Newtonian physics IS deterministic (sorry Norton) (2017)

Re:Newtonian physics IS deterministic (sorry Norton) (2017) by whatshisface on Sunday August 15, 2021 @05:21PM (#28192637)

Here's the Wiki article. It points to the lack of Lipschitz continuity at the peak, which contrary to the author, I would call out as a dead straight reason for the behavior to be non-deterministic; because the proof of determinacy depends on Lipschitz continuity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton%27s_dome

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Newtonian physics IS deterministic (sorry Norton) (2017) by davrosthedalek on Sunday August 15, 2021 @06:40PM (#28193233)

Can somebody ELI5 how the "simple criticism" works in the Indeterminate derivatives section? a) h=F/2m deltat^2 only if F is in the direction of h, which it certainly isn't. (Also, if anything, that should be a delta h). b) F is well defined at r=0 (F=0)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Newtonian physics IS deterministic (sorry Norton) (2017) by whatshisface on Monday August 16, 2021 @10:03AM (#28198217)

The kinematics don't really impact the argument, all it's saying is that the second derivative of the surface does not exist at the peak, which means the change in force with respect to motion is undefined.

[ Parent | on HN ]