Chicken thinking: "Someone please explain this guy how we solve the Schroëdinger equation"
corvus
I use jan-beta GUI, you can use locally any model that supports tool calling like qwen3-30B or jan-nano. You can download and install MCP servers (from, say, mcp.so) that serve different tools for the model to use, like web search, deep research, web scrapping, download or summarize videos, etc there are hundreds of MCP servers for different use cases.
That's not how physics works. If you are really interested in such issues read a book on foundations of physics or history of physics to see how physicists arrived at the most famous equations (Einstein,Dirac, Schroedinger or Newton), they are basically "bets" guided by physical and mathematical assumptions, but that is far from being "proved" or "derived", there are no rigorous proofs or derivations involved. The uncertainty remains until an experiment or observation confirms it or rejects it. There's no such a thing as "proving" a physical theory, for the simple reason that any physical theory works in a limited regime or range of validity. Newtonian gravitation and General Relativity are both valid and succesfull theories within their range of validity, but they contradict each other mathematically, in one theory gravity is a scalar field and in the other is a tensor field, so you could use the mathematics of one theory to refute the other, so it makes no sense the concept of proving a physical theory mathematically. You only try to axiomize a theory once is well established, but it's irrelevant concerning its validity.
"The bonus of string theory is that it has the tenets of a unified theory of all interactions, electro-magnetism, weak and strong interactions, and gravitation" https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.1036
You have no idea what you are talking about. You can't prove mathematically Einstein's equations. No fundamental equations in physics were proved mathematically.
I am a physicist. String theory already unified QFT and GR and that doesn't mean it's a verified physical theory, you need to validate it through experiment. It's physics 101. Just watch some Sabine H. videos to see how she speaks about string theory being a failure besides being mathematically consistent.
Although the theory is promising, the duo point out that they have not yet completed its proof
Physics is not math, you can't "prove" a physical theory. You make predictions and through experiment or observation Nature has the last word.
A center in two dimensions, in three dimensions an axis, in more dimensions...
Oh great, thanks
Yeah I tested with lower numbers and it works, I just wanted to offload the whole model thinking it will work, 2GB it's a lot. With other models it prints about 250MB when fails and if you sum up the model size it's still well below the iGPU free memory so I dont get it... anyway, I was thinking about upgrading the memory to 32GB or may be 64GB but I hesitate because with models around 7GB and CPU only I get around 5 t/s and with 14GB 2-3 t/s, so I run one of around 30GB I guess it will get around 1 t/s? My supposition is that increasing RAM doesn't increase performance per se, just let's you upload bigger models to memory, so performance is approximately linear on model size... what do you think?
When a physicist want to impress a mathematician he explains how he tames infinities with renormalization.