From: Dana Hedberg (dah@signalinteractive.com)
Date: Wed May 03 2000 - 19:48:11 MDT
Matt Gingell wrote:
>
> > > Imagine I could simulate, in real time, a system of 100 atoms using 50
> > > atoms. I can then have two groups of 50 running in real time with perfect
> >
> >Of course, you can't do that. Also, you don't mention which modelling
> >paradigm you're contemplating, say QM or MD.
>
> Exactly - it's like thinking you could emulate a P2 on a P2 and end up with
> something faster. The implication therefore is that you can't model the whole
> universe in anything smaller than the whole universe, which is why I don't
> understand why someone would claim you could simulate everything with a star.
> Given the constraint of perfect fidelity (if indeed that means anything), then
> which paradigm you work in is just a bookkeeping issue.
>
> -matt
Ok, I have a question that is leaving me confused. What exactly is the
role of compression within simulation situations? If I can represent
(i.e., model) a set of information perfectly with a compressed form of
that information, then haven't I modeled something larger with something
smaller?
For example: I can model 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 with 2 *
5. I've compressed a ten digit, multiple addition operation with a
single multiplication of two digits operation.
This would then seem to scale up for many things, indeed, even to the
size of the universe. Is there something I'm missing here?
-Dana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:23 MST