Rambling, opinionated. In my experience with it, it could be parsed this way. However, I think Walter’s point is to make mathematics pertinent to the discussion, and, to that degree, I applaud his efforts. I thought using selections from this book in conjunction with Harte’s *Consider a Spherical Cow* might work. Plus, there are a lot of small things in Walter’s book which just are not widely known, such as the opening example from 1951, *United States v. National City Lines* which, among other things, shows that corporations can collude when it is their common interest, and provides the actual text for the storyline of the movie *Who Framed Roger Rabbit?*

I bought this book, but now I’m finding it a bit rambling and overly opinionated. There’s a lot in it, though—that’s for sure! I haven’t read all of it.

]]>Walter’s book is rich with documentation, references, and problem sets. In fact, it would be rewarding to teach an undergraduate course from these, but bringing in calculus and ODEs.

]]>Since this is my first time giving a seminar about environmental math, I don’t feel like broadcasting videos to the world. I’m afraid pretty soon I’ll be learning things just 10 minutes before explaining them! Later, when I actually know what I’m doing, I’d like to videotape a course like this.

This first lecture is a lot like a talk I’ll be videotaping next week for a public lecture I’ll be giving—virtually—in South Africa. So, this first one should be available in a while.

]]>have you considered trying to video the seminars? I know it’s extra work, but I suspect that it might be worthwhile. A lot of people are going to be interested in this stuff, and for some the video is helpful.

]]>These slides are nice and I look forward to the rest of the course.

Having been a “modeler” working in oceanography for several years now I have come to the conclusion that models (or simulations) can help us understand what we see in the environment. They can show us the consequences of our current level of understanding and see if those consequences match up with what actually observe. I think this matches with what David saying.

]]>I guess I should have said “simulate” or “model in detail” instead of “understand”.

]]>And there’s the converse: because computers are finite machines whilst most models are using something infinite (real numbers, unbounded quantities, limits as time goes to infinity), figuring out efficient and faithful (in the ways that you care about) computer representations often involve analysis, combinatorics, algebraic structure, category theory, etc.

]]>