Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb:

On 24/09/2024 03:00, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 10:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
 

(Among thers, he left out turbulence, where we have some understanding,
but do not yet understand the Navier-Stokes equations - one of the
Millenium Problems).

 
I thought the problem with Navier-Stokes is that it assumes
infinitesimally-small particles of fluid, whereas we know that real fluids
are made up of atoms and molecules.
 
Remember how Max Planck solved the black-body problem? He knew all about
the previous approach of assuming that matter was made up of little
oscillators, and then trying to work out the limiting behaviour as the
size of those oscillators approached zero -- that didn’t work. So his
breakthrough was in assuming that the oscillators did *not* approach zero
in size, but had some minimum nonzero size. Et voilà ... he got a curve
that actually matched the known behaviour of radiating bodies. And laid
one of the foundation stones of quantum theory in the process.
 
Seems a similar thing could be done with Navier-Stokes ... ?

>
Without knowing the history of work on Navier-Stokes, I am /reasonably/
confident that mathematicians have thought about this and tried it.

Quite a few decades ago, when I started my PhD, the group met
at a pub. Also present was one former PhD student, who had his
doctorate but, at the time, no job.

When asked what he was doing, he said he currently was a privat
scholar.  A colleague asked for details, and he said that he
was working on the general solution of the Navier-Stokes equation,
and that he had tried separation of variables, but it didn't work.
We took this as "shut up, I don't want to hear any more questions".

Some time later, I tried to explain that to a medical doctor.
I told here that it was like claiming he was searching for the cure for
cancer, and that he had tried a saline solution, but it didn't work.