Re:The British amateur who debunked the mathematics of happi...
by TangoTrotFox on Sunday March 04, 2018 @04:20PM
(#16516817)
Math and physics can describe juggling, but that description is not what helped discover juggling - holding a few balls in your hand suffices for that. Engineering and physics on the other hand to be math derived fields. In other words, the processes involved are sufficiently complex to be beyond the scope of even a rather clever human's intuition. Of course you might argue of success by mimicry, yet mimicry becomes exponentially more difficult as the complexity of a problem increases, to the point that I think we can all but disregard it for meaningful applications of engineering and most natural sciences.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The British amateur who debunked the mathematics of happi...
by taeric on Sunday March 04, 2018 @04:48PM
(#16516980)
You'd be surprised how much math can actually help get into advanced juggling. Similar to origami. Sure, basics don't benefit from math. Advanced practices, though, do.
Regardless of that, the point of the example was precisely the point you seem to be using against me. Most practices in many fields, including much of physics and engineering, don't actually need advanced math. They are helped considerably by it, though.