Slashdot Mirror
Donald Knuth On NPR
StratoFlyer writes "This morning, NPR is running an interview with Donald Knuth titled Donald Knuth, Founding Artist of Computer Science. The persistence of this man is extraordinary, if not heroic. RealPlayer and MediaPlayer feeds will be available at 10am EST, according to the NPR.org site." Indeed they are.
Posting Realplayer feeds on Slashdot's main page. If they're available for more than 5 minutes, then that's heroic.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Knuth came across as charming, and funny, and classically geeky, re-computing the size of a piece of paper necessary for making a five-pointed star with one cut and rattling off the equation behind it, or describing his mental process behind brushing his teeth, but also clearly grounded in continuing scholarly work.
The narrator also mentions he's "abandoned email." Interesting detail, especially as I contemplate the 995 messages in my inbox this morning (80% spam, 19% mailing lists), I am starting to wonder why I don't get around to it myself.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Of much more practical importance to most: he is also the creator of TeX (from which LaTeX etc emerged). When he was dissatisfied with the way magazines printed his articles, he did what every other geek would have done, i.e. invented his own typesetting language. Et voilla.
He used graph theory to lay out his kitchen. The most connected resource? The trash can. It goes in the middle.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
Judging by the strung-out feeling this news junkie gets during the accursed pledge drive week, I'd say yes it is.
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
perhaps Mr. Knuth is a sandwich made on a long bun.
The Art of Computer Programming, vol. 4 :)
vs.
Paul Graham's Arc
Stay conscious, audience: great minds think at a 'medium' pace.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
The original greek word means 'demi-god', and so its use in describing someone who makes an exemplary contribution in a field of endeavour is entirely legitimate. You may wish to use it to only refer to people who have done something risky, but that is not the entire meaning of the word.
Heard the interview on the way to work. I love that he gives something like $2.56 or something to everyone who finds a flaw in the book. He has cut checks for around 20K so far and that the first Book had 90% of it's pages altered in some way because of that. We have the same kind of thing where I work. Free 6pack to anyone finding a non-sensical phrase embedded in our documentation. Everyone actually peer reviews documentation now.
It's actually Donald Knuth on RPN. And he says it?s the greatest cause of brain damage in computing.
Interesting note (IMHO) If you look at his website, he is currently writing volume IV of the art of programming. He has posted drafts of chapters up and actively elicits feedback from readers. He goes as far as offering money for bugs found. Another one he adds is in his citations he wants full names...he will pay readers $2.56 per full name discovered on his list of incomplete names. This is a guy who understands the value of community development even when referring to the work of someone head and shoulders above the community.
The fact of our society is that if you sent them to the funnny farm, you'd have very few people left who were good at math.
- These characters were randomly selected.
-- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
I see no evidence that it's doing any such thing. He's a brilliant mathematician and computer scientist, and that's all. The world is full of different people. It's also full of arrogant, scared, jerks who do not like differences.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
In other words, he was getting legitimate email, and it was a distraction for that reason.
I'm pretty sure that if the problem was spam, Knuth is one of the few people who'd actually create a system that can, actually, filter spam and spam only.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Well, let's hope you never apply for a job doing triage at a psychiatric hospital.
There's a world of difference between amusing yourself with puzzles and being obsessive. When you are obsessive, you can't stop yourself from thinking something even when it distresses or harms you.
Being enormously smarter and more creative than the average person is a form of weirdness, but not a form of sickness.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
From his website: "Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don't have time for such study."
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
It only becomes an issue if you consider the perfectionism to be a mental illness. Which you do, and I don't. Someone not being the right person for the job is not a mental illness.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
> he came off as having some sever social disorders .... as normalcy is concerned, the guy comes up
>
> lacking
Ah, judicious terms like "disorder" and "normalcy".... Woe to those who don't confirm to the
canonical ways of behaviour. Let's be interchangable with anyone else.
Who cares that there is a direct link between extraordinary talent and "weird" behaviour. Who cares that these strange individuals might actually be, well, actually just *nice* people.
Once in a while, I even pass the Turing-Test
The narrator also mentions he's "abandoned email."
What seems strange to me about this is that getting thousands of letters a year is the same as getting e-mails, just in a different form. I agree that there is an expectation with e-mail that it will get answered quickly, but that is assumption can be changed by anyone who takes time to respond with a thoughtful response.
As to filtering out the useful from the junk, I feel like e-mail tools (web or desktop) are getting better every day (or at least every version) at allowing filtering and spam-blocking. I may have a different take on e-mail when I'm in my mid 60's but I just don't understand the reluctance to use a new technology when it allows the exact same type of communication as the old one, as long as you use it the way you want to.
