Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Mathematics always surprises us with how naturally it can model things that feel alive and real. Here, an abstract graph becomes a living Neural Network, carrying signals through branching connections into a central hypergraph.

Mathelirium

78,916 subscribers

26,734 просмотров • 2 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

In Mathematics, a graph is defined as G = (V, E)... a collection of vertices V joined by edges E. From this deceptively simple idea emerges a living neural world, where signals race through a cortical graph and converge upon a morphing hypergraph core, revealing how abstract Mathematics can be transformed into something that appears almost alive.

In Mathematics, a graph is defined as G = (V, E)... a collection of vertices V joined by edges E. From this deceptively simple idea emerges a living neural world, where signals race through a cortical graph and converge upon a morphing hypergraph core, revealing how abstract Mathematics can be transformed into something that appears almost alive.

Mathelirium

20,959 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

A Neural Network Can Grow New Neurons Where It Is Confused? In 1994, Bernd Fritzke published A Growing Neural Gas Network Learns Topologies. He introduced a network that starts small, follows incoming data, and inserts new neurons where its error is highest. In the animation, the fog is the drifting data. The glowing nodes are neurons. The fibers are learned connections. The network grows into a living skeleton of the manifold.

A Neural Network Can Grow New Neurons Where It Is Confused? In 1994, Bernd Fritzke published A Growing Neural Gas Network Learns Topologies. He introduced a network that starts small, follows incoming data, and inserts new neurons where its error is highest. In the animation, the fog is the drifting data. The glowing nodes are neurons. The fibers are learned connections. The network grows into a living skeleton of the manifold.

Mathelirium

38,306 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

A network is one of the most powerful ideas in Mathematics. A simple graph G = (V, E) can grow, carry flow, lose branches, repair itself, and start to feel almost alive. Here, the lifelike motion comes from changing connectivity, pressure, memory, and adaptation. The same concept helps model blood vessels, neurons, ecosystems, the internet, power grids, social systems, and the spread of information.

A network is one of the most powerful ideas in Mathematics. A simple graph G = (V, E) can grow, carry flow, lose branches, repair itself, and start to feel almost alive. Here, the lifelike motion comes from changing connectivity, pressure, memory, and adaptation. The same concept helps model blood vessels, neurons, ecosystems, the internet, power grids, social systems, and the spread of information.

Mathelirium

22,370 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Quantum Entanglement is difficult to picture because the correlations belong to the quantum state as a whole, and not to little signals travelling between particles. Here, I represent a many-body quantum state as a changing graph and hypergraph. Pairwise correlations form the luminous links

Quantum Entanglement is difficult to picture because the correlations belong to the quantum state as a whole, and not to little signals travelling between particles. Here, I represent a many-body quantum state as a changing graph and hypergraph. Pairwise correlations form the luminous links

Mathelirium

37,668 просмотров • 13 дней назад

This isn't VFX visual effects...it's actual freakin physics! 🤯🤩🤗🙌🏾 You're watching the physics of space and matter coevolve...a small window into the kind of world Wolfram Physics Wolfram predicts. Every ripple, collision, and shimmer you see is a causal event in a living hypergraph. Space itself is an active network of nodes and links...springs and diagonals...constantly stretching, relaxing, and rewriting as the system evolves. Each interaction you see...a nutrient diffusing through the medium, a burrower tunneling, a tentacle feeling drag...is a computation of spacetime itself. Every connection that forms or breaks is an update to the causal structure: a new link, a new moment in the unfolding hypergraph universe. Our environment behaves like an adaptive fabric...the lattice tightens where organisms stir it, loosens where they pass. Chemical fields spread through those same links, feeding back into motion and growth. When the cluster pulsates, it's literally reorganizing local causal geometry...matter and space changing together!👌🏾 We even test causal invariance frame by frame, swapping operation orders to ensure that spacetime remains consistent no matter the update path. That's not animation logic...that's a computational physics experiment running live!🥳 Tentacles feel friction, burrowers dig through gradients, and behind them the lattice stiffens, storing history as structure. #Mathematics #Physics #WolframPhysics #Mathelirium

This isn't VFX visual effects...it's actual freakin physics! 🤯🤩🤗🙌🏾 You're watching the physics of space and matter coevolve...a small window into the kind of world Wolfram Physics Wolfram predicts. Every ripple, collision, and shimmer you see is a causal event in a living hypergraph. Space itself is an active network of nodes and links...springs and diagonals...constantly stretching, relaxing, and rewriting as the system evolves. Each interaction you see...a nutrient diffusing through the medium, a burrower tunneling, a tentacle feeling drag...is a computation of spacetime itself. Every connection that forms or breaks is an update to the causal structure: a new link, a new moment in the unfolding hypergraph universe. Our environment behaves like an adaptive fabric...the lattice tightens where organisms stir it, loosens where they pass. Chemical fields spread through those same links, feeding back into motion and growth. When the cluster pulsates, it's literally reorganizing local causal geometry...matter and space changing together!👌🏾 We even test causal invariance frame by frame, swapping operation orders to ensure that spacetime remains consistent no matter the update path. That's not animation logic...that's a computational physics experiment running live!🥳 Tentacles feel friction, burrowers dig through gradients, and behind them the lattice stiffens, storing history as structure. #Mathematics #Physics #WolframPhysics #Mathelirium

