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:

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.

Hi Brent,

There is something 'off' in what I wrote and I think that you see it. Please elaborate.


Not 'off', just an aside about approximating a system.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to