21:47 I agree, this whole talk is not interesting. Where is all the new discovery of new physics? I mean a lot of this makes on fkn sense. Why do you claim that b(x,omega) is a gaussian process? WTF is x and omega? those variables show up nowhere on the right-hand side... that is definitely a mathematical error / a technical detail you do not understand or care to tell us about. Come on mate, you're a mathematician, I presume, present your material rigorously and precisely. But again, this is fantasy. Gaussian process is an error process that is rarely observed in the real world... Where are your real-world results? when did you predict some previously unknown physics? This is a very poorly explained talk. You don't even care to explain what a high Mach Boundary layer is. That is the problem with researchers now a days. They don't even care to warn the audience that the next things they will talk about is very expert oriented set of slides... All I see is squiggly lines that can become squigglier at surface discontinuities??? Come on dumb cock, what is the purpose? Did you even predict the before and after scenario with your state-of-the-art Neural Network? It is not at all clear what the point of this talk is. At 38:00 some guy asks what is PCA/POD... omg, that is such a basic question to ask! That's when you should have known that your talk is making no sense and should rethink your life. If I were in your position, would have announced my retirement to the whole audience at that point.
They defined it for a quite general class of operator, so I assume it should work for steady state problems as well as for dynamical systems since the former is a particular case of the latter.
