3 ms·

You're going to measure every point like this? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrzej-Baier/publication/331572114/figure/fig1/AS:733848539246612@155197453

You're going to measure every point like this? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrzej-Baier/publication/331572114/figure/fig1/AS:733848539246612@1551974534921/Stress-results-of-the-FEM-simulation-of-brake-lever-after-optimization-Further.ppm https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrzej-Baier/publicati... Likewise, you can crash a car in a lab and do a simulation of one. Both tell you "fascinating" things and are still done by engineers.

dataflow 3y ago
This has nothing to do with the question though. > You're going to measure every point like this? Why would I need to? Is "tells you a bunch of answers to questions you never asked along the way" really the distinguishing factor for what constitutes computational supremacy? If all I wanted was just the lengths of the broken pieces, my simulation has to tell me the stress and strain at every point in order to be considered superior to a numerical simulator? Merely telling me the answer to the question I asked doesn't count? So if my prime factorization tool factored 4096-bit integers instantly, that's not enough? It has to factor a bunch of unrelated numbers and maybe solve TSP in the middle before we can consider it superior to classical computation?