Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:28:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <vcusr7$39icl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <memo.20240913205156.19028s@jgd.cix.co.uk>
 <vcd3ds$3o6ae$2@dont-email.me>
 <2935676af968e40e7cad204d40cafdcf@www.novabbs.org>
 <2024Sep18.074007@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <vcds4i$3vato$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024Sep18.220953@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vcfopr$8glq$3@dont-email.me>
 <ll232oFs6asU1@mid.individual.net> <vcgo74$gkr1$3@dont-email.me>
 <ll2n1hFu4lmU1@mid.individual.net> <vchu2q$mfu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vcm0eh$1hf82$9@dont-email.me> <vcn0e5$1mb84$1@dont-email.me>
 <vcn3ch$1mp6e$1@dont-email.me> <20240922114808.000001f9@yahoo.com>
 <868qvj96lx.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <a7c643d502d94c5cf51906e4b41fa0ff@www.novabbs.org>
 <vcrgfg$2lnor$5@dont-email.me> <vct2vs$2tic0$14@dont-email.me>
 <vctlhr$33okb$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 19:28:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e4fc060bfe99b656beb5422538e16372";
	logging-data="3459477"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18z0LcmaKsdX+tbyxa2+4zGz1ef1zLlNjU="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:co4Aeh7CJwhc8BV4a3LD/1WQU2I=
Bytes: 3789

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb:
> On 24/09/2024 03:00, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 10:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> 
>>> (Among thers, he left out turbulence, where we have some understanding,
>>> but do not yet understand the Navier-Stokes equations - one of the
>>> Millenium Problems).
>> 
>> I thought the problem with Navier-Stokes is that it assumes
>> infinitesimally-small particles of fluid, whereas we know that real fluids
>> are made up of atoms and molecules.
>> 
>> Remember how Max Planck solved the black-body problem? He knew all about
>> the previous approach of assuming that matter was made up of little
>> oscillators, and then trying to work out the limiting behaviour as the
>> size of those oscillators approached zero -- that didn’t work. So his
>> breakthrough was in assuming that the oscillators did *not* approach zero
>> in size, but had some minimum nonzero size. Et voilà ... he got a curve
>> that actually matched the known behaviour of radiating bodies. And laid
>> one of the foundation stones of quantum theory in the process.
>> 
>> Seems a similar thing could be done with Navier-Stokes ... ?
>
> Without knowing the history of work on Navier-Stokes, I am /reasonably/ 
> confident that mathematicians have thought about this and tried it.

Quite a few decades ago, when I started my PhD, the group met
at a pub. Also present was one former PhD student, who had his
doctorate but, at the time, no job.

When asked what he was doing, he said he currently was a privat
scholar.  A colleague asked for details, and he said that he
was working on the general solution of the Navier-Stokes equation,
and that he had tried separation of variables, but it didn't work.
We took this as "shut up, I don't want to hear any more questions".

Some time later, I tried to explain that to a medical doctor.
I told here that it was like claiming he was searching for the cure for
cancer, and that he had tried a saline solution, but it didn't work.