In response to The Obesity Myth
Comment author: i77 30 July 2009 06:17:15PM *  5 points [-]

To me, the low-carbohydrate approach to the obesity problem has been a real eye-opener. I recommend the book from Gary Taubes, "Good calories, bad calories".

Reading that book i got clear that medical authorities have a very hard time updating their beliefs in the light of evidence, and prefer to surpress/bend it to accommodate established dogma.

In response to Without models
Comment author: i77 05 May 2009 12:33:28PM 1 point [-]

OK. So let'ts take a controller with an explicit (I hope you agree) model, the Smith predictor. The controller as a whole has a model, but the subsystem C(z) (in the wiki example) has not (in your terms).

Or better yet, a Model Reference Adaptive Control. The system as a whole IS predictive, uses models, etc.. but the "core" controller subsystem does "not".

Then I'd argue that in the simple PID case, the engineer does the job of the Model/Adjusting Mechanism, and it's a fundamental part of the implementation process (you don't just buy a PID and install it without tuning it first!)

So, in every control systems there is a model. It's only that when the plant is "simple enough" and invariant in the long term the model/adjusting subsystem is implemented in wetware, and only used during install.

This is just arguing semantics, though.

Comment author: i77 28 April 2009 09:33:01PM 2 points [-]

Very interesting article. Yes, the controller is not intelligent but you have to factor in the designer. (I think this is something like a response to the Chinese Room argument). Just a few comments:

It has no model of its surroundings.

It has, a very simple one: the sign of the gain of the plant (steady-state).

It has no model of itself.

No, but its maker does: the transfer function of the controller.

It makes no predictions.

As in the first point: implicit in the design of the system is that temperature goes up with +1 output. If you flip the sign you get positive feedback and the system does not work as intended.

It has no priors.

Its designer knows some a priori things, like the typical time constant of the temperature trajectory and its range.

It has no utility function.

Maybe not a formal one, but you could build one with things like integrated squared error.

View more: Prev