Mathelirium

20,090 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

The Mathematics of Moving a Cursor with Neural Signals What might Neuralink Neuralink be doing Mathematically? Consider the task of moving a cursor without touching it. The machine is not looking for a full thought, a sentence, or an image. For this Control problem, the useful object is an intended movement state. sₜ = (pₜ, vₜ) Here, pₜ is the cursor position at time t, and vₜ is the velocity the user is trying to express. The implant records neural activity through many electrode channels, then the decoder tries to estimate vₜ from that activity. Neuralink’s PRIME material describes the N1 Implant as recording and transmitting brain activity with the goal of enabling computer control. For channel i, a simple population model is rᵢ(t) ≈ bᵢ + aᵢ max(0, dᵢ · vₜ) + ηᵢ(t) where rᵢ(t) is the measured activity, bᵢ is baseline activity, aᵢ is channel gain, dᵢ is the channel’s preferred movement direction, and ηᵢ(t) is noise. One channel is not the command. The useful signal is the pattern across many channels: rₜ = (r₁(t), r₂(t), …, rₙ(t)) The decoder subtracts the baseline vector b and applies a learned map W: v̂ₜ = W(rₜ − b) This gives an estimate of the intended velocity. The cursor then updates by pₜ₊₁ = pₜ + Δt v̂ₜ This is the loop shown in the render: neural activity -> decoded velocity -> cursor motion The cortical network and electrode threads show the measurement side. The N1 Implant is described as using 1,024 electrodes distributed across 64 flexible threads, each thinner than a human hair. The decoder panel shows the computational side with activity rₜ, decoded velocity v̂ₜ, and the cursor state pₜ changing over time. A noisy biological pattern becomes a state estimate. That estimate becomes motion on a screen. Therefore, the first lesson is not that Neuralink makes the brain a screen. For cursor control, the Mathematics is more precise: A small piece of intention is represented as a hidden state, measured through neural activity, decoded as a vector, and turned into action. #Neuralink #BrainComputerInterface #NeuralEngineering #Mathematics #StateEstimation #Neuroscience #MachineLearning #BiomedicalEngineering

The Mathematics of Moving a Cursor with Neural Signals What might Neuralink Neuralink be doing Mathematically? Consider the task of moving a cursor without touching it. The machine is not looking for a full thought, a sentence, or an image. For this Control problem, the useful object is an intended movement state. sₜ = (pₜ, vₜ) Here, pₜ is the cursor position at time t, and vₜ is the velocity the user is trying to express. The implant records neural activity through many electrode channels, then the decoder tries to estimate vₜ from that activity. Neuralink’s PRIME material describes the N1 Implant as recording and transmitting brain activity with the goal of enabling computer control. For channel i, a simple population model is rᵢ(t) ≈ bᵢ + aᵢ max(0, dᵢ · vₜ) + ηᵢ(t) where rᵢ(t) is the measured activity, bᵢ is baseline activity, aᵢ is channel gain, dᵢ is the channel’s preferred movement direction, and ηᵢ(t) is noise. One channel is not the command. The useful signal is the pattern across many channels: rₜ = (r₁(t), r₂(t), …, rₙ(t)) The decoder subtracts the baseline vector b and applies a learned map W: v̂ₜ = W(rₜ − b) This gives an estimate of the intended velocity. The cursor then updates by pₜ₊₁ = pₜ + Δt v̂ₜ This is the loop shown in the render: neural activity -> decoded velocity -> cursor motion The cortical network and electrode threads show the measurement side. The N1 Implant is described as using 1,024 electrodes distributed across 64 flexible threads, each thinner than a human hair. The decoder panel shows the computational side with activity rₜ, decoded velocity v̂ₜ, and the cursor state pₜ changing over time. A noisy biological pattern becomes a state estimate. That estimate becomes motion on a screen. Therefore, the first lesson is not that Neuralink makes the brain a screen. For cursor control, the Mathematics is more precise: A small piece of intention is represented as a hidden state, measured through neural activity, decoded as a vector, and turned into action. #Neuralink #BrainComputerInterface #NeuralEngineering #Mathematics #StateEstimation #Neuroscience #MachineLearning #BiomedicalEngineering

Mathelirium

14,520 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

A neural network can begin as a flat sheet and learn the shape of hidden data A self-organizing map turns learning into geometry. Each data point pulls one winning neuron toward it, but nearby neurons move too, and so the whole lattice bends without losing its neighborhood structure. The strange part is that the network is not given the roll shape. It discovers the shape through competition and local cooperation. Paper: Self-Organized Formation of Topologically Correct Feature Maps Authors: Teuvo Kohonen Year: 1982

A neural network can begin as a flat sheet and learn the shape of hidden data A self-organizing map turns learning into geometry. Each data point pulls one winning neuron toward it, but nearby neurons move too, and so the whole lattice bends without losing its neighborhood structure. The strange part is that the network is not given the roll shape. It discovers the shape through competition and local cooperation. Paper: Self-Organized Formation of Topologically Correct Feature Maps Authors: Teuvo Kohonen Year: 1982

