Michel Lavaud <address@hidden> writes:
[...]
| > | This trend is especially common among experimental scientists, for two
reasons
| > | : first, they have lot of money so they can buy very expensive software,
and
| > | second, there is an inherent uncertainty in experimental results, so they
| > | translate their tolerance to errors in experimental results toward
tolerance
| > | to possible errors in commercial software, without realizing (or wanting
to
| > | realize) that errors in experiment and software are of a complete
different
| > | nature : error in an experimental measure is unavoidable and inherent to
| > | experimental work, while error in a software is completely avoidable
since it
| > | is pure mathematics, expressed in a computer language instead of plain
| > | English.
| >
| > That may be the case. In the interest of rigor and openness as you
| > promote, do you have data for that scenario we could all check so that
| > it does not appear to be a gratuitous anecdote?
| >
| >
| Once again, I'm not sure I understand the question : which data would
| you like that "all could check" ?
# [...] so they translate their tolerance to errors in experimental
# results toward tolerance to possible errors in commercial software