This is an unsurprising result in hindsight, right, because with a context-free grammar for replacements is fairly powerful. You can create rules which will result in a wide variety of input sets.
... 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_.
-
Another way to say it is that we know that computers can compute anything that we currently know how to formulate, and we know that any compute program can be represented by a graph. Is it really that interesting to then point out you can make anything with that graph?
End of conversation
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.