Mathelirium

130,081 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

What are Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are neural nets trained to satisfy a differential equation. The trick is simple. You bake the PDE residual straight into the loss. They came out of a very practical pain point. Classical PDE pipelines can be amazing, but they often demand a lot of setup work. Meshes. Stencils. Stability tuning. And once you build a solver, it’s usually tied to one geometry and one discretization choice. A PINN flips the workflow. You represent the solution itself as a smooth function uᵩ(x,t) and you enforce the physics wherever you choose to sample the domain. Most people first meet PINNs in the least helpful way. A pretty solution surface, almost no clarity on what was enforced to make it appear. In this series we keep the enforcement visible. We pick a PDE, represent the unknown solution as a flexible function, measure how badly that function violates the equation across the domain, and train it to reduce that mismatch at the points we sample. A normal neural net learns from labels. You give it inputs and target outputs. A PINN learns from an equation. You give it inputs (x,t), and it gets penalized whenever its output fails the PDE. Smaller mismatch means smaller loss. Bigger mismatch means bigger loss. That’s all “punish” and “reward” mean here. The network isn’t replacing physics. It’s just a flexible function that we force to obey the same calculus you’d demand from any candidate solution. The math breakdown: We start with a PDE on a domain Ω. Write it as uₜ(x,t) + N(u(x,t), uₓ(x,t), uₓₓ(x,t), …) = 0 for (x,t) in Ω A PINN replaces the unknown u with a neural network output uᵩ(x,t) Now define the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = ∂uᵩ/∂t + N(uᵩ, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², …) If uᵩ were an exact solution, we’d have rᵩ(x,t) = 0 everywhere. We may also have data points (xᵢ,tᵢ,uᵢ) from measurements or from an initial condition. The training objective is a weighted sum of squared errors L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ) with L_data(ᵩ) = meanᵢ |uᵩ(xᵢ,tᵢ) − uᵢ|² L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|² where (xⱼ,tⱼ) are collocation points in Ω L_bc/ic(ᵩ) = penalties enforcing boundary conditions and initial conditions The key technical step is how we get the derivatives inside rᵩ. We don’t approximate them with finite differences. We compute them with automatic differentiation: ∂uᵩ/∂t, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², … Then we differentiate the total loss L(ᵩ) with respect to ᵩ and train with gradient descent. That’s the whole idea. Learn a function, but make the PDE part of the loss, so the network is trained to be a solution, not just a curve-fitter. In the render, the main 3D surface is the network’s current guess uᵩ(x,t), drawn as a living sheet over the (x,t) plane. Hovering above is the neural scaffold, a visible graph of feature nodes and connections. The bright tension threads are the physics residual rᵩ(x,t). Each thread tethers a collocation bead on the sheet up to the scaffold, and it thickens and brightens exactly where |rᵩ| is large, with color showing the sign. As training runs, those threads go slack across the domain, not because we hid the error, but because the network has actually been pushed toward rᵩ(x,t) ≈ 0. #PINNs #ScientificMachineLearning #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

What are Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are neural nets trained to satisfy a differential equation. The trick is simple. You bake the PDE residual straight into the loss. They came out of a very practical pain point. Classical PDE pipelines can be amazing, but they often demand a lot of setup work. Meshes. Stencils. Stability tuning. And once you build a solver, it’s usually tied to one geometry and one discretization choice. A PINN flips the workflow. You represent the solution itself as a smooth function uᵩ(x,t) and you enforce the physics wherever you choose to sample the domain. Most people first meet PINNs in the least helpful way. A pretty solution surface, almost no clarity on what was enforced to make it appear. In this series we keep the enforcement visible. We pick a PDE, represent the unknown solution as a flexible function, measure how badly that function violates the equation across the domain, and train it to reduce that mismatch at the points we sample. A normal neural net learns from labels. You give it inputs and target outputs. A PINN learns from an equation. You give it inputs (x,t), and it gets penalized whenever its output fails the PDE. Smaller mismatch means smaller loss. Bigger mismatch means bigger loss. That’s all “punish” and “reward” mean here. The network isn’t replacing physics. It’s just a flexible function that we force to obey the same calculus you’d demand from any candidate solution. The math breakdown: We start with a PDE on a domain Ω. Write it as uₜ(x,t) + N(u(x,t), uₓ(x,t), uₓₓ(x,t), …) = 0 for (x,t) in Ω A PINN replaces the unknown u with a neural network output uᵩ(x,t) Now define the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = ∂uᵩ/∂t + N(uᵩ, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², …) If uᵩ were an exact solution, we’d have rᵩ(x,t) = 0 everywhere. We may also have data points (xᵢ,tᵢ,uᵢ) from measurements or from an initial condition. The training objective is a weighted sum of squared errors L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ) with L_data(ᵩ) = meanᵢ |uᵩ(xᵢ,tᵢ) − uᵢ|² L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|² where (xⱼ,tⱼ) are collocation points in Ω L_bc/ic(ᵩ) = penalties enforcing boundary conditions and initial conditions The key technical step is how we get the derivatives inside rᵩ. We don’t approximate them with finite differences. We compute them with automatic differentiation: ∂uᵩ/∂t, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², … Then we differentiate the total loss L(ᵩ) with respect to ᵩ and train with gradient descent. That’s the whole idea. Learn a function, but make the PDE part of the loss, so the network is trained to be a solution, not just a curve-fitter. In the render, the main 3D surface is the network’s current guess uᵩ(x,t), drawn as a living sheet over the (x,t) plane. Hovering above is the neural scaffold, a visible graph of feature nodes and connections. The bright tension threads are the physics residual rᵩ(x,t). Each thread tethers a collocation bead on the sheet up to the scaffold, and it thickens and brightens exactly where |rᵩ| is large, with color showing the sign. As training runs, those threads go slack across the domain, not because we hid the error, but because the network has actually been pushed toward rᵩ(x,t) ≈ 0. #PINNs #ScientificMachineLearning #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

