kido@math.keio.ac.jp (Takashi Kido) (10/27/90)
I have some questions about cell-automata.
1. I majour in Computer Science,and I don't know phisics very well.
But I'm very interested in CA.I want to know how is CA usefull in
our world.
2. I hear that "It is better to simulate phisical model by CA than
culculate differencial equation."(perhaps,by Wolfram).I want to
know the reason.
3. I want to know the phisical saficient of following model.
.brian's-brain
.greenberg
.tunnel
.heart
.firing
.ggun
4 Does anyone have informations about cellular computer which recovers
itself?
takashi kidomroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (10/29/90)
In article <KIDO.90Oct27113809@cabbage.math.keio.ac.jp> kido@math.keio.ac.jp (Takashi Kido) writes: > I hear that "It is better to simulate phisical model by CA than > culculate differencial equation."(perhaps,by Wolfram).I want to > know the reason. I hope that the quote you are reporting is inaccurate. I think that most of the people who do CA simulations wouldn't say that CA's are better than DE's, but that they are a useful tool in cases where the essential features of the problem are clear but the DE's are either too complicated to be conveniently solved, or the system under consideration is not sufficiently well understood to be modelled by DE's. (Writing DE's after all requires in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of a system.) Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
egnr76@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko) (10/29/90)
In article <1990Oct28.204508.22984@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes: >most of the people who do CA simulations wouldn't say that CA's are >better than DE's, but that they are a useful tool in cases where the >essential features of the problem are clear but the DE's are either too >complicated to be conveniently solved, or the system under consideration >is not sufficiently well understood to be modelled by DE's. (Writing DE's after >all requires in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of a system.) Well, the polymer CA models I am working on needed an indepth knowledge of the PHysics as well. In fact I had to sit down with a couple of Polymer/MD simulation experts at one point to make sure I hade the physics right.
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (10/30/90)
In article <6910@castle.ed.ac.uk> egnr76@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko) writes: >In article <1990Oct28.204508.22984@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> > mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes: >>most of the people who do CA simulations wouldn't say that CA's are >>better than DE's, but that they are a useful tool in cases where the >>essential features of the problem are clear but the DE's are either too >>complicated to be conveniently solved, or the system under consideration >>is not sufficiently well understood to be modelled by DE's. >>(Writing DE's after >>all requires in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of a system.) >Well, the polymer CA models I am working on needed an indepth knowledge of >the PHysics as well. In fact I had to sit down with a couple of Polymer/MD >simulation experts at one point to make sure I hade the physics right. I didn't mean to imply that CA's exempted you from knowing physics, only that they allowed you to extract the important bits of physics and ignore the rest. DE's are often quite sensitive to coupling so that you have to worry a lot more about the stuff you decide to ignore when you model a system that way. Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca