4 ms·

Was that abstract generated by one of those markov chain things as a joke? I mean, Wikipedia doesn't seem to know what a Brownian computer is. And putting "simp

Was that abstract generated by one of those markov chain things as a joke? I mean, Wikipedia doesn't seem to know what a Brownian computer is. And putting "simple" before Fokker-Plank equation and "in one dimension" after it is a classic trick straight out of the bluffers guide to sounding like a scientist.

stcredzero 8y ago
I mean, Wikipedia doesn't seem to know what a Brownian computer is. Processes inside our cells partially work due to Brownian motion. How about a Turing machine implemented with nuclear DNA?
rotskoff 8y ago
No, it's not a joke. The thermodynamics of information is a pretty active area of research (not too distant from the area that I work in). The basic question in this area is related to the Landauer principle, which asserts that irreversible computation requires energy and gives a precise bound for it.
LolWolf 8y ago
> And putting "simple" before Fokker-Plank equation and "in one dimension" after it is a classic trick straight out of the bluffers guide to sounding like a scientist. Relative to many mathematical tools we touch on a daily basis (NNs and general spin glasses such as Hopfield models, etc, are probably the biggest cases here), the FP equation (more generally, Langevin dynamics[0]) are relatively well-understood and are basic tools in the study of continuous processes. Additionally, solutions of these dynamics in 1D are nice and interpretable (it's easy to write down the equilibrium distribution, all quantities of interest are easy to compute, we can visualize the results quite easily, etc[1]). Of course, I do work in this area (dynamical systems theory, along with thermodynamics of these systems) so such a claim is not so surprising, but I think there are several model dynamics that we take for granted that are much more complicated than overdamped Langevin dynamics. --- [0] The FP equation being the evolution equation for the overdamped case of Langevin dynamics. [1] For more info, the classic reference is Risken's The Fokker-Planck Equation.
mlevental 8y ago
you know how we castigate dumb rednecks for being dismissive of science and technology? this is exactly the same thing reproduced. so the question becomes are you wrong or are they right.

stcredzero 8y ago

I mean, Wikipedia doesn't seem to know what a Brownian computer is. Processes inside our cells partially work due to Brownian motion. How about a Turing machine implemented with nuclear DNA?

rotskoff 8y ago

No, it's not a joke. The thermodynamics of information is a pretty active area of research (not too distant from the area that I work in). The basic question in this area is related to the Landauer principle, which asserts that irreversible computation requires energy and gives a precise bound for it.

LolWolf 8y ago

> And putting "simple" before Fokker-Plank equation and "in one dimension" after it is a classic trick straight out of the bluffers guide to sounding like a scientist. Relative to many mathematical tools we touch on a daily basis (NNs and general spin glasses such as Hopfield models, etc, are probably the biggest cases here), the FP equation (more generally, Langevin dynamics[0]) are relatively well-understood and are basic tools in the study of continuous processes. Additionally, solutions of these dynamics in 1D are nice and interpretable (it's easy to write down the equilibrium distribution, all quantities of interest are easy to compute, we can visualize the results quite easily, etc[1]). Of course, I do work in this area (dynamical systems theory, along with thermodynamics of these systems) so such a claim is not so surprising, but I think there are several model dynamics that we take for granted that are much more complicated than overdamped Langevin dynamics. --- [0] The FP equation being the evolution equation for the overdamped case of Langevin dynamics. [1] For more info, the classic reference is Risken's The Fokker-Planck Equation.

mlevental 8y ago

you know how we castigate dumb rednecks for being dismissive of science and technology? this is exactly the same thing reproduced. so the question becomes are you wrong or are they right.