Mathelirium

44,843 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

A Million-Dollar Storm Mathematics Still Cannot Tame. Turbulence matters because it is the default behavior of real fluids once motion becomes strong enough, e.g. air over wings, blood through vessels, weather in the atmosphere, water in oceans, fuel in engines, and flow in pipes and turbines. We can write down the Navier-Stokes equations for all of this, but in 3D one of the deepest open questions is still whether smooth solutions always stay smooth, or can break down in finite time. That is crucial because it asks whether the basic equations of fluid motion remain mathematically under control forever, or can form a true singularity where the theory itself breaks. Solve that and you got yourself a million dollars

A Million-Dollar Storm Mathematics Still Cannot Tame. Turbulence matters because it is the default behavior of real fluids once motion becomes strong enough, e.g. air over wings, blood through vessels, weather in the atmosphere, water in oceans, fuel in engines, and flow in pipes and turbines. We can write down the Navier-Stokes equations for all of this, but in 3D one of the deepest open questions is still whether smooth solutions always stay smooth, or can break down in finite time. That is crucial because it asks whether the basic equations of fluid motion remain mathematically under control forever, or can form a true singularity where the theory itself breaks. Solve that and you got yourself a million dollars

Mathelirium

30,056 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

When Light Becomes Heavy Enough to Trap Itself Can light collapse into a black hole? In General Relativity, light is not weightless in the geometric sense. It has energy, it carries momentum, and energy curves Spacetime. A Vaidya-type collapse describes a mass that grows because radiation is falling inward. The mathematics is the same brutal idea behind Einstein’s equation Gᵤᵥ = 8πTᵤᵥ If the stress-energy Tᵤᵥ is made from radiation, then light itself becomes a source of curvature. As more radiation falls inward, the mass aspect grows, the Spacetime fabric tightens, and a clean black horizon appears where escaping paths begin to fail. #GeneralRelativity #EinsteinEquations #BlackHole #Spacetime #Astrophysics #TheoreticalPhysics #Light #Mathematics #Science

When Light Becomes Heavy Enough to Trap Itself Can light collapse into a black hole? In General Relativity, light is not weightless in the geometric sense. It has energy, it carries momentum, and energy curves Spacetime. A Vaidya-type collapse describes a mass that grows because radiation is falling inward. The mathematics is the same brutal idea behind Einstein’s equation Gᵤᵥ = 8πTᵤᵥ If the stress-energy Tᵤᵥ is made from radiation, then light itself becomes a source of curvature. As more radiation falls inward, the mass aspect grows, the Spacetime fabric tightens, and a clean black horizon appears where escaping paths begin to fail. #GeneralRelativity #EinsteinEquations #BlackHole #Spacetime #Astrophysics #TheoreticalPhysics #Light #Mathematics #Science

Mathelirium

27,760 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Ever wondered what’s happening inside an AI’s “brain”? This is a neural network in action, taking raw data and transforming it into decisions through thousands of layered calculations. Each layer extracts patterns, refines signals, and passes smarter information forward, slowly turning noise into meaning. It’s not thinking like a human but it is learning, adapting, and improving with every pass. What looks like chaos is actually pure math shaping intelligence in real time

Ever wondered what’s happening inside an AI’s “brain”? This is a neural network in action, taking raw data and transforming it into decisions through thousands of layered calculations. Each layer extracts patterns, refines signals, and passes smarter information forward, slowly turning noise into meaning. It’s not thinking like a human but it is learning, adapting, and improving with every pass. What looks like chaos is actually pure math shaping intelligence in real time

