3 ms·
No, it's just three. The reason it's a thing – as far as I understand – is that solving analytically for one body is trivial: it's stationary. Solving analytica
by kqr 3y ago
No, it's just three. The reason it's a thing – as far as I understand – is that solving analytically for one body is trivial: it's stationary. Solving analytically for two bodies is possible but takes some calculus. Three bodies have chaotic behaviour and need to be simulated.
- belst 3y agoin the novels there are 3 suns, so it is 4 bodies. The simulation doesn't get easier with 4 tho, so 3 body problem is still a good name. Also the planets mass is "almost" negligible compared to that of the suns, so I assume simulating (+ occasional correcting) 3 bodies is already a good approximation.
- wzdd 3y agoIt’s not a good approximation because (spoilers) the challenge is to identify the location of the planet relative to the suns, not simply to locate the suns themselves. I too wondered at the title.