doop

5 ms·

1.
by doop 1y ago
I don't think it really helps - you're already working in something like a probabilistic formulation. If you want to use a quantum mechanical justification for it then you need to look at some sort of non-unitary evolution. Beside
2.
by doop 1y ago
It's lost at Boltzmann's "molecular chaos" or "Stosszahlansatz" step. If f(x1,x2) is the two-particle distribution function giving you (hand-wavingly) the probability that you have particles with position and v
3.
by doop 1y ago
Laser C or Lattice C maybe?
4.
by doop 2y ago
Why does this otherwise excellent series always depict electrons as red and protons as blue when everybody knows it’s the other way round?
5.
by doop 3y ago
The Falcon was a nice machine (I still have one!) although it suffered from the characteristic Atari penny-pinching: still no MIDI thru port (on a machine which was otherwise amazing audio-wise - same DSP as the NeXT!) and while the new vid
6.
by doop 3y ago
This page was written by Anu Dudhia, who for many years was celebrated by the giant graffiti saying "ANU IS GOD" on the side of Donnington Bridge in Oxford.
7.
by doop 4y ago
Find a style of music you enjoy listening to, then go to a club that plays it, and start dancing. Keep doing that. You might find that your taste shifts a bit over time, and that's fine, and it's fine to shop around a bit: the poi
8.
by doop 4y ago
Great article! Also: > I’ve never heard of a family being divided because its members dance different styles Anyone who believes this needs to go watch Strictly Ballroom (1992) with all possible urgency. I was also somewhat sceptical abo
9.
by doop 5y ago
My favourite example of this is.. Robocop! https://dejareviewer.com/2014/04/29/cinematic-chiasmus-roboc...
10.
by doop 6y ago
Is this the Wayne Holder of Dungeon Master fame?
11.
by doop 7y ago
I remember the Snow Crash MOO! I spent a while there around 1996-1997: it was (despite the name) sort of William Gibson themed - I vaguely remember it being distributed across multiple hosts, and being impressed at the time that it was runn
12.
by doop 13y ago
Err, no it doesn't - the viscosity in LB is a function purely of the relaxation time (for LBGK anyway). Nor do you need to do any simulation repeats to average out the noise. The main weakness of LB is that it's not as numerically
13.
by doop 13y ago
Off the top of my head (it's quite a while..), lattice gas models wind up giving you a velocity-dependent viscosity, i.e. the viscosity of the fluid is a function of how fast it is travelling relative to the lattice. This is unphysical
14.
by doop 13y ago
They might not be strictly Navier-Stokes but the way in which real fluids deviate from N-S is completely unlike the way in which lattice gas fluids deviate from N-S. Absolutely, you can discretize time and space and get a useful fluid model
15.
by doop 13y ago
You can see it as continuum-ing up from a CA, or you can see it as a discretization of the continuum Boltzmann equation. What do you mean you don't need Galilean invariance? In the real world, fluid motion is Galilean invariant (unless
16.
by doop 13y ago
I was under the impression that lattice gas methods in CFD were more or less obsolete. They're nice in that they're unconditionally stable and only use bitwise operations, but the amount of CPU time you save from this is massively