Talk:Mathematical model

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I have put in a link to Saltelli et al, which is critical of mathematical modeling in support of Covid-19. A more explicit discussion somewhere would be useful.Djmarsay (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similarly " Under the incentives of monetary rewards that unfortunately have become institutionalized in academia, there is an incentive to publish the minimum quantum of progressed information. Many contributions on mathematical methods have disregarded the spirit of mathematical modelling by using a synthetic example calculation that has no reference at all to real data or to a practical real-world phenomenon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of axiomatic set theory[edit]

Shouldn't the list of prominent scientists be edited? Isn't more appropriate to list Fourier, Lagrange, Newton etc instead of some guy that least I have never heard of.

Should we include here the formal meaning of 'model' from axiomatic set theory?

I would suggest just having a link here to an entry of its own. BTW I consider this article to be an excellent introduction to the topic (Kwaku)

I agree (that you should just add an link). --Tbackstr

Well the entry under set theory doesn't even mention the word 'model'. (Kwaku)

Is the model theory -link the right one? At least it sounds like it has something to do with mathematical modelling :) --Tbackstr#

Yes it is. I have tidied the links where each article references the other. -- The Anome

I've changed the dab line a bit. Model theory is not really part of set theory, except in the sense that, say, algebraic geometry is part of set theory (that is, it can be formalized in set theory). Neither is set theory part of model theory (I very recently changed a claim to that effect in model theory). Plus I've clarified that this meaning of "model" is distinct from the one used in this article. --Trovatore 19:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I ask why Computer Science is under Engineering? That's a short-sighted way to view the discipline. -- (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose the re-creation of Category:Mathematical model. Please discuss. Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 19:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Kbdank71#Category:Mathematical_model Regards,--Carl Hewitt 19:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, according to arguments posted at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 26. -lethe talk 19:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to a category called Category:Mathematical models (note plural), provided there are some reasonable number (say, four plus) of existing articles that genuinely belong there. However, I would be strongly opposed to any attempt to put articles about models in the sense of model theory into that cat, and I wouldn't be too happy about seeing articles of marginal independent utility created instrumentally for the purpose of populating the category, or existing articles modified in a Procrustean attempt to make them fit. --Trovatore 19:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about modelling complex systems through means of math equations? Say, Logistic model and Lotka-Volterra equation refer to mathematical models in population dynamics. I am sure other models exists in other fields, physics, chemistry and so on.(Igny 19:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's the kind of thing that belongs in the proposed cat, without stretching any points. --Trovatore 19:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's the proposed content of the cat, why not name it Category:Mathematical modeling as User:Mdd suggested? It would be less ambiguous. Melchoir 21:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds reasonable. --Trovatore 21:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Mathematical modeling is fine by me.--Carl Hewitt 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other news, "Procrustean" is an awesome word, and I must find an opportunity to use it myself. Melchoir 22:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we have an emerging consensus to re-create the category as Category:Mathematical modeling? If so, what about the article? I.e., should the article Mathematical model be renamed Mathematical modeling? Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 17:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like Category:Mathematical modeling has a green light. Mathematical model may as well stay put, however; it's already got a dab notice on top. Melchoir 09:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote for new external link[edit]

Here is my site with mathematical modelling example problems. Someone please put this link in the external links section if you think it's helpful and relevant. Tbsmith

Mathematical model using Differential Equation[edit]

Mention and explain more fully gray-box modelling[edit]

I think in the "A priori information" section gray-box (semi-physical) modelling needs to be explicitly mentioned. Further, serial-/parallel-modelling approaches should be explained. There are numerous articles on this subject which could be added as references. -- Aripari 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which sections are applicable to which types of modeling?[edit]

Some of this article appear to be written from within specialized types of modeling. Others are much more general. I've tried to add a little discussion of other types of modeling. I think this article would be made clearer and more accurate if we could compartmentalize discussion such that it is clear which comments apply to which types of modeling. For example, the philosophical discussion in "Model Evalution" seems nearly universal, whereas the "Building Blocks" section seems applicable more to certain types of modeling than others. Cazort 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

