Doyne Farmer

take one line that looks pretty simple, a few little upside down triangles that confuse the math to calculus. But once you understand what the math means, simple to write down. Solving them, they're not solvable in general. And we now know why. It's because they have chaotic solutions.

take one line that looks pretty simple, a few little upside down triangles that confuse the math to calculus. But once you understand what the math means, simple to write down. Solving them, they're not solvable in general. And we now know why. It's because they have chaotic solutions.

When you have chaotic solutions, there are typically no shortcuts to just grinding things out numerically one step at a time. They're intrinsically complex in that regard. But now back to theory, well, One of the big changes in fluid dynamics is we now have numerical fluid computation. We can make use of computer power to simulate what fluids do pretty accurately.

When you have chaotic solutions, there are typically no shortcuts to just grinding things out numerically one step at a time. They're intrinsically complex in that regard. But now back to theory, well, One of the big changes in fluid dynamics is we now have numerical fluid computation. We can make use of computer power to simulate what fluids do pretty accurately.

But that's also been a big driver of theory because now you can test your theory without having to set up a wind tunnel and get a big grant from the NSF. And so there's a rich interaction between the simulators and the equation guys. So I actually think being able to simulate is ultimately going to give us a deeper theoretical understanding

But that's also been a big driver of theory because now you can test your theory without having to set up a wind tunnel and get a big grant from the NSF. And so there's a rich interaction between the simulators and the equation guys. So I actually think being able to simulate is ultimately going to give us a deeper theoretical understanding

And by the way, let me say, when we see a phenomenon in an agent-based model, the first thing we do is try and strip it down. We go, let's give it the pulse of what's causing this. So we start throwing stuff away or using really simple dummy versions for a component. If it keeps on doing it, we go, OK, that's not the cause.

And by the way, let me say, when we see a phenomenon in an agent-based model, the first thing we do is try and strip it down. We go, let's give it the pulse of what's causing this. So we start throwing stuff away or using really simple dummy versions for a component. If it keeps on doing it, we go, OK, that's not the cause.

So we try and figure out the causality by doing what biologists would call knockout experiments. Also, we often get the phenomenon by doing addition experiments, meaning we start simple, we add a feature, we look at what happens, we add another feature, we look at what happens. So you can go from either direction to try and pin down the causality.

So we try and figure out the causality by doing what biologists would call knockout experiments. Also, we often get the phenomenon by doing addition experiments, meaning we start simple, we add a feature, we look at what happens, we add another feature, we look at what happens. So you can go from either direction to try and pin down the causality.

And then once you do that, the theoretician can step in and try and make a stripped down mathematical model, and in some cases, explain what's happening.

And then once you do that, the theoretician can step in and try and make a stripped down mathematical model, and in some cases, explain what's happening.

By and large, no. A few exceptional individuals do. My book has an endorsement by Larry Summers. There you go. Who really surprised me because, you know, I sent the book to the early manuscript to him saying, Larry, I use your name several times in the book. Just search for your name. Look and see if what I said is OK. And let me know. I don't you know, I want to be nice to everybody.

By and large, no. A few exceptional individuals do. My book has an endorsement by Larry Summers. There you go. Who really surprised me because, you know, I sent the book to the early manuscript to him saying, Larry, I use your name several times in the book. Just search for your name. Look and see if what I said is OK. And let me know. I don't you know, I want to be nice to everybody.

So to my astonishment, he sent it back saying, I read your book, and I really agree. I think you have a really good point. You made some errors. He corrected a bunch of my errors. But he said, I overall agree. So wow, I was blown away. My old friend John Giannacopoulos, who was actually Larry Summers' roommate when they were graduate students at Harvard,

So to my astonishment, he sent it back saying, I read your book, and I really agree. I think you have a really good point. You made some errors. He corrected a bunch of my errors. But he said, I overall agree. So wow, I was blown away. My old friend John Giannacopoulos, who was actually Larry Summers' roommate when they were graduate students at Harvard,

He's also, we've been arguing about this stuff since the late 80s. So yeah, he appreciates it. I've co-authored papers with him. My colleague Andrew Lowe at MIT, there's a few people like that. But by and large, what we're doing is ignored by the mainstream. We can't publish in their journals. They'll just say, you're not making the kind of theory we consider acceptable.

He's also, we've been arguing about this stuff since the late 80s. So yeah, he appreciates it. I've co-authored papers with him. My colleague Andrew Lowe at MIT, there's a few people like that. But by and large, what we're doing is ignored by the mainstream. We can't publish in their journals. They'll just say, you're not making the kind of theory we consider acceptable.

It's like a loop quantum gravity person trying to publish in a string theory journal. For those of you who happen to know that controversy. There's not a lot of traction with the mainstream. Now, things are changing. I sent some cracks opening up. We're getting interest from central bankers.

It's like a loop quantum gravity person trying to publish in a string theory journal. For those of you who happen to know that controversy. There's not a lot of traction with the mainstream. Now, things are changing. I sent some cracks opening up. We're getting interest from central bankers.