Not much to say. Graphs can effectively encode anything we can encode, because they contain both things (edge existence is discrete and edge lengths are continuous). It is not "interesting" to me to say that you can create graph encodings of any specific thing, because of course.
-
-
Most of the Wolfram stuff I've actually looked at tends to try to get rid of the edge lengths and replace the continuous part by just counting nodes. Which is also another thing you can do, and then you're back to sort-of being able to encode everything but...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
... then you have to get into hand-wavy territory of "well we have the same _order_ as the equation we would expect" (these are the statements like "it grows with r^2 just like equation X that we were expecting").
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
... 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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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_.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
Yes - but of course again this is why I am skeptical. The Wolfram stuff always reads to me like "look at everything you can do with this!" and I'm like, "Uh, of course? What were you expecting??" I haven't yet seen the profit in it.
-
-
A self-published grand unifying theory. Sounds to me like someone is cracking the universe again. https://jeffandcaseyshow.com/jacs_0002_0035
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
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.