In article <4p22p2$ihf at nntp1.best.com>, Sky Coyote <sky at intergalact.com> writes:
|> >These are no problem (what do you mean by hyperaccurate? Very detailed?)
|>|> I mean producing exactly the same output as the real thing, rather than
|> just qualitatively similar output. Ideally, the time-series difference
|> between the neuron (or neurons) and the simulation should be less than
|> a given epsilon for all t > 0, for all relevant metrics (e.g. electro-
|> chemical potential, etc...).
I think modelers aim for these ideals already. The problem comes in defining the
'relevant metrics' and in accumulating enough high precision data that you can
trust to constrain your simulation. Biology is very variable, biological data as
reported in scientific journals even more so.
Paul
