The correctness of scientific laws depends on quantitative prediction and experimental compliance, rather than relying on life experience and engineering experience.
The two major expressions of the second law of thermodynamics are life experience and engineering experience. The core quantitative prediction is η= 1-T1/T2. The verification method is Method A in the figure (with quantitative prediction), but scientists extensively use Method B (without law prediction), indicating that seeking equilibrium in theory and experiment is actually cheating: concealing the inconsistency between the second law of thermodynamics and experiment. This violates scientific discipline and morality.
Scientists possess a large amount of data, and if they used Method A (which is in line with scientific discipline and ethics), the Second Law of Thermodynamics would have been shattered long ago.
The laws of thermodynamics have frameworks by which they operate. The most important of these frameworks is a closed system that does not exchange with its neighboring systems. However, if the system is open, it is wrong to expect the laws of thermodynamics to be established.
The second case is that the science of thermodynamics studies systems with macroscopic dimensions. These are systems with a number of particles on the order of Avogadro's number, which is approximately 10 to the 23rd power. It is possible to observe the violation of the second law of thermodynamics in small systems, and this does not contradict the previous findings.
Mr. Maxwell has put forward the argument of Maxwell's devil as the violation of the second law of thermodynamics. However, the second law is not violated because the devil has a memory that fills with time. At some point, this memory must be erased or destroyed and forgotten.
Why do you children in computer science think that your logic symbols and diagrams have any meaning or relevance to this or any other world whatsoever? There is zero meaning or relevance to the diagram, deliberately shrouded with undefined symbols so as to impress and confuse.
I will state it clearly, 'Computer Science' is not a valid science. Science is defined as the study of nature. The invalid term, "computer science" is merely a mechanism of human language and thinking, and has nothing to do with nature, nor does any 'computer science' student have the ability to read the maths required to understand science. I have never encountered a 'computer scientist' who had the slightest clue what Physics is.
It is so far from meaningful that it is embarrassing to watch.