Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

phys.technion.ac.il

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 264 posts

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#171

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

WalterBright wrote: post #157
jjcdtunb wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Americanism ( which also spreads to non-Americans working inside American companies ) views on the world suggest if you work hard you will get it. America is a big place. I'm seventh generation American, with a patriotic family. I wasn't raised to believe that if you work hard you WILL get it. No, it's that if you DON'T work hard, you WON'T get it. You see, success is hard work + luck. You can have luck without har…

> I wasn't raised to believe that if you work hard you WILL get it. No, it's that if you DON'T work hard, you WON'T get it. Reminds me of when the CEO of GM said "What's good for General Motors is good for the country." Except he didn't say that. The press did a hatchet job on him by reporting it that way. The actual quote is "what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa." https://en.wiki…

you think that making the "and vice versa" explicit ("... and what's good for General Motors is good for our country") is a hatchet job?

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#172

Post by WJW »

pkdpic_y9k wrote: post #152
paraknight wrote: post #3

Send it over to Trisolaris!

They're gonna feel so silly when they get all the way here to kill us and realize we solved their silly little problem and they have to turn right back around and go home. The looks on their translucent non-existent face things...

We should probably get started on an analytical problem to the whole dark forest problem thing too.

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#173

Post by WalterBright »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #171
WalterBright wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wasn't raised to believe that if you work hard you WILL get it. No, it's that if you DON'T work hard, you WON'T get it. Reminds me of when the CEO of GM said "What's good for General Motors is good for the country." Except he didn't say that. The press did a hatchet job on him by reporting it that way. The actual quote is "what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa." https://en.wiki…

you think that making the "and vice versa" explicit ("... and what's good for General Motors is good for our country") is a hatchet job?

Leaving off crucial parts of the statement makes it a hatchet job.

Just like if someone says "more or less" and the journalist leaves out the "or less".

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#174

Post by konschubert »

antognini wrote: post #159

Here is a link to the arXiv version of the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.00010 Incidentally, I used to work in dynamics and Hagai is great to work with. To give you a sense of him, I went to a conference on dynamics that he organized about six years ago, and he opened it with the following story: Many years ago, the philosopher Nasreddin was on his farm looking out into the distance and saw some people approachin…

I don't get it. Is it just meant to be funny or is there a deeper message?

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#175

Post by konschubert »

deltasixeight wrote: post #170

>So theoretically speaking, they are deterministic, but practically they are unpredictable. The three body problem is REFERING to the ideal case where only a perfect model is considered. Within this model we don't even know the math to calculate it. So, in short, we lack a "deterministic theory" about this problem at all. What's going on here is an assumption. We assume that an idealistic scenario will always produce…

No. We know there is a deterministic solution, even if we can't calculate it.

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#176

Post by arvidkahl »

konschubert wrote: post #174
antognini wrote: post #159

Here is a link to the arXiv version of the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.00010 Incidentally, I used to work in dynamics and Hagai is great to work with. To give you a sense of him, I went to a conference on dynamics that he organized about six years ago, and he opened it with the following story: Many years ago, the philosopher Nasreddin was on his farm looking out into the distance and saw some people approachin…

I don't get it. Is it just meant to be funny or is there a deeper message?

I think this might be about the interdependency of these actions. Both lead to each other. None would happen without the other.

Wrapped in a funny story.

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#177

Post by smolder »

WalterBright wrote: post #158
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wasn't raised to believe that if you work hard you WILL get it. No, it's that if you DON'T work hard, you WON'T get it. Well said. I think the common misconception comes from reducing these wisdoms into aphorisms that are short, but easily misunderstood. Any adult who has lived more than a few years in the real world quickly understands that hard work doesn’t guarantee success, but that success isn’t going to fal…

> It can be extremely comforting to surround yourself with explanations that nothing is actually within your control or that others’ success or happiness is the result of randomness. On the other hand, accepting responsibility for results is empowering, because it means one can be successful. I don't see anything happy about deciding one is a hapless victim of others.

The comfort in shifting your locus of control outward comes from relieving the shame of failure, not from being an overall positive experience. In fact, it's common for people to both take credit for their successes while blaming their failures on external factors to relieve the shame.

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#178

Post by OnlineGladiator »

konschubert wrote: post #174
antognini wrote: post #159

Here is a link to the arXiv version of the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.00010 Incidentally, I used to work in dynamics and Hagai is great to work with. To give you a sense of him, I went to a conference on dynamics that he organized about six years ago, and he opened it with the following story: Many years ago, the philosopher Nasreddin was on his farm looking out into the distance and saw some people approachin…

I don't get it. Is it just meant to be funny or is there a deeper message?

https://youtu.be/_eRRab36XLI

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#179

Post by phkahler »

I'd like to see this extended slightly to give a half-life based on the masses or similar.

Another interesting 3-body problem is the quarks in a proton or neutron. These can be critically stable with the resulting magnetic field adding more stability. But physics as a field has truly abandoned all mechanical models in favor or purely statistical ones.

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#180

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

WalterBright wrote: post #173
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you think that making the "and vice versa" explicit ("... and what's good for General Motors is good for our country") is a hatchet job?

Leaving off crucial parts of the statement makes it a hatchet job. Just like if someone says "more or less" and the journalist leaves out the "or less".

You believe that the first clause somehow balances the second?

When this (partial) quote is used, it's generally in a context where the first clause is arguably irrelevant. I don't think it's like your "more or less" analogy. There are not many corporations that fail to benefit when the country does well, so the first clause is broadly agreed upon. The second clause, however, is controversial, and has implications that are quite independent of the first clause.

"It will be sunny today, and tomorrow there will be snow" - if you hear this weather forecast at 13:00 on a sunny day, the first clause is close to information-free, but the second is very striking.

So it is with the quote from the head of GM.

Post reply on HN