Talk:Cellular Potts model

The word "Potts" needs to be capitalized. It is a name!

Possible plagiarism?

The article states:

We present it here without definition as an illustration and will discuss it in greater detail later:

Sorry, but that just sounds like it was copied verbatim from a text book. What's more, there's no followup. If this is just a stub in progress, please accept my apologies. If not, can someone look into this? I'll try and follow up and do some digging, if I can't find a quote of this, I'll assume the best, and that the author just got distracted and never followed up. The easiest thing to do in that case, is to delete that sentence. --KnockNrod (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being facetious KnockNrod? If I were to say "I'm wearing brown shoes" would that amount to plagerism?! Certainly SOMEONE must have previously said "I'm wearing brown shoes", right?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.59.7 (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additinal rules?

"The primary rule base has three components:

  1. rules for selecting putative lattice updates
  2. a Hamiltonian or effective energy function that is used for calculating the probability of accepting lattice updates.
  3. additional rules not included in 1. or 2.."

This is just stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.206.18.10 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular Potts Model vs. Monte Carlo Methods

Could you please develop the assertion: "Although it also closely resembles certain Monte Carlo methods, such as the large-q Potts model, many subtle differences separate the CPM from Potts models and standard spin-based Monte Carlo schemes". I do not see any difference with other Monte Carlo schemes ?! Most of the time it uses Metropolis algorithm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcious (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clean up the article, could you have a look at it and judge for yourself if it still warrants the "Confusing" template? Thanks. Tomash (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks clarity

I don't find a clear definition of what a "Cellular Potts model" is. A Definition section should be created with a clear, formal, exhaustive definition. Because of this and other issues (e.g. see the Additional rules? section), I'm adding the Confusing template to the article page. --Natematic (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the initial paragraph so that it is hopefully more clear what a CPM is. The "Model Description" section has also been expanded considerably, to be more precise and expositional. I will therefore remove the Confusing template, but feel free to add it again if you feel extra clarification is still necessary. In that case, please explain what is still missing. Renskevroomans (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cellular Potts model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209220108/http://www.nd.edu:80/~lcls/compucell/linux.htm to http://www.nd.edu/~lcls/compucell/linux.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]