Re: Computational vs. analytical
From: ZZBunker (zzbunker_at_netscape.net)
Date: 11/12/04
- Next message: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Computational vs. analytical"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- In reply to: James J Albert: "Computational vs. analytical"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Nov 2004 07:23:42 -0800
jimal1971@yahoo.co.uk (James J Albert) wrote in message news:<10715da5.0411060704.36870eba@posting.google.com>...
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if anyone on this group has heard
> of a debate regarding the impact of computers
> on physics. It seems that the overwhelming
> response is that computers have been a great
> benefit, but I know of at least one person
> who disagrees, saying that too many theoretical
> physicists now write software instead of
> pursuing analytical solutions and laws.
>
> Has there been a debate along these lines?
There is no real debate. There is only an
arbitary fecitious debate bewteen
mathematicians type-1, and mathematicians type-2.
Mathematicians type-1 believe computers
are number killers, so hence work
only in astrology rather than technology
to start with. So their opinion
is only remotely associated with mirror
theory, rather than normal matter.
Mathematicians type-2 believe computers
should be used in economics only.
So their opinion is really simply a reiteration
of the standard theory 4000 year-old Egytology theory:
"The talking head theory of talking heads",
and so is also not really well-correlated
with normal matter.
> Any books/references?
>
> Thanks very much in advance.
>
> Jim.
- Next message: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Computational vs. analytical"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- In reply to: James J Albert: "Computational vs. analytical"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
