> 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 sci

> 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.