🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <350@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.194334.20447@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>> In article <344@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>> >This is the question. Continuous models are the simplest to work with
>> >mathematically, but are the simplest possibility as models of physical
>> >reality? I do not think so.
>> 
>> It isn't clear to me that any such distinction can be made.
>
>As one simple example consider the difference between a model based on
>finite difference equations and one based on partial differential
>equations. 

    Name a physical system in which the FDE is considered more fundamental
    than the PDE?  For most of us, we take the 'true' PDE and muck it
    up, introducing loads of spurious conservation laws and higher
    order terms, by deriving a finite difference formulation of it. 
    I'd be interested in a system in which we did the reverse.

                            dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926