Kekius Maximus

37,481 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

What if Your Neural Network Was Forced to Obey Physics? Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are neural networks trained to satisfy a differential equation by building the PDE residual directly into the loss. They emerged from a very practical problem...classical PDE pipelines can be brilliant, but they often demand heavy discretization work (meshes, stencils, stability tuning), and the method you build is usually tied to one geometry and one solver setup. A PINN flips the workflow by representing the solution itself as a smooth function uᵩ(x,t) and enforcing the physics everywhere you choose to sample the domain. People often meet PINNs in the least helpful way...via a flashy solution plot, and almost no explanation of what was enforced to get it. In this series we keep the enforcement visible. We pick a differential equation, represent the unknown solution as a flexible function, measure how well that function satisfies the equation across the domain, and train it to reduce that mismatch everywhere we sample. A normal neural net learns from labels...you give it inputs and target outputs. A PINN learns from a differential equation...you give it inputs (x,t) and it gets punished whenever its output fails the PDE. By punish we mean that the loss increases when the mismatch is large we reward it if the loss decreases as the mismatch gets smaller. The network isn’t replacing physics, it’s becoming a flexible function that is forced to satisfy the same calculus you’d impose on any candidate solution. The math breakdown: We start with a PDE we want to solve on a domain Ω. Write it as uₜ(x,t) + N(u(x,t), uₓ(x,t), uₓₓ(x,t), …) = 0 for (x,t) in Ω A PINN replaces the unknown function u with a neural network output uᵩ(x,t) Now define the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = ∂uᵩ/∂t + N(uᵩ, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², …) If uᵩ were an exact solution, we would have rᵩ(x,t) = 0 everywhere. We may also have data points (xᵢ,tᵢ,uᵢ) from measurements or a known initial condition. The training objective is just a weighted sum of squared errors L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ) with L_data(ᵩ) = meanᵢ |uᵩ(xᵢ,tᵢ) − uᵢ|² L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|² where (xⱼ,tⱼ) are the collocation points in Ω L_bc/ic(ᵩ) = penalties enforcing boundary conditions and initial conditions The key technical step is that the derivatives inside rᵩ are computed by automatic differentiation ∂uᵩ/∂t, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², … So we can differentiate the total loss L(ᵩ) with respect to ᵩ and train with gradient descent. This is the whole idea behind PINNs. Learn a function, but make the PDE part of the loss, so the network is trained to be a solution, not just a curve-fitter. In the render, the main 3D surface is the network’s current guess uᵩ(x,t), drawn as a living sheet over the (x,t) plane. Hovering above is the neural scaffold...a visible graph of feature nodes and connections. The bright tension threads are the physics residual rᵩ(x,t): each thread tethers a collocation bead on the sheet up to the scaffold, and it thickens and brightens exactly where |rᵩ| is large (color encodes the sign). As training runs, those threads go slack across the domain not because we hid the error, but because the network has actually been pushed toward rᵩ(x,t) ≈ 0. #PINNs #PhysicsInformedNeuralNetworks #ScientificMachineLearning #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

What if Your Neural Network Was Forced to Obey Physics? Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are neural networks trained to satisfy a differential equation by building the PDE residual directly into the loss. They emerged from a very practical problem...classical PDE pipelines can be brilliant, but they often demand heavy discretization work (meshes, stencils, stability tuning), and the method you build is usually tied to one geometry and one solver setup. A PINN flips the workflow by representing the solution itself as a smooth function uᵩ(x,t) and enforcing the physics everywhere you choose to sample the domain. People often meet PINNs in the least helpful way...via a flashy solution plot, and almost no explanation of what was enforced to get it. In this series we keep the enforcement visible. We pick a differential equation, represent the unknown solution as a flexible function, measure how well that function satisfies the equation across the domain, and train it to reduce that mismatch everywhere we sample. A normal neural net learns from labels...you give it inputs and target outputs. A PINN learns from a differential equation...you give it inputs (x,t) and it gets punished whenever its output fails the PDE. By punish we mean that the loss increases when the mismatch is large we reward it if the loss decreases as the mismatch gets smaller. The network isn’t replacing physics, it’s becoming a flexible function that is forced to satisfy the same calculus you’d impose on any candidate solution. The math breakdown: We start with a PDE we want to solve on a domain Ω. Write it as uₜ(x,t) + N(u(x,t), uₓ(x,t), uₓₓ(x,t), …) = 0 for (x,t) in Ω A PINN replaces the unknown function u with a neural network output uᵩ(x,t) Now define the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = ∂uᵩ/∂t + N(uᵩ, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², …) If uᵩ were an exact solution, we would have rᵩ(x,t) = 0 everywhere. We may also have data points (xᵢ,tᵢ,uᵢ) from measurements or a known initial condition. The training objective is just a weighted sum of squared errors L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ) with L_data(ᵩ) = meanᵢ |uᵩ(xᵢ,tᵢ) − uᵢ|² L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|² where (xⱼ,tⱼ) are the collocation points in Ω L_bc/ic(ᵩ) = penalties enforcing boundary conditions and initial conditions The key technical step is that the derivatives inside rᵩ are computed by automatic differentiation ∂uᵩ/∂t, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², … So we can differentiate the total loss L(ᵩ) with respect to ᵩ and train with gradient descent. This is the whole idea behind PINNs. Learn a function, but make the PDE part of the loss, so the network is trained to be a solution, not just a curve-fitter. In the render, the main 3D surface is the network’s current guess uᵩ(x,t), drawn as a living sheet over the (x,t) plane. Hovering above is the neural scaffold...a visible graph of feature nodes and connections. The bright tension threads are the physics residual rᵩ(x,t): each thread tethers a collocation bead on the sheet up to the scaffold, and it thickens and brightens exactly where |rᵩ| is large (color encodes the sign). As training runs, those threads go slack across the domain not because we hid the error, but because the network has actually been pushed toward rᵩ(x,t) ≈ 0. #PINNs #PhysicsInformedNeuralNetworks #ScientificMachineLearning #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

