I wasn't in any way suggesting that it is a "real world problem." If you imagine I were, you missed my point. I merely used that example because it happened to be true and provides emphasis. The actual point was elsewhere.
It helped to make the point, but wasn't the point.
Now, I know you missed the point. The method illustrated _just happens_ to be what Spice does. In no way is that _why_ I suggested the viewpoint. Again, Spice is providing an example to emphasize the underlying point.
It helps to make the case, it in no way _is_ the case.
I'm gradually becoming more sorry I even brought it up. This is way off the point I was making.
Oh, well.
My reason for even bothering to add more to this is _only_ because of the way you are writing about it, that seems to belittle the idea (and now appears to completely miss the point.) I don't think what others wrote is wrong, or bad, or inappropriate. I only think that there is an underlying concept here that is important and shouldn't be down played.
Spice's approach to solving these problems wasn't an accident and it comes from this 'much wider' view that applies to a LOT more than electronics. It is appropriate to almost any system of diff eq with boundary conditions and that is a very wide field, indeed. But in no way am I arguing against practicality. Don't mistake me on that.
In some ways, this is a continuing conflict in all of the human condition. Many people just want to know what works, right now, here, in this place. And have no interest in going beyond what is right in front of them. That is a very practical stand to take. But It takes nothing away from that practical perspective to also admit that going beyond what is directly in front of you, taking a longer view, is also of some value, too.
I'll stop. I just wasn't prepared to go create a white paper or exhaustive survey on some broad topic. It's just something that has proven useful to me. If others don't see that point, I'm fine accepting it and simply moving on.
My apologies.
Jon