3 ms·
And then, we would not call it shaking but bending and twisting, would we? Think of the 1D variant. If you shuffle a deck of cards, but require that to be ‘con
by Someone 3y ago
And then, we would not call it shaking but bending and twisting, would we?
Think of the 1D variant. If you shuffle a deck of cards, but require that to be ‘continuous’, few shuffles remain (I think only the identity mapping and ‘flipping the deck upside down’). I doubt anybody would restricting the possible permutations that much stil call shuffling.
- l33t233372 3y agoI don’t think that analogy works because an idealized fluid is point particles, but an idealized deck of cards isn’t.
- plonk 3y agoThey both have a concept of neighbors but the deck of cards is simpler, it’s a good illustration, no?
- l33t233372 3y agoI think point particles are different because there are infinitely many of them. They are more continuous than cards. This means shaking isn’t necessarily discontinuous even if two particles that were “right next to each other” wind up far apart, there should be more particles in between that ended up closer.