Mathelirium

17,459 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The beautiful things we can draw using mathematics 😍😍😍

The beautiful things we can draw using mathematics 😍😍😍

Mathelirium

79,400 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

You can be right, or you can choose love. Choosing connection instead of letting little things create separation. That is how love becomes UNBREAKABLE, through an evolution that is earned. 🔒✨ Connection is always a choice. And when you choose it again and again, love earns its strength. ❤️‍🔥 #DateWithDestiny2025

You can be right, or you can choose love. Choosing connection instead of letting little things create separation. That is how love becomes UNBREAKABLE, through an evolution that is earned. 🔒✨ Connection is always a choice. And when you choose it again and again, love earns its strength. ❤️‍🔥 #DateWithDestiny2025

Tony Robbins

25,747 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

The Machine That Learns The Law Behind The Data A very very interesting US Patent US10963540B2 - Physics Informed Learning Machine describes a learning system that does not begin with data alone. It begins with a physical model, usually written as a differential equation (or PDE) dx/dt = f(x,t) A normal Machine Learning model sees scattered data and tries to fit it. A physics-informed learning machine starts with a law. Then it treats the data as evidence that updates what the model believes about the physical system. For this application, I use the patent idea on NASA C-MAPSS Turbofan engine data. The machine watches multivariate telemetry from a degrading engine and infers a hidden health state that is not measured directly. From that posterior belief, it estimates the engine’s remaining useful life. In the main 3D scene, the engine lifetime is turned into a tunnel. The spiral ribbons are real sensor channels evolving over cycle-time. The glowing core is the inferred health state. The surrounding cloud is uncertainty. The orange wall ahead is the predicted failure horizon. So the big picture is: sensor evidence comes in, posterior belief tightens, and the machine moves from uncertainty toward a concrete failure prediction. The inset posteriors make that explicit. The health posterior shows where the model believes the hidden engine condition sits at the current moment, and how sharply it believes it. The RUL posterior shows the same idea for remaining life... early on it is broad, later it shifts left and narrows as the machine becomes more certain about how close failure is. This idea is not limited to engines. The same idea can apply to data centers, CPUs, GPUs, cooling systems, power grids, robotics, batteries, and any machine that produces telemetry while obeying physical constraints. In an age where machine learning runs on massive hardware infrastructure, this kind of model matters: it can turn noisy sensor streams into early warnings before expensive systems fail.

The Machine That Learns The Law Behind The Data A very very interesting US Patent US10963540B2 - Physics Informed Learning Machine describes a learning system that does not begin with data alone. It begins with a physical model, usually written as a differential equation (or PDE) dx/dt = f(x,t) A normal Machine Learning model sees scattered data and tries to fit it. A physics-informed learning machine starts with a law. Then it treats the data as evidence that updates what the model believes about the physical system. For this application, I use the patent idea on NASA C-MAPSS Turbofan engine data. The machine watches multivariate telemetry from a degrading engine and infers a hidden health state that is not measured directly. From that posterior belief, it estimates the engine’s remaining useful life. In the main 3D scene, the engine lifetime is turned into a tunnel. The spiral ribbons are real sensor channels evolving over cycle-time. The glowing core is the inferred health state. The surrounding cloud is uncertainty. The orange wall ahead is the predicted failure horizon. So the big picture is: sensor evidence comes in, posterior belief tightens, and the machine moves from uncertainty toward a concrete failure prediction. The inset posteriors make that explicit. The health posterior shows where the model believes the hidden engine condition sits at the current moment, and how sharply it believes it. The RUL posterior shows the same idea for remaining life... early on it is broad, later it shifts left and narrows as the machine becomes more certain about how close failure is. This idea is not limited to engines. The same idea can apply to data centers, CPUs, GPUs, cooling systems, power grids, robotics, batteries, and any machine that produces telemetry while obeying physical constraints. In an age where machine learning runs on massive hardware infrastructure, this kind of model matters: it can turn noisy sensor streams into early warnings before expensive systems fail.

Mathelirium

17,843 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

A Black Hole Can Be Dragged Through Spacetime A Black Hole does not have to sit still. Einstein’s equations allow a stranger possibility... a Black Hole that accelerates. This is the C-metric, an exact solution of General Relativity describing an accelerating Black Hole. The Black Hole accelerates because the geometry of Spacetime says it must. The C-metric is one of those exact solutions that reminds us how wild General Relativity really is. Gravity is not just attraction, and Spacetime is not just a stage. Sometimes the stage itself contains the force. #Astrophysics #GeneralRelativity #Einstein #CMetric #BlackHole #CosmicStrings #Spacetime #Cosmology #Mathematics #Physics

A Black Hole Can Be Dragged Through Spacetime A Black Hole does not have to sit still. Einstein’s equations allow a stranger possibility... a Black Hole that accelerates. This is the C-metric, an exact solution of General Relativity describing an accelerating Black Hole. The Black Hole accelerates because the geometry of Spacetime says it must. The C-metric is one of those exact solutions that reminds us how wild General Relativity really is. Gravity is not just attraction, and Spacetime is not just a stage. Sometimes the stage itself contains the force. #Astrophysics #GeneralRelativity #Einstein #CMetric #BlackHole #CosmicStrings #Spacetime #Cosmology #Mathematics #Physics

