Were partial differential equations a mistake?

>>8583108
How would we have developed computer technology without knowing PDEs?

>>8583154
>Implying Babbage knew about PDEs

>>8583108
is he shilling for his cellular automata there again?
If so, they are basically just a finite difference discretization to pdes anyways

>>8583523
>is he shilling for his cellular automata there again?
When all you have is a hammer...

>>8583186
I think the word 'technology' was key there, anon.

>>8583108
I never understood why we haven't turned Wolfram into a meme.

>my shitpile of a life-time achievment can't handle PDEs
>ah-ah-accident

File: 0157.png (213KB, 1227x801px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1227x801px

>>8583523
Yeah he just got done introducing CA with continuous states and then he moves onto PDEs as being CA with continuous state and continuous time. His contention however is that PDEs are much more unwieldy and difficult to explore in a systematic and precise way like you can with CA.

>>8583777
Mathematica does PDEs really well though.

>No, you understand everything wrong, this is a much better way of understanding things!

>>8583877
Is he actually talking about uses of this stuff in his book? Because I've toyed around with stuff like that as well, and yes, it's easy to generate complexity from simple rules, and no, it's not really interesting. It may be easy to generate complexity, but it's hard to find those kinds of complexity that actually mean shit, that worth looking into. In the end all you are doing is producing more or less pretty images with little meaning.

>>8583776
Because we want to think as little as possible about him.

>>8583892
Not yet that I've seen. Kind of looks like he might get into it in some of the later chapters though.
http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html

AFAIK he basically sees them as a model for the universe in the sense that we exist in some kind of big quantum CA.

>>8583892
>In the end all you are doing is producing more or less pretty images with little meaning.

physicists say the dumbest shit lol

>>8583776
because he doesn't publish memeable youtube videos and his quackery is less accessible that wildebrger