On 8/2/2011 11:49 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/2/2011 2:38 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/2/2011 11:06 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
There is a difference between intractability and non-computable.
See Stephen Wolfram's article on this:
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/physics/85-undecidability/2/text.html
The point is that there is a point where the best possible model
or computational simulation of a system is the system itself. The
fact that it is impossible to create a model of a weather system
that can predict *all* of its future behavior does not equal to a
proof that one cannot create an approximately accurate model of a
weather system. One has to trade off accuracy for feasibility.
Arbitrarily accurate models of systems require a quantity of
computational resources to run that increases exponentially with the
number of variables of the system.
But only up to the point where the number is the same as the number
in the system being modeled.
Brent
--
Hi Brent,
There is something 'off' in what I wrote and I think that you see
it. Please elaborate.
Onward!
Not 'off', just an aside about approximating a system.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