Mathelirium

789,561 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Lecture 1 on Physics-Informed Neural Networks: A Mini-Series Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are neural networks trained to satisfy a differential equation by building the PDE residual directly into the loss. They emerged from a very practical problem...classical PDE pipelines can be brilliant, but they often demand heavy discretization work (meshes, stencils, stability tuning), and the method you build is usually tied to one geometry and one solver setup. A PINN flips the workflow by representing the solution itself as a smooth function uᵩ(x,t) and enforcing the physics everywhere you choose to sample the domain. People often meet PINNs in the least helpful way...via a flashy solution plot, and almost no explanation of what was enforced to get it. In this series we keep the enforcement visible. We pick a differential equation, represent the unknown solution as a flexible function, measure how well that function satisfies the equation across the domain, and train it to reduce that mismatch everywhere we sample. A normal neural net learns from labels...you give it inputs and target outputs. A PINN learns from a differential equation...you give it inputs (x,t) and it gets punished whenever its output fails the PDE. By punish we mean that the loss increases when the mismatch is large we reward it if the loss decreases as the mismatch gets smaller. The network isn’t replacing physics, it’s becoming a flexible function that is forced to satisfy the same calculus you’d impose on any candidate solution. The math breakdown: We start with a PDE we want to solve on a domain Ω. Write it as uₜ(x,t) + N(u(x,t), uₓ(x,t), uₓₓ(x,t), …) = 0 for (x,t) in Ω A PINN replaces the unknown function u with a neural network output uᵩ(x,t) Now define the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = ∂uᵩ/∂t + N(uᵩ, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², …) If uᵩ were an exact solution, we would have rᵩ(x,t) = 0 everywhere. We may also have data points (xᵢ,tᵢ,uᵢ) from measurements or a known initial condition. The training objective is just a weighted sum of squared errors L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ) with L_data(ᵩ) = meanᵢ |uᵩ(xᵢ,tᵢ) − uᵢ|² L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|² where (xⱼ,tⱼ) are the collocation points in Ω L_bc/ic(ᵩ) = penalties enforcing boundary conditions and initial conditions The key technical step is that the derivatives inside rᵩ are computed by automatic differentiation ∂uᵩ/∂t, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², … So we can differentiate the total loss L(ᵩ) with respect to ᵩ and train with gradient descent. This is the whole idea behind PINNs. Learn a function, but make the PDE part of the loss, so the network is trained to be a solution, not just a curve-fitter. In the render, the main 3D surface is the network’s current guess uᵩ(x,t), drawn as a living sheet over the (x,t) plane. Hovering above is the neural scaffold...a visible graph of feature nodes and connections. The bright tension threads are the physics residual rᵩ(x,t): each thread tethers a collocation bead on the sheet up to the scaffold, and it thickens and brightens exactly where |rᵩ| is large (color encodes the sign). As training runs, those threads go slack across the domain not because we hid the error, but because the network has actually been pushed toward rᵩ(x,t) ≈ 0. #PINNs #PhysicsInformedNeuralNetworks #ScientificMachineLearning #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

Lecture 1 on Physics-Informed Neural Networks: A Mini-Series Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are neural networks trained to satisfy a differential equation by building the PDE residual directly into the loss. They emerged from a very practical problem...classical PDE pipelines can be brilliant, but they often demand heavy discretization work (meshes, stencils, stability tuning), and the method you build is usually tied to one geometry and one solver setup. A PINN flips the workflow by representing the solution itself as a smooth function uᵩ(x,t) and enforcing the physics everywhere you choose to sample the domain. People often meet PINNs in the least helpful way...via a flashy solution plot, and almost no explanation of what was enforced to get it. In this series we keep the enforcement visible. We pick a differential equation, represent the unknown solution as a flexible function, measure how well that function satisfies the equation across the domain, and train it to reduce that mismatch everywhere we sample. A normal neural net learns from labels...you give it inputs and target outputs. A PINN learns from a differential equation...you give it inputs (x,t) and it gets punished whenever its output fails the PDE. By punish we mean that the loss increases when the mismatch is large we reward it if the loss decreases as the mismatch gets smaller. The network isn’t replacing physics, it’s becoming a flexible function that is forced to satisfy the same calculus you’d impose on any candidate solution. The math breakdown: We start with a PDE we want to solve on a domain Ω. Write it as uₜ(x,t) + N(u(x,t), uₓ(x,t), uₓₓ(x,t), …) = 0 for (x,t) in Ω A PINN replaces the unknown function u with a neural network output uᵩ(x,t) Now define the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = ∂uᵩ/∂t + N(uᵩ, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², …) If uᵩ were an exact solution, we would have rᵩ(x,t) = 0 everywhere. We may also have data points (xᵢ,tᵢ,uᵢ) from measurements or a known initial condition. The training objective is just a weighted sum of squared errors L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ) with L_data(ᵩ) = meanᵢ |uᵩ(xᵢ,tᵢ) − uᵢ|² L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|² where (xⱼ,tⱼ) are the collocation points in Ω L_bc/ic(ᵩ) = penalties enforcing boundary conditions and initial conditions The key technical step is that the derivatives inside rᵩ are computed by automatic differentiation ∂uᵩ/∂t, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², … So we can differentiate the total loss L(ᵩ) with respect to ᵩ and train with gradient descent. This is the whole idea behind PINNs. Learn a function, but make the PDE part of the loss, so the network is trained to be a solution, not just a curve-fitter. In the render, the main 3D surface is the network’s current guess uᵩ(x,t), drawn as a living sheet over the (x,t) plane. Hovering above is the neural scaffold...a visible graph of feature nodes and connections. The bright tension threads are the physics residual rᵩ(x,t): each thread tethers a collocation bead on the sheet up to the scaffold, and it thickens and brightens exactly where |rᵩ| is large (color encodes the sign). As training runs, those threads go slack across the domain not because we hid the error, but because the network has actually been pushed toward rᵩ(x,t) ≈ 0. #PINNs #PhysicsInformedNeuralNetworks #ScientificMachineLearning #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

