/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12814303

196KiB, 400x400, 3D-lid-driven-cavity-From-top-left-to-bottom-right-Comparison-between-our-numerical.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 06:23:10 2021 No.12814303 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12814317 >>12814323 >>12814331 >>12814420

Do you all know that we are close to proving Navier stokes existence and uniqueness?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 06:28:09 No.12814317 Report

Quoted By:

>>12814303
really?!?!?! thats pretty exciting

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 06:29:34 No.12814323 Report

Quoted By:

>>12814303
who did the what now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 06:30:49 No.12814326 Report

Quoted By:

I want to believe...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 06:31:43 No.12814331 Report

Quoted By: >>12814339

>>12814303
Where is the most turbulent part of that slope field? Does more curl = more turbulence?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 06:35:25 No.12814339 Report

Quoted By: >>12814345

>>12814331
Kinda. Vorticity certainly uses curl but it's not the whole picture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 06:38:14 No.12814345 Report

Quoted By: >>12814355

>>12814339
is there a rigorous definition of turbulence since we supposedly don't understand turbulence?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 06:43:34 No.12814355 Report

Quoted By: >>12814362

>>12814345
Not that I'm familiar with. Turbulence is just the abrupt change in flow of a liquid. This can come in so many different ways from so many different sources that it's damn near impossible to construct a coherent and consistent quantification of turbulence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 06:48:38 No.12814362 Report

Quoted By: >>12814370 >>12814442

>>12814355
I just read this on google,

There is probably no universally accepted mathematical definition of turbulence. ... In 1970 Ruelle and Takens formulated the conjecture that turbulence is the appearance of global attractors with sensitive dependence of motion on the initial conditions in the phase space of the Navier–Stokes equations

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 06:52:50 No.12814370 Report

Quoted By: >>12814402 >>12814456

>>12814362
Lol, hinge your conjecture on Navier Stokes. That's brilliant since it can only ever be proved or disproved with solving the millennium prize problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 07:06:19 No.12814402 Report

Quoted By: >>12814428

>>12814370
is a droplet beading off of a stream of water disjoint lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 07:14:34 No.12814420 Report

Quoted By:

>>12814303
There is a .1% chance this is true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 07:15:51 No.12814428 Report

Quoted By: >>12814440

>>12814402
Lol. Depends on the function?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 07:18:27 No.12814440 Report

Quoted By: >>12814449 >>12814468

>>12814428
if it's an elliptical equation then yes?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 07:18:51 No.12814442 Report

Quoted By:

>>12814362
That makes me wonder why we haven't been able to construct a rigorous definition of turbulence ourselves. Perhaps turbulence is really just a measure of distance from certain types of singularities in our current theory, if I had to guess.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 07:20:34 No.12814449 Report

Quoted By:

>>12814440
I guess if disjoint is defined as a boolean quantifier

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 07:22:44 No.12814456 Report

Quoted By: >>12814469

>>12814370
oh that's nothing, there are actual theorems in number theory that were proven by proving that they follow from 1) Reimann hypotheses being true and 2) Reimann hypotheses being false.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 07:25:43 No.12814468 Report

Quoted By:

>>12814440
Wwwwwait. But any physical disjointness is always only to some probability. And the validity of that probability is also probabalistic. So, if we use statistics as the basis of our function, we get an asymptotic, or a boolean there of

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Mar 2021 07:26:29 No.12814469 Report

Quoted By:

>>12814456
polya conjecture is so cool but I don't really understand the implications of the proof even though it was proven in 1958

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches