Carlo Simulation, actually. —[[User:Hypftier|Johannes Rössel]] 10:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:: My original in-editor version of the task's text began with "Simulate a forest fire; as model use ...", ... this task itself is a switch from my first idea of doing a task about the Ising model — I think it will be one of my next new task, if nobody anticipates me. --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 12:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
==what to call it==
I agree with everything above, fine points, all.
<br> --- Cellular automata: very descriptive, but if you don't know what that is... I never would've thought to look under that tag. I know what it is, but I hardly ever use that term, I usually think CA refers to more pure (and esoteric) mathematics.
<br> --- game: yes, but only if the program would be very robust in accepting various parameters, such as field size, characters to use, but most of all, the various percentages. Games typically require a goal to reach (in other words, what do you need to do to "win"? Or survive?) More rules could be accepted (fires only burn if the trees are dense enough...).
<br> --- puzzle: yes, but only if there is a goal to reach, such as a stable (living) forest.
<br> --- modeling: yes, fur shure.
<br> --- simulation: yes, as above. "Simulate a forest fire (with tree growth, fires caused by lighnting, ...) sounds the best to be.
<br> Any one name would probably do a disservice in describing/pigeonholing the task. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 02:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
| |||