Slashdot Mirror


Edward Lorenz, Father of Chaos Theory, Dies at 90

An anonymous reader writes "Professor Edward N. Lorenz, who discovered in 1961 that subtle changes in the initial conditions of a weather simulation program could cause very large differences in its results, died of cancer Wednesday at the age of 90. The contributions of the father of chaos theory, who coined the term 'the butterfly effect' and also discovered the Lorenz Attractor, are best summarized by the wording of the Kyoto Prize in 1991 which noted that his discovery of chaos theory 'profoundly influenced a wide range of basic sciences and brought about one of the most dramatic changes in mankind's view of nature since Sir Isaac Newton.'"

15 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. Died of cancer... but why? by DamienRBlack · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why aren't they reporting that his cancer was caused by a zebra sneezing in the UK last fall under a fig tree. It seems quite relevant.

    1. Re:Died of cancer... but why? by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      You might get modded troll or flamebait by the people who didn't understand your subtle reference. It could have been a butterfly taking off in New Mexico though. We aren't quite sure.

      A great man whose contributions will be remembered for centuries to come has passed. I think I'm going to fire up a fractal generator and play with Lorenz Attractors now.

    2. Re:Died of cancer... but why? by Digestromath · · Score: 3, Funny
      I think the cancer angle is all wrong for a headline.

      The sensationalist news should report "Butterfly goes on rampage, slays notable mathematician. Police seek public's help in finding strange attractor."

      Or is it really just too soon for jokes? How do we as a community honour someone who has made such great contributions. Contributions no doubt to be misremembered by pop culture (thanks alot Hollywood).

      Perhaps he would be fondly remembered though an internet meme.

    3. Re:Died of cancer... but why? by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm thinking that there probably shouldn't be a particular pattern to when the jokes are made.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    4. Re:Died of cancer... but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And it would be warranted. The 'butterfly effect' is a horribly misleading statement. Mathematical chaos applies to only certain deterministic systems, not real life. There is no evidence that the real world is a simulation or even if it was that it falls into the narrow range of non-linear dynamics problems that exhibit mathematical chaos. Lorenz's attempt at modeling the weather certainly exhibited mathematical chaos, but the model wasn't the weather itself.

    5. Re:Died of cancer... but why? by smallfries · · Score: 4, Funny

      Besides, decades of research have improved those models to the extent that we can accurately predict the weather anywhere up to 20mins in the future.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    6. Re:Died of cancer... but why? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Funny

      You omit the fact that we've also made some strides in predicting what the past should have been.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  2. A hugely important concept... by 26199 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...and also one that's fun to play with (needs java).

  3. Overrated by 2.7182 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Its controversial that he was the first. A lot of people worked on this area. In fact, it is controversial that chaos will ever contribute to science in any way. The pure mathematical theory is very hard. See the work by Curt McMullen for example. Many people I know are very skeptical, and there are a lot of bad papers purporting to use chaos theory.

    1. Re:Overrated by 2.7182 · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK, this is going to get some people pissed, but it is my honest opinion and I am not doing this to troll. There are a lot of scientific areas that are promoted to get peoples careers going. In fact, they are largely vaporware. Here are some examples:

      1. Robotics. Most of academic robotics is pretty lame. The good people go into industry. Consider for example Michael Raibert and Big Dog. (Look on youtube.) This guy is a true genius, so he left MIT. Most robotics that you see in the media are really bad. Like Alan Alda talking to a robot that "has emotions".

      2. Wavelets. First of all, was invented a long time ago. Its just another choice of basis. Not clear if they are the best for compression or denoising. Look closely and you will see that classical harmonic analysis provides a good competing answer. Jpeg2000 may be better than jpg but not clear if it is due to the use of wavelets, or because of the fact that they had like 40 people working on the lossless coding scheme, which is an ad hoc heuristic. And besides, how many of us are using jpg2000 ? Finally, people I know that work in it say "I just use the haar basis". Haar found this basis in something like 1912.

      3. Chaos. By definition hard to appy to experimental science. As mention the mathematical theory is super hard. McMullen won a Fields medal for it. Work by Sullivan and Duordy is awesome, but they aren't claiming to connect it to experiments.

      4. Catastrophe theory. This was the 60s and 70s version of wavelets. Hardly mentioned in the media anyone, and mostly the people who work on it are pure mathematicians.

      5. Artificial intelligence. Goedel Escher Bach had our hopes up. But nothing ever happened. It' too hard. People claim breakthoughs all the time, but wheres the beef ?

