If you go back to the original L-systems paper, it is literally this same thing. They said "we want to simulate cell growth in plants", and they worked on rules until they got something that mirrored observations.
But again I'm just not sure why this is interesting, unless the idea is just that nobody thought graphs could encode real-world things, so you have to convince them of that? I would think that was obvious but traditional disciplines do get set in their ways, so...
-
-
... maybe that's just not true, and it is good that somebody is trying to convince people to look more seriously at graph encodings? I don't know. I don't actually _care_ about physics, so I suppose that may have something to do with it :P
-
The TL;DR is that I thought it was obvious that everything can be encoded in a graph, because we currently don't know of anything _more_ expressive than a graph. So obviously all equations - ALL of them we might want - can be created on a graph, because that _has to be true_.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.