No idea why whoever downvoted you did so, but here’s why I think I felt your comment was not useful to me, or much less useful of what it could have been if you happen to know what you’re talking about (I don’t so I can’t tell):
Your statement states a fact without any explanation, examples or pointers to such. If you had said something like “When you mix regions of stability and chaos, things never settle down into discrete zones… it’s all smeared out all over the place.” — then the effect of reading it would pretty much have been the same unless I already knew about the subject enough not to need your comment.
Imagine someone not having any education in astronomy saying something like “I thought the sun and stars turn around the Earth”, and you commenting “Actually, the Earth spins around itself, and it turns around the sun, while the other stars pretty much go every which way.” Unless the first person knew you were a good astronomer, they don’t really learn anything. And even if they did believe you knew you to be an expert on what you were talking about, they might learn it as a rote fact, but won’t really understand much.
Oi, if that’s the problem I’ll just call a halt. Chaos theory is kind of like quantum mechanics: done right, it’s tough, and done easy, comes out horribly wrong.
So… your comment was an attempt at “done easy”, or was it “tough”?
(It occurs to me that the line above would be normally interpreted as snarky. My intent was half friendly joke, half “if you have that opinion about Chaos theory, what did you try to achieve in your earlier comment?” I just don’t know how to express that in written English...)
No idea why whoever downvoted you did so, but here’s why I think I felt your comment was not useful to me, or much less useful of what it could have been if you happen to know what you’re talking about (I don’t so I can’t tell):
Your statement states a fact without any explanation, examples or pointers to such. If you had said something like “When you mix regions of stability and chaos, things never settle down into discrete zones… it’s all smeared out all over the place.” — then the effect of reading it would pretty much have been the same unless I already knew about the subject enough not to need your comment.
Imagine someone not having any education in astronomy saying something like “I thought the sun and stars turn around the Earth”, and you commenting “Actually, the Earth spins around itself, and it turns around the sun, while the other stars pretty much go every which way.” Unless the first person knew you were a good astronomer, they don’t really learn anything. And even if they did believe you knew you to be an expert on what you were talking about, they might learn it as a rote fact, but won’t really understand much.
Oi, if that’s the problem I’ll just call a halt. Chaos theory is kind of like quantum mechanics: done right, it’s tough, and done easy, comes out horribly wrong.
So… your comment was an attempt at “done easy”, or was it “tough”?
(It occurs to me that the line above would be normally interpreted as snarky. My intent was half friendly joke, half “if you have that opinion about Chaos theory, what did you try to achieve in your earlier comment?” I just don’t know how to express that in written English...)