I think you may have some hindsight bias here. I do not think that when chemical and atomic structures were discovered/understood that knowledge was immediately put to use. Nuclear physics dates back to the late 1800s, it wasn't until the 1940's where that knowledge was put to practical use. I wouldn't expect anything different with QCD. In fact, I would expect it to take significantly longer to develop practical applications of the theory given how much more complex it is.
If you look up numerical algorithm in Wikiepedia you will find plenty of discussion of error bounds. Of course matrix multiplication performed on exact numbers doesn't have errors, the calculation is exact. Computers and the algorithms they run do not have that luxury when dealing with approximations.
Of course you will, because those are about how they are implemented on computers with limited precision.
Your point is exactly mine - correctness is usually defined on exact numbers, which does not have error bounds.
Usefulness is defined by particular implementation choices and precision choices when implemented on a particular computer.
The entire argument here is (crazily) that you can't prove correctness without error bounds, correctness is always context specifi.
Of course you can, and of course it's not.
Just like the wikipedia algorithm shows.
That may or may not make it useful for a particular application.
From my understanding this is almost entirely an engineering problem at this point. The physics behind it has been understood for decades so I'm not sure how much more we'll gain in terms of fundamental physics.
There is still a great deal to be learned about plasma fluid dynamics. Probably the only good that will come out of all the work is a few generations of plasma fluid dynamicists. Pray they can find something else to do when the whole project finally fizzles out.
What would such a deal look like? I'm not sure how much they can do to a decentralized entity. There are certainly things they could do but I don't think it can be as effective as if it was a central entity like a corporation.
In cosmology, the "Universe" typically refers to the observable universe which is far from infinite. There is nothing to "accept" about the terms "dark matter" and "dark energy", they are colloquial terms that describe two unrelated phenomena that we have yet to explain (hence the "dark" part). Just because you have an incorrect assumption about what the informal names imply doesn't mean others do as well.
> Just because you have an incorrect assumption about what the informal names imply doesn't mean others do as well.
All kinds of names are given by people to reflect the essence of the entity being named. The name I give to something reflects what I think of it or something about that thing. The use of the word "dark" here is being used to reflect (as you said) our inability to yet explain the described phenomena which, to me, sounds like medieval people talking of witches. These phenomena could have easily be named "Analog24's energy" or "gtsop's matter" like a thousand other forces, particles, laws. Hence, what we have to "accept" is a term that reflects the inability of the human intellect to discover something. It is just silly and I think it shows something about the mentality of contemporary physics
What are you talking about? "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are terms used to describe to _obeserved_ phenomona that we can not explain. And I'm not even sure what a "hypothetical" variable is.
They have observed discrepencies in the calculations, meaning something is either wrong with the formula, or something unobservable actually does exist and manipulates the universe in such an (edit: so far) unexplainable way.
This is incredibly ignorant and pretty arrogant to actually think that you know better than thousands of researchers who presumably know far more about this than you. There are numerous independent and unrelated pieces of evidence that point to the existence of dark matter. You honestly think they're all the result of mathematical errors that just so happen to all point to the same conclusion? That would be quite a coincidence.
Dark matter could be due to some fundamental mathematical or measurement error that is deep enough to cross multiple independent research efforts. However given the lack of evidence for it, such an error seems unlikely but not unthinkable.
As I said, it would be a huge coincidence. And no, this could not be due to a measurement error for the reason I already states: there are numerouse indpenedent observations, of completley different consequences of dark matter that all point to the same thing. At this point you can safely say it's statistically impossible to chalk this up to measurement error. I will concede that is possible that it could be due to an error in our understanding of the laws of physics at such large scales but the current evidence does not favor this conclusion.
You absolutely can jam over a song you don't know inside and out. If everyone did know the song that well then you're just playing the song. Real "jamming" (not trying to be too pedantic with the use of the word) happens when you don't know where the song/jam is going and you build off of and comp each other.
But that's not how it works. You are almost always free to use why language you want. There are exceptions to this but in those cases it would be clearly indicated in the job description.
We have approved languages for projects at work (Java, Scala, Go, and Python in special cases), but I let candidates use any language I can read, and it’s never been a problem.
