[e2e] Simulator for wireless network
touch at ISI.EDU
Mon Apr 16 10:57:50 PDT 2007
Detlef Bosau wrote:
> S. Keshav wrote:
>> This is the reason why 'proof by simulation', for computer systems, at
>> least, is farcical. Not only are simulators known to be buggy, but
>> they are also simulating a system that is too loosely coupled to be
>> adequately modeled.
> Is a "proof by implementation" is better?
> I don´t think so. Implementations are known to be buggy. Implementations
> are known to not behave as expected.
The difference is that if I actually transfer data over an
implementation, I have measured something real. If real measurements of
a real system measure the desired property - i.e., TCP throughput over
actually lossy links - then the result is what satellite people call
As you note, such proof is an existence proof - you can't disprove all
alternatives, you can't prove that someone can't go faster or slower.
What you can prove is that something happened. Which is not possible
with simulation alone.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20070416/aea64faa/signature.bin
More information about the end2end-interest