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
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.
-
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @FutureMillenniu
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
But that's still a CFG. CFGs don't have a direction. If you use them to compress something down to a single symbol, that's called a parser. If you use them to start with a single symbol and produce, that's a generator. It's a CFG either way.
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.