SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Professor Peter Coveney, Director of the UCL Centre[*] for Computational Science and study co-author, said: "Our work shows that the behaviour of the chaotic dynamical systems is richer than any digital computer can capture. Chaos is more commonplace than many people may realise and even for very simple chaotic systems, numbers used by digital computers can lead to errors that are not obvious but can have a big impact. Ultimately, computers can't simulate everything."
The team investigated the impact of using floating-point arithmetic -- a method standardised by the IEEE and used since the 1950s to approximate real numbers on digital computers.
Digital computers use only rational numbers, ones that can be expressed as fractions. Moreover the denominator of these fractions must be a power of two, such as 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. There are infinitely more real numbers that cannot be expressed this way.
In the present work, the scientists used all four billion of these single-precision floating-point numbers that range from plus to minus infinity. The fact that the numbers are not distributed uniformly may also contribute to some of the inaccuracies.
First author, Professor Bruce Boghosian (Tufts University), said: "The four billion single-precision floating-point numbers that digital computers use are spread unevenly, so there are as many such numbers between 0.125 and 0.25, as there are between 0.25 and 0.5, as there are between 0.5 and 1.0. It is amazing that they are able to simulate real-world chaotic events as well as they do. But even so, we are now aware that this simplification does not accurately represent the complexity of chaotic dynamical systems, and this is a problem for such simulations on all current and future digital computers."
The study builds on the work of Edward Lorenz of MIT whose weather simulations using a simple computer model in the 1960s showed that tiny rounding errors in the numbers fed into his computer led to quite different forecasts, which is now known as the 'butterfly effect'.
[*] UCL: University College London
Journal Reference:
Bruce M. Boghosian, Peter V. Coveney, Hongyan Wang. A New Pathology in the Simulation of Chaotic Dynamical Systems on Digital Computers. Advanced Theory and Simulations, 2019; 1900125 DOI: 10.1002/adts.201900125
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:00AM (2 children)
No.
Chaos theory [wikipedia.org] doesn't represent "we don't understand the rules." It means small changes can have widely divergent results, which makes it hard to model because you need to be right on everything.
As an example people here may understand better, try to find the prime prime factors of the number ((2^6593)-3). "OMG, it's hard." Yes, but that doesn't mean that we don't understand the basic simple fundamental rules of math. It just means it's really hard.
Also, the fact that we can launch a rocket and have it land on the moon (do you know how far away that is, how fast it is moving, and how relatively small it is), or create millions of CPUs which have trillions of micron-sized circuits, suggests that we have a lot of knowledge about how nature works. Yes, we don't know EVERYTHING (and never will, although the part we don't know shrinks every day)... but it's a bit dismissive to be ignoring what we do know because our current knowledge of physics breaks down at extreme edge situations.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday September 26 2019, @03:19AM (1 child)
To say "the part we don't know shrinks every day" is to make some unproven assumptions about the nature of "natural laws". It's *probably* correct, but whether it actually is or not is a part of what we don't know. (*Are* there a finite number of natural laws?)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday September 26 2019, @02:40PM
Is there a finite number of definitive realities? If there's only 1 universe then there would likely be a finite number of ways to describe it (z). If there is n number of set realities then it is just z*n. If it is not finite, than no.
I know! 42!
Uhoh. Just replaced ourselves with something even more bizarrely inexplicable.
This sig for rent.