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.
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
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?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:27 MDT