Mixing
How does one figure out a function that models a phenomenon, say an electrical component? [on hold]
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
How does one figure out a function that models a phenomenon, say an electrical component?
Is it by measuring input and output and then estimating what the function between does? Then trying to parse together a function that estimates it?
How does one know, when a phenomena requires differentials?
mathematical-modeling
asked yesterday
mavavilj
2,6121832
put on hold as too broad by spaceisdarkgreen, amWhy, Rebellos, jgon, user10354138 yesterday
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
How does one figure out a function that models a phenomenon, say an electrical component?
Is it by measuring input and output and then estimating what the function between does? Then trying to parse together a function that estimates it?
How does one know, when a phenomena requires differentials?
mathematical-modeling
asked yesterday
mavavilj
2,6121832
put on hold as too broad by spaceisdarkgreen, amWhy, Rebellos, jgon, user10354138 yesterday
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
This is probably going to be closed as too broad, unless you provide a specific example you're working on.
– Adrian Keister
yesterday
Do you mean a physical formula?
– klirk
yesterday
Historically speaking, a lot of natural phenomena that occur first get studied by experiment. Someone designates a control, and parameters to vary to see what changes and how, and gathers empirical evidence to plot on a graph and analyze. If it varies with time, they may consider it to be a differential equation to solve. (For example, gravity). Once a scientist has an idea, they'll probably consult reference texts to devolve all the physical pieces of their experiment to derive an equation logically.
– Decaf-Math
yesterday
I'm particularly looking to identify as to what's the relationships or order between "formulas" and "empirical".
– mavavilj
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
How does one figure out a function that models a phenomenon, say an electrical component?
Is it by measuring input and output and then estimating what the function between does? Then trying to parse together a function that estimates it?
How does one know, when a phenomena requires differentials?
mathematical-modeling
asked yesterday
mavavilj
2,6121832
How does one figure out a function that models a phenomenon, say an electrical component?
Is it by measuring input and output and then estimating what the function between does? Then trying to parse together a function that estimates it?
How does one know, when a phenomena requires differentials?
mathematical-modeling
mathematical-modeling
asked yesterday
mavavilj
2,6121832
asked yesterday
mavavilj
2,6121832
asked yesterday
mavavilj
2,6121832
asked yesterday
mavavilj
2,6121832
asked yesterday
mavavilj
2,6121832
2,6121832
put on hold as too broad by spaceisdarkgreen, amWhy, Rebellos, jgon, user10354138 yesterday
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as too broad by spaceisdarkgreen, amWhy, Rebellos, jgon, user10354138 yesterday
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
This is probably going to be closed as too broad, unless you provide a specific example you're working on.
– Adrian Keister
yesterday
Do you mean a physical formula?
– klirk
yesterday
Historically speaking, a lot of natural phenomena that occur first get studied by experiment. Someone designates a control, and parameters to vary to see what changes and how, and gathers empirical evidence to plot on a graph and analyze. If it varies with time, they may consider it to be a differential equation to solve. (For example, gravity). Once a scientist has an idea, they'll probably consult reference texts to devolve all the physical pieces of their experiment to derive an equation logically.
– Decaf-Math
yesterday
I'm particularly looking to identify as to what's the relationships or order between "formulas" and "empirical".
– mavavilj
yesterday
add a comment |
This is probably going to be closed as too broad, unless you provide a specific example you're working on.
– Adrian Keister
yesterday
Do you mean a physical formula?
– klirk
yesterday
Historically speaking, a lot of natural phenomena that occur first get studied by experiment. Someone designates a control, and parameters to vary to see what changes and how, and gathers empirical evidence to plot on a graph and analyze. If it varies with time, they may consider it to be a differential equation to solve. (For example, gravity). Once a scientist has an idea, they'll probably consult reference texts to devolve all the physical pieces of their experiment to derive an equation logically.
– Decaf-Math
yesterday
I'm particularly looking to identify as to what's the relationships or order between "formulas" and "empirical".
– mavavilj
yesterday
This is probably going to be closed as too broad, unless you provide a specific example you're working on.
– Adrian Keister
yesterday
This is probably going to be closed as too broad, unless you provide a specific example you're working on.
– Adrian Keister
yesterday
Do you mean a physical formula?
– klirk
yesterday
Do you mean a physical formula?
– klirk
yesterday
Historically speaking, a lot of natural phenomena that occur first get studied by experiment. Someone designates a control, and parameters to vary to see what changes and how, and gathers empirical evidence to plot on a graph and analyze. If it varies with time, they may consider it to be a differential equation to solve. (For example, gravity). Once a scientist has an idea, they'll probably consult reference texts to devolve all the physical pieces of their experiment to derive an equation logically.
– Decaf-Math
yesterday
Historically speaking, a lot of natural phenomena that occur first get studied by experiment. Someone designates a control, and parameters to vary to see what changes and how, and gathers empirical evidence to plot on a graph and analyze. If it varies with time, they may consider it to be a differential equation to solve. (For example, gravity). Once a scientist has an idea, they'll probably consult reference texts to devolve all the physical pieces of their experiment to derive an equation logically.
– Decaf-Math
yesterday
I'm particularly looking to identify as to what's the relationships or order between "formulas" and "empirical".
– mavavilj
yesterday
I'm particularly looking to identify as to what's the relationships or order between "formulas" and "empirical".
