I believe I may solve the "3 body problem" using a 5D hyper-dimensional quadratics univector solution. Its complicated math, but can be done. What do I win?
I believe I may solve the "3 body problem" using a 5D hyper-dimensional quadratics univector solution.
bragging rights
k
you will be first in line to suck aliens dick
many would do it just for the off chance of getting to steal some shit from them kek
Medication.
Since the 3 body problem is mathematically provable to have no general closed form solution you might want to check your answer. It would be like saying you have proved Fermat's Last Theorem is false.
>it doesnt have a closed form solution in my inconsistent contradictory mathematical system so its impossible to solve it.
good try glowie
>mathematically provable [with the assumption the underlying axioms of mathematics have no faults]
And this is why scientists don't respect mathematicians. You present your theorems and proofs as gospel and often aren't even self aware about the limitations of such proofs.
Okay. What are the limitations of such proofs?
are you moronic? he literally explained the limitations in the post you responded to. way to prove his point kek
aah, I just have a bad habit of assuming green text to be an actual quotation and skipping over it.
>are you moronic?
Yes.
Aren't they talking about Alpha Centauri? It's a triple star system at a bit more than 4 light years away.
Yes but a fictional Alpha Centauri. There isn't just one planet in that system, we have observed at least five.
Is the problem itself to find an algorithm or formula that can predict it at any given moment? Why is this necessary when we can simply have two body systems support us? If you have to try and refine and guide to the acute surgical precision, it will always be harder than the obtuse hammer. Is the three body problem a hubris issue instead? What lies after the three body problem? Four?
I had an argument the other with a guy on lit on whether the solar system is stable and he told me it wasn't because the n-body classical mechanics model predicted chaotic trajectories in the future. It's almost like arguing that the trajectory of a baseball is chaotic because we can't account for the air conditions and small errors and inherent uncertainty in every single throw. So is it chaotic because humans can't be expected to throw the ball exactly the same way every time or is it chaotic because classical mechanics says so?
Nothing is stable if you wait long enough.
pls publish proof
You don't even have to revert to the chaos argument. The 2-body problem is chaotic too, in that despite having a formula that perfectly predicts their orbits, that depends on having perfect information on their initial position and momentums. All slight error in those and eventually your answer will be wrong and you move forward in time. The only difference then between the 2-body and the n-body problem is that those errors get magnified rapidly making predictions hard and the system appear chaotic.
The problem as described in the books though is nonsense. Giving computers and accurate measurements you would be able to make orbit calculations that would work for thousands, even millions of year ahead.
This doesn't make sense. So is the trajectory chaotic because we can't calculate it or because we observe it? Chaotic in this sense means that there are no cycles or repeating patterns.
Not that poster; your use of chaos seems irrelevant as it’s just trajectory momentum with n influence variables. To call that chaos is a bit tepid. Maybe instead of devising an algorithm to predict at all times the trajectory energy involved with the three body problem, it is actually instead the secondary or tertiary energy that should be predicted instead, involving the singular bodies themselves. With two bodies the support influences upon one another are obvious, but once three or more bodies are introduced our calculations at that point seem haphazard and superfluous. Reliance upon future integration of energy for each body seems much less important than calculating the additive by which these bodies can hypothesize with one another. Finding max coefficients seems more effective. But ultimately I’m not familiar enough with the subject to refine here.
I am not taking about momentum. I am talking about the idea that chaos is any deviation from the observed path. If you have an ellipse that bounces around in cycles from time to time, how is that chaos?
Again, that’s not chaos, that’s incapacity to observe, which is what the other poster was explaining. The ellipse itself will inevitably bound away from the predicted cycle. The issue with theoretical mathematics is that it is not valid outside its containment.
Will it? You don't know that do you? Only math can tell you that, what I want to know is whether this prediction is due to math's weaknesses or due to observations.
What chaos actually defines is that it will always deviate away from the exact. To answer your question, are you asking about observation creating this deviation, or that it is the limitation from our observation that creates fault in the prediction?
And I am asking how that is chaos when these deviations are/could be cyclical. Is a ball's trajectory chaotic just because you failed to model it properly?
I think you’re getting confused on semantics. The other poster talking about a two body system being chaotic is not deferment to chaos itself, but a colloquial. He is implicating the incomplete predictions of the “ball” from our relative, not of the balls exact itself. I believe you adhere to his original post for this reason, unless I am mistaken?
I don't care about two or three bodies here. I am asking whether it's due to math's inability to resolve these dynamical system without resorting to 'chaos' or it's due to physics' inadequacy to account for all initial conditions that leads to these deviating ellipses? Which is which? What I am basically assuming is whether these non linear odes can't be resolved to their linear forms if physics had better ways to model planetary motion.
All chaos is in mathematics is the introduction of hypothetical exact that can interact with the theoretical of hypothesis. To that, math could easily find your solutions if we built better math, just as better physics theory could do the same. If your indicting the methods we use as faulty, then yes, our systems are clearly lacking and it has nothing to do with mathematics or physics and instead rests entirely on our lack of comprehension of the exact. Just by recognizing that we are in a sterilized atheistic dark age right now you can understand that we limit our allowance of better calculative theories.
It's neither, the complexity class of the problem simply makes it intractable. With a sufficiently large computer and sufficiently small system it is calculable. Special cases are fully solved.
The problem is in fact not even unique or interesting in that sense. There are thousands of problems which have been proven to be intractable in this way (where the computational resources required would quickly approach infinity)
>What do I win?
A lifetime academic position at a university where you won't be expected to produce much beside publicity appearances.
>What do I win?
Trouble.
some scientists have claimed to have solved the problem, one of them is israeli and he says that he can calculate a probability of finding the objects at some position at any time, which isnt deterministic but also isnt random.
That show is fricking moronic. If you have 3 stars and a planet, you have to solve the 4 (FOUR) body problem
depends. how much does it matter? our sun is a bit off-axis due to the rest of the mass, but not by much.
in a three star system the overwhelming mass is in the three stars, one planet is frick all, gets passed around like a b***h
>https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/world/asia/china-three-body-problem-murder.html
bros what did they mean by this
what do you mean by this? people commit murder for many reasons.
why would you say they are more reasons to kill, than one, if I didn't even suggest a particular reason?
what do YOU mean by what you said?
> gets called out on bait
> moans about it
kek
kys
This is what it sounds like when a boring redditor wants to larp as a math genius but only knows highschool shit ...
Cringe!
>115 iq post
Nothing. Give up.