4 ms·
On contrary, I am actually delighted to see the hands-on approach. Pure math is vulnerable to missed preconditions/unknown unknowns, with potentially catastroph
by rini17 5y ago
On contrary, I am actually delighted to see the hands-on approach. Pure math is vulnerable to missed preconditions/unknown unknowns, with potentially catastrophic ramifications when it's carelessly applied to real building. You must know in advance what you're going to prove.
- unearth3d 5y agoLike London's Millennium Bridge https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/new-study-sheds-more-light-on-what-caused-millennium-bridge-to-wobble/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/new-study-sheds-more... I agree, engineering is art + science, impossible to iron everything out theoretically.
- Galanwe 5y ago> Pure math is vulnerable to missed preconditions/unknown unknowns, with potentially catastrophic ramifications Interestingly I see the opposite. I expect the replica to be full of dangerous approximations: scaled weight of the stones not realistic, friction of the material not taken into consideration, earthquake ground vibrations not properly emulated by just shaking plates, etc
- klyrs 5y agoI take issue with the term "pure math" here. Engineering simulation is strictly the realm of applied math, a dark art of floating point calculations, finite element analysis, idealized material properties, etc. Pure math demands much more rigor, and gets exact answers, but the methods available cannot handle the complexity of a bridge in this lifetime.