– mavavilj
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Although there are many names for this process (you might even say it is literally the base notion of theoretical physics), a common identifier for this sort of thing in the scientific world these days is system identification.
A brief and general way of describing how the process works is the following.
- You have some inputs, which when given to your system generate a series of outputs.
- You then find some number of countable (although possibly infinite) parameters that can fully describe any possible behavior your system could possess.
- You then use your information about the relationships between inputs and outputs to narrow down the form of the parameters your system could display—and by extension, you narrow down the behavior of the system itself.
Very often, this is complemented by external knowledge about how you predict the system to behave—for example, knowing a finite amount of voltage will not generate infinite current or something like that.
A superfluous opinion: many physicists and engineers use the framework of Hilbert spaces to develop physical models because it provides a wealth of independent descriptive parameters of the type I mention above; namely, the coefficients of a generalized Fourier series describing an operator.
answered yesterday
aghostinthefigures
1,0961215
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Although there are many names for this process (you might even say it is literally the base notion of theoretical physics), a common identifier for this sort of thing in the scientific world these days is system identification.
A brief and general way of describing how the process works is the following.
- You have some inputs, which when given to your system generate a series of outputs.
- You then find some number of countable (although possibly infinite) parameters that can fully describe any possible behavior your system could possess.
- You then use your information about the relationships between inputs and outputs to narrow down the form of the parameters your system could display—and by extension, you narrow down the behavior of the system itself.
Very often, this is complemented by external knowledge about how you predict the system to behave—for example, knowing a finite amount of voltage will not generate infinite current or something like that.
A superfluous opinion: many physicists and engineers use the framework of Hilbert spaces to develop physical models because it provides a wealth of independent descriptive parameters of the type I mention above; namely, the coefficients of a generalized Fourier series describing an operator.
answered yesterday
aghostinthefigures
1,0961215
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Although there are many names for this process (you might even say it is literally the base notion of theoretical physics), a common identifier for this sort of thing in the scientific world these days is system identification.
A brief and general way of describing how the process works is the following.
- You have some inputs, which when given to your system generate a series of outputs.
- You then find some number of countable (although possibly infinite) parameters that can fully describe any possible behavior your system could possess.
- You then use your information about the relationships between inputs and outputs to narrow down the form of the parameters your system could display—and by extension, you narrow down the behavior of the system itself.
Very often, this is complemented by external knowledge about how you predict the system to behave—for example, knowing a finite amount of voltage will not generate infinite current or something like that.
A superfluous opinion: many physicists and engineers use the framework of Hilbert spaces to develop physical models because it provides a wealth of independent descriptive parameters of the type I mention above; namely, the coefficients of a generalized Fourier series describing an operator.
answered yesterday
aghostinthefigures
1,0961215
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Although there are many names for this process (you might even say it is literally the base notion of theoretical physics), a common identifier for this sort of thing in the scientific world these days is system identification.
A brief and general way of describing how the process works is the following.
- You have some inputs, which when given to your system generate a series of outputs.
- You then find some number of countable (although possibly infinite) parameters that can fully describe any possible behavior your system could possess.
- You then use your information about the relationships between inputs and outputs to narrow down the form of the parameters your system could display—and by extension, you narrow down the behavior of the system itself.
Very often, this is complemented by external knowledge about how you predict the system to behave—for example, knowing a finite amount of voltage will not generate infinite current or something like that.
A superfluous opinion: many physicists and engineers use the framework of Hilbert spaces to develop physical models because it provides a wealth of independent descriptive parameters of the type I mention above; namely, the coefficients of a generalized Fourier series describing an operator.
answered yesterday
aghostinthefigures
1,0961215
Although there are many names for this process (you might even say it is literally the base notion of theoretical physics), a common identifier for this sort of thing in the scientific world these days is system identification.
A brief and general way of describing how the process works is the following.
- You have some inputs, which when given to your system generate a series of outputs.
- You then find some number of countable (although possibly infinite) parameters that can fully describe any possible behavior your system could possess.
- You then use your information about the relationships between inputs and outputs to narrow down the form of the parameters your system could display—and by extension, you narrow down the behavior of the system itself.
Very often, this is complemented by external knowledge about how you predict the system to behave—for example, knowing a finite amount of voltage will not generate infinite current or something like that.
A superfluous opinion: many physicists and engineers use the framework of Hilbert spaces to develop physical models because it provides a wealth of independent descriptive parameters of the type I mention above; namely, the coefficients of a generalized Fourier series describing an operator.
answered yesterday
aghostinthefigures
1,0961215
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
aghostinthefigures
1,0961215
answered yesterday
aghostinthefigures
1,0961215
answered yesterday
aghostinthefigures
1,0961215
1,0961215
add a comment |
add a comment |
This is probably going to be closed as too broad, unless you provide a specific example you're working on.
– Adrian Keister
yesterday
Do you mean a physical formula?
– klirk
yesterday
Historically speaking, a lot of natural phenomena that occur first get studied by experiment. Someone designates a control, and parameters to vary to see what changes and how, and gathers empirical evidence to plot on a graph and analyze. If it varies with time, they may consider it to be a differential equation to solve. (For example, gravity). Once a scientist has an idea, they'll probably consult reference texts to devolve all the physical pieces of their experiment to derive an equation logically.
– Decaf-Math
yesterday
I'm particularly looking to identify as to what's the relationships or order between "formulas" and "empirical".
– mavavilj
yesterday