      6. Computer vision. A total mess. They don't even read each others papers and are busy reproducing each other's work, with tends to be some hacks that work only in limited conditions. Remember the MIT face recognition program after 9/11 that was at the Statue of Liberty ? They failed it!

    2. Re:Overrated by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first step in producing an intelligent system is creating something that can constantly take in inputs and react to them in some intelligent way.

      People overlook how important Turing's original successes in producing the earlier computers were towards this goal, the fact that he was able to create a machine that was continuously able to react to inputs and respond to them in a much more dynamic way than mechanical systems is a good first step, the fact we even have computers is a major hurdle out the way in producing intelligent systems.

      AI suffers in that the more we understand about intelligence the less we actually attribute to intelligence. Intelligence is too often treated as some mystical thing that is unexplainable and just is, but the fact is at the end of the day it does just come down to sets of processes and knowledge - albeit extremely complex ones! The problem is in how do we produce something capable of performing processes on par with a human brain when the human brain is a massively powerful system that we just don't have the technology to create artificially on that scale yet.

      Of course there's also the question of defining intelligence in the first place, different people explain intelligence in different ways. Many people even redefine their understanding of intelligence many times in a single day, you may have person x deciding one person is stupid and unintelligent one minute because they failed a simple English exam yet they may decide their dog is intelligent the next because it lifted it's paw for that person when given a command to do so. It is the moving goalposts of what intelligence is that are often why intelligence often gets treated with such contempt as using the above example we may create a robot that could equally lift a robotic paw on being given the same voice command as a real dog, yet when the robot does it it's no longer classed as intelligent. It's hard if not impossible right now to create a system that would be capable of passing the English exam, but you can guarantee as soon as we could it would no longer be seen as an intelligent task due to the very fact that it had been handed on to a machine to perform.

      AI isn't impossible by any measure, we just have to have realistic expectations for it and realise when we've create a machine that has actually peformed an intelligent task. There is never going to be a mystical machine that's seen as being an amazing AI robot because it can walk like us, talk like us and act like us simply because by the time we are able to produce such a machine we will understand it well enough that the mysticism has gone and it's just another machine performing some task that we now understand that we can produce machines to perform.

  4. Why Lorenz's work was important by wickerprints · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Back in my college days, I visited the library and looked up Lorenz's paper, "Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow." On the face of it, the presentation was not particularly striking, nor did it seem significant on a superficial reading. That it was buried in a meteorology journal, rather than a mathematics or physics journal, only further obscured its importance.

    Lorenz's discovery was not so much about the specific nonlinear differential system (now named after him) that he discussed in the paper, nor was it about chaos theory as we now know it. The significance lay entirely in the notion that even simple dynamical systems can display sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and that when extrapolated to real-world phenomena, the intrinsic complexity of their behavior was all but inevitable.

    A chaotic system is not merely disordered, or random. There is an underlying structure. Call it a kind of orderly disorder. Prior to (and indeed, for some time after) Lorenz's work, physicists largely dismissed this possibility as absurd. We can, in such a system, model its state at some infinitesimal time t+dt after some given state at time t. We can do this quite accurately. But as Lorenz showed, the deterministic property is insufficient to imply that one can know the state of the system at any arbitrary time in the future. There is a difference between knowing how the future is calculated from the past, versus knowing what the future will actually be.

    Hence the chosen title. "Deterministic" = future states are well-defined from a known prior state. "Nonperiodic" = does not display cyclical behavior. "Flow" = fluid dynamics, in Lorenz's case, atmospheric convection.

    He is truly missed.

  5. Ray Bradbury story (1952) by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Time travelling hunter strays off path and kills a butterfly ... A Sound of Thunder

    Andy

  6. "flow "- not form fluid dynamics by S3D · · Score: 4, Informative

    Flow in the title of Lorentz paper is not a flow from fluid dynamics or physics. It's a purely mathematical term which mean a solution of differential equation (Lorentz equation in the case). In more general sense flow is a group action of R on the manifold - that is solution of the differential equation on the curved surface. It's studied by specific branches of mathematics - Differential (topological) dynamics, which in big parts owes its origination to the Lorentz paper. So the title of the paper really mean "Deterministic Nonperiodic Solutions"

  7. An experiment by Coppit · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a simple chaos experiment you can do at home... Turn on a faucet slightly so that it drips regularly. Then increment the flow slightly, and pretty soon the drips will come out in a non-regular way. Understanding the transition from regular to irregular is part of what chaos theory is about.