===I have a simplistic statement statement about science which says, Science consists in Chemistry about what things are, Physics about what things do, and Mathematics about the relative magnitude of things. Of course that's not true. But it brings up the point that the functional logic of Math is not the same as the real Physics of things. And in Physics we may have an infinitude of possibilities and over a long period of time a lot of them have been explored. But As Cotes said in Mottes translation Translation of the "principia" Nature has already picked out the system that it wanted to exist and the question is "What is it? And it's Principles are physical principles and not Mathematical principles. WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statements about form[edit]

There's a statement in the first section about the form of mathematical models. The dynamical systems example is usually given in differential form, which indicates that there is a misunderstanding in what is meant by form. Is this an error? I think form includes ODE and PDE systems, algebraic systems---includes one-equation models and linear-algebra systems with many euqations---and algorithmic models, such as cellular automata. I would argue that algorithmic models deserve their own section. I tend to think of mathematical models separately from iterative, rules-based, algorithmic models. neffk (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • this is interesting, would you include a difference equation as a iterative model? It can be looked at with many analytical tools which are analogous to ODE models. MATThematical (talk)
  • No, the method by which a solution is found is separate from form. My understanding is that form is simply the way in which the model is communicated between interested parties. neffk (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This may be considered a trivial detail, but the spelling of modeling is inconsistent. Is it "modelling" or "modeling". I have used the second all my life and it's more common on the page. I say we adopt one spelling for the whole page. MATThematical (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

You are absolutely correct. (And such details aren't trivial at all; that's how civilization erodes little by little.) The word is used professionally where I work, as "modeling". Both Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary list "modeling" as the primary, and "modelling" as a variant. I don't know why someone went and made it consistently wrong since your post; I'm going to change it back. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both spellings are correct. The double-ell spelling is somewhat more associated with British English and the single-ell with American English, but not exclusively in either direction (see American and British English spelling differences). The proper procedure in this sort of situation is described in WP:ENGVAR — short version is, because this article is not specific to any particular country, we should go with the established variety in this article, whatever that is. --Trovatore (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:lumped/distributed parameter models[edit]

Hello I have a small comment concerning the categorisation of mathematical models lumped/distributed parameter models. In my opinion the explanation is inverted. The parameters of a homogeneos system are not distributed but lumped and of a heterogeneos system the opposite. (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

There is a brief article on Mathematical models in physics which would be better being merged into this article. Mathematical modelling is mathematical modelling whatever field it's done in, so there's no need to have separate articles. Mathematical models in physics doesn't seem to have gained much content since 2004, and this article isn't particularly long, so I think this is a case where combining the two can lead to one better article, rather than two less good ones. If no objections I'll go ahead and do this in a week or two. Djr32 (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discrete vs. continuous model[edit]

The definitions given here don't sound right, and seem to be a copy of those for steady / dynamic models. They also contradict the definitions given in Continuous modelling and Discrete modelling (just a stub). It doesn't have anything at all to do with time, but whether or not the parameters involved vary continuously, or have discrete (specific) values, such as integers. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re Grey box completion and validation[edit]

“See also“ “Grey box completion and validation“ has been removed anonymously without explanation from this and several other topics. Following advice from Wikipedia if there are no objections (please provide your name and reasons), I plan to reinstate the reference in a weeks time.

The removed reference covers techniques of potential application for those working with many areas of mathematical modelling and a request above has been made for more information on grey box modelling. In particular most models are incomplete (i.e. a grey box) and thus need completion and validation. This reference seems to be within the appropriate content of the “See also” section see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section.

BillWhiten (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other kinds of models?[edit]

To clarify why "mathematical" needs to be applied to "model", would this article benefit from a section about other kinds of models besides mathematical ones? The article seems to have construed the concept so broadly as to leave no room for any other kind. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Would this article benefit from a section about other kinds of models besides mathematical ones?" I think so. Could you give some examples of models which you would consider to be "other kinds of models"? BernardoSulzbach (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mathematical Modeling in Religion, e.g. the Bible and the #7, 12 and 40[edit]

I added... religion (for example, the recurring uses of the #7, 12 & 40 in the Bible). 2601:589:4800:9090:7173:6BBF:F0B5:4085 (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]