[stupac2]

Simulated results depend, wholly, on the input and therefor are inherently wrong, unless the inputter is omniscient which, since this is from an SEC blog is unlikely.

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of error bars. Regardless, that standard is a completely ridiculous way to judge anything, you're basically saying that all simulations are a waste of time. This is trivially false. It's true that a simulation is only going to be so good (though it doesn't depend entirely on inputs, the way the inputs are handled is probably more important), but it doesn't mean that the simulation is inherently wrong. You're basically saying that entire industries shouldn't exist, development of modern computer components depends utterly on simulations, and the inputs (things like the laws of physics and materials behaviors) and the processes (things like grid sizes) are all imperfect. Does that mean it's a waste of time?

Simulations depend on simulating (see a trend here?) actual outcomes given certain random events.  A mild Russian winter in 1943; US carriers amassed in Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th; Pickett not charging; the Chinese not coming to North Korea's aid; etc.  But a programmer has to set the probabilities of those events happening.  Simulate that bball game as often as you like. How often does the freshman with two HRs all season hit the walk-off?

This convinces me that you don't understand the point of simulations. It's not to say with certainty what will happen. It's to gauge probabilities. Vegas odds are based on simulations too (of a sort, anyway), over the long run they do pretty well for themselves.

[stupac2]

Simulated results depend, wholly, on the input and therefor are inherently wrong, unless the inputter is omniscient which, since this is from an SEC blog is unlikely.

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of error bars. Regardless, that standard is a completely ridiculous way to judge anything, you're basically saying that all simulations are a waste of time. This is trivially false. It's true that a simulation is only going to be so good (though it doesn't depend entirely on inputs, the way the inputs are handled is probably more important), but it doesn't mean that the simulation is inherently wrong. You're basically saying that entire industries shouldn't exist, development of modern computer components depends utterly on simulations, and the inputs (things like the laws of physics and materials behaviors) and the processes (things like grid sizes) are all imperfect. Does that mean it's a waste of time?

Simulations depend on simulating (see a trend here?) actual outcomes given certain random events.  A mild Russian winter in 1943; US carriers amassed in Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th; Pickett not charging; the Chinese not coming to North Korea's aid; etc.  But a programmer has to set the probabilities of those events happening.  Simulate that bball game as often as you like. How often does the freshman with two HRs all season hit the walk-off?

This convinces me that you don't understand the point of simulations. It's not to say with certainty what will happen. It's to gauge probabilities. Vegas odds are based on simulations too (of a sort, anyway), over the long run they do pretty well for themselves.