Changing conventions for units and moving toward standardizing across all scientific fields to the SI units (meters, etc.) is useful, but...
Changing conventions for units and moving toward standardizing across all scientific fields to the SI units (meters, etc.) is useful, but this article isn't about changing units. This idea of a new set of abstractions for representation and exploration of physics is a much much more powerful idea. When I first learned special relativity, I remember struggling with my intuition and having to rely on unfamiliar formula to find the answer to even simple problems. The farther one goes in physics the more one has to trust the equations (electo-magnetics, special and general relativity, quantum physics, etc.) and the math itself starts to obscure whats happening. Having simpler representations and more powerful abstracts is an exciting possibility. I saw this again when trying to solve some simply stated problems (e.g. a particle falling off of a frictionless sphere), mathematics like Lagrangians which I didn't know when I first attempted this problem make the solution so much easier. As an analogy for those that aren't really interested in the mathematics, these ideas are a bit like the jump from algebra and infinite series math to integral calculus. Although, in theory, one could solve many problems of physics without calculus (see for example [1]), the use of calculus immediately opens up a better understanding and the ability to describe and solve more realistic problems (like cars that don't travel at a constant speed). [1] "Feynman's Lost Lecture: The Motion of Planets Around the Sun" by David Goodstein
Posted by todd8 on Aug 19, 2014, 2:33 PM
Tags
Related issues
- Not sure what you suggest to do.
- Why is this not yet published on the official website and why is there no CVE?
- The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
- The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
- (My comment is about detached houses).
- The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.9,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (Other)
Not sure what you suggest to do.
NewWhy is this not yet published on the official website and why is there no CVE?
NewThe biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
(My comment is about detached houses).
The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
> steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
Changing conventions for units and moving toward standardizing across all scientific fields to the SI units (meters, etc.) is useful, but...
Changing conventions for units and moving toward standardizing across all scientific fields to the SI units (meters, etc.) is useful, but this article isn't about changing units. This idea of a new set of abstractions for representation and exploration of physics is a much much more powerful idea. When I first learned special relativity, I remember struggling with my intuition and having to rely on unfamiliar formula to find the answer to even simple problems. The farther one goes in physics the more one has to trust the equations (electo-magnetics, special and general relativity, quantum physics, etc.) and the math itself starts to obscure whats happening. Having simpler representations and more powerful abstracts is an exciting possibility. I saw this again when trying to solve some simply stated problems (e.g. a particle falling off of a frictionless sphere), mathematics like Lagrangians which I didn't know when I first attempted this problem make the solution so much easier. As an analogy for those that aren't really interested in the mathematics, these ideas are a bit like the jump from algebra and infinite series math to integral calculus. Although, in theory, one could solve many problems of physics without calculus (see for example [1]), the use of calculus immediately opens up a better understanding and the ability to describe and solve more realistic problems (like cars that don't travel at a constant speed). [1] "Feynman's Lost Lecture: The Motion of Planets Around the Sun" by David Goodstein
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.