femr2 wrote:In that case, your staement[sic] is entirely worthless to me as you will not corroborate it, explain it in any kind of useful manner, ...
Had no idea what you would consider to be useful.
I find the statement "Begin by learning some parameter estimation methods." rather rude, and particularly evasive.
Wasn't intended to be either. Do you already know some parameter esimation methods that you trust?
You know EXACTLY what I mean by the request, ...
Obviously not. You didn't 'splain it.
You could say, particularly miffed.
Apologies. This rather pecular form of communication between people who have no good idea of the knowledge base, etc., of the other party does often lead to misunderstandings.
I go to effort considerable to provide you with additional resource and detail when you do not grasp what I am saying.
I do appreciate it.
Would it not be respectful to respond likewise ?
Yes, once I understand something about what you know. I don't wnat to have to remind you how to solve a second order ODE on a computer if you already know. Typically I'll direct you to textbooks if this appears necessary; that's not insulting in the slightest.
Please upload every resource with which you perform your calculations, or detail the software required, whatever.
No. That is not how scientific replication is performed. With some effort you could indeed get SML/NJ running on your machine and then just blindly run it. Which would only show that SML/NJ is indeed machine/os independent, as advertised.
It is time for us to all be able to replicate (and so confirm and validate) your stated values, calculations and conclusions.
Good! The way to do that is to write your own program; that is the computational equivalent of performing a physical experiment in your own lab. We use what is sometimes called computational experiments
I certainly welcome replication and I'll offer whatever advice is necessary, but it needs to be your work and your program, not mine.