Mathelirium

47,308 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

The Torus Becomes the Canvas A Jacobi Theta Function lives naturally on a complex torus. Instead of drawing it on a flat plane, we wrapped the mathematics onto the torus. The surface is driven by θ₁(z|τ), with its moving zeros, phase winding, and logarithmic derivative shaping the colour, seams, and raised divisor points across the geometry. What you are see is a periodic quantum-like field painted onto the space where it actually belongs. #JacobiTheta #ComplexTorus #MathematicalArt #ComplexAnalysis #RiemannSurfaces #MathAnimation

The Torus Becomes the Canvas A Jacobi Theta Function lives naturally on a complex torus. Instead of drawing it on a flat plane, we wrapped the mathematics onto the torus. The surface is driven by θ₁(z|τ), with its moving zeros, phase winding, and logarithmic derivative shaping the colour, seams, and raised divisor points across the geometry. What you are see is a periodic quantum-like field painted onto the space where it actually belongs. #JacobiTheta #ComplexTorus #MathematicalArt #ComplexAnalysis #RiemannSurfaces #MathAnimation

Mathelirium

22,197 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Of all professions, electrical engineers are the ones that impress me the most. It’s not that they know more math. It’s how naturally they use it. A lot of ideas that sit in the pure-math neighborhood end up powering things like cryptography, coding theory, and information theory. I’d always known that in theory. What shocked me was seeing the same ideas running real systems: probability steering decisions in digital comms, optimisation shaping hardware, and information theory acting like a hard constraint on what’s even possible. Working with them on research was humbling. It made me feel like I knew nothing, in the best way. It also made me rethink what being good at math means. In my optimisation course, Space Mapping was one of the concepts that really stuck with me: you keep a computationally cheap coarse model f_c(x) that runs fast but lies, a brutally expensive fine model f_f(x) that tells the truth, and you iteratively adjust a mapping T so that f_c(T(x)) shadows f_f(x) where it matters. You do almost all the optimisation on the cheap side and call the fine model only sparingly. It’s a very engineer move: admit the model is wrong, then make it useful anyway. John Bandler, a Canadian engineer and professor, formalised this in the early 1990s and showed you could make full-wave electromagnetic optimisation practical rather than masochistic. He founded Optimization Systems Associates in 1983 to commercialise the idea, and in 1997 Hewlett-Packard bought the company and folded its tools into what became HP EEsof, then Agilent, now Keysight’s RF design stack. #SpaceMapping #ComputationalElectromagnetics #RFDesign #NonLinearOptimization #AntennaDesign

Of all professions, electrical engineers are the ones that impress me the most. It’s not that they know more math. It’s how naturally they use it. A lot of ideas that sit in the pure-math neighborhood end up powering things like cryptography, coding theory, and information theory. I’d always known that in theory. What shocked me was seeing the same ideas running real systems: probability steering decisions in digital comms, optimisation shaping hardware, and information theory acting like a hard constraint on what’s even possible. Working with them on research was humbling. It made me feel like I knew nothing, in the best way. It also made me rethink what being good at math means. In my optimisation course, Space Mapping was one of the concepts that really stuck with me: you keep a computationally cheap coarse model f_c(x) that runs fast but lies, a brutally expensive fine model f_f(x) that tells the truth, and you iteratively adjust a mapping T so that f_c(T(x)) shadows f_f(x) where it matters. You do almost all the optimisation on the cheap side and call the fine model only sparingly. It’s a very engineer move: admit the model is wrong, then make it useful anyway. John Bandler, a Canadian engineer and professor, formalised this in the early 1990s and showed you could make full-wave electromagnetic optimisation practical rather than masochistic. He founded Optimization Systems Associates in 1983 to commercialise the idea, and in 1997 Hewlett-Packard bought the company and folded its tools into what became HP EEsof, then Agilent, now Keysight’s RF design stack. #SpaceMapping #ComputationalElectromagnetics #RFDesign #NonLinearOptimization #AntennaDesign

Mathelirium

59,227 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад