equations

Indeed, the second-order equations (Burnett and super-Burnett equations) seem to fail in some cases, while providing more correct results in others.

The issue is that new bods are very likely to have a lot more useful year left, which counts in the equations.

Movement is implemented by using approximate numerical solutions to the geodesic equations (a system a differential equations whose solutions give geodesics in a Riemannian manifold).

But given the complexity of the equations themselves and the complexity of the boundary conditions, no one really uses them.

In some scenarios inverses are indeed required, solving linear equations are almost always not that scenario.

The second point is that the equations correspond to conservation laws: mass, linear momentum, energy.

Also, since the Chapman-Enskog method is asymptotic, it is not guaranteed that higher-order equations (inviscid Euler equations being the zero-order equations and Navier-Stokes equations being the first-order equations) will provide an accurate description of flows.

It would be neat if we could use something like this to render equations on HN...

I guess you can say that ariving at Maxwell equations or QED is an exercise in curve-fitting in some sense.

An other guy the next class solved it with one really well designed figure and like three line of simple equations, it was awesome.

They might not be writing - they might be diagrams, or equations.

All of the equations, models and graphs are from other papers.

If one says "X equations are incomplete", that means that there is more than one solution to X.

Is the light transport integral isomorphic to what Heckbert's paper [1] refers to as "gratuitous partial differential equations [2]," as explained by Fuller [3]?

While new, "more correct" equations are interesting, of course, there's enough work to be done with the current ones.

As a result the final product is an extremely complicated result of "equations", as it were, that are good at finding relevant information.