Most of us struggle with basic assembly language. But Knuth goes and invents his own VM (MIX) and programs all of his examples to it. You just have to admire that.
This is my sig.
Knuth was there first. When "Fundamental Algorithms" came out, there were almost no computer science books. There were vendor machine manuals, and books on programming languages. "A Fortran Primer", by Elliot Organick was about as good as it got. MIT students had a tech note series called HAKMEM, but few others saw those. There was a huge vacuum waiting to be filled. That's why "Fundamental Algorithms" got so much attention.
> TeX is already long in the tooth, and will
...). Instead of going to OpenOffice, which behaves in manners not unlike Word when confronted with big docs, I looked at plain text based markup languages. In the end I just went back to Tex (Latex). it's more readable than XML based markup languages (Docbook, anyone?), and has the best (superb) toolset while still having a large and vibrant user community (in academia).
> become obsolete soon
and join all those other technolgies which are "dead"? BSD, Lisp, Smalltalk, ???
When Word ate my latest report for the umptheenth time I decided to stop using it at the office (where its use is mandatory, but rank does allow some privileges
So now my documents look superb and they are never eaten by my word processor. Tex has some life in it yet,,,,,
Once in a while, I even pass the Turing-Test
If someone sends me a snail mail letter, the quality tends to be much higher than e-mail. Electronic media tends to make things so easy that folks don't put much forethought into their writings? Want proof? Look at my comment history :)
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
On an unrelated note, I love this note on his page about The Art Of Computer Programming:
I don't go to Professor Knuth for medical or particle physics advice, why would I go to him for religious advice?
You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
Wouldn't that be Queen of San Francisco?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Donald Knuth is actually a Christian and has written a book where he analyses chapter 3 verse 16 of every book in the Protestant Christian bible. Each verse is illuminated with beautiful caligraphy.
He also gave some lectures about religion called Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About.
Yes, NPR is a mild sedative. Do not drive or operate machinery while listening to NPR.
Proverbs 21:19
http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_catalog.html?item_i d=421
or by searching the eDonkey/eMule network for "donald knuth" or "god and computers"
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, is saying "There is no evidence for God, but I choose to neither believe nor disbelieve." How crazy is that?
Not crazy at all, it is the foundation of science and critical thinking.
Do you also choose neither to believe nor disbelieve in invisible pink elephants? There's no evidence for them either, but if someone told you they existed, would you keep an open mind about that?
Yes.
An agnostic, however, sees the lack of evidence and yet continues to hedge his bets. Why?
It is not "hedging your bets." And there is no way of seeing a lack of evidence. That's the point -- get it? A scientific mind can only consider the evidence and form hypotheses, not the lack of evidence.
Here's a thought-experiment for you. It's 1940. The atom is the smallest element known to man. Does this mean there is nothing smaller?
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
History is full of examples of geniuses that were barely balanced between the two,
Yeah, Isaac Newton for one. See Will Dunham's book "Journey through Genius" in which he describes a disgusting little experiment Sir Isaac performed with a pointed stick and his eyeball.
Just because someone is functional doesn't mean they're normal and not sick.
I'd say if a person is productive in society, and happy, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that he's sick. Even Sir Isaac. This sense that somebody who is a genius is necessarily a bit sick is an attractive myth -- it consoles the great body of us that aren't blessed with genius.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There all idiots who can't even spell!
The art of the elegant troll.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
I'm impressed that Knuth actively contemplates the existence of a god, and that he is willing to acknowledge his belief in public. That does not convince me that Christians (or Bhudists, or Muslims or Shintoists, ...) are smarter than athiests or agnostics.
For me, Knuth's belief in a god does not have the same authority as his ability to prove the efficiency or convergence rate of an algorithm. Mathematics and other branches of science are a rational and testable form of knowledge. Belief in a diety must ultimately come down to a personal choice -- a leap of faith -- beyond the realm of rational.
I have contemplated this leap and find a deeper mystery and deeper satisfaction and deeper challenge in not believing in the existence of god. That does not make me smarter than Knuth. It just means that we have reached different conclusions about a very personal matter.
Random is the New Order.
No, actually, it's not. Having an open mind is one thing, having a mind so open your brain falls out is quite another.
I have heard this quip before, but you are mis-using it when applying it to scientific and critical thinking. The original quote is making reference to people who will BELIEVE anything. Scientists must consider all possibilities until proven wrong.
This means invisible elephants MIGHT exist. However, as there is no proof that they do, and no theory for why they might, a scientist will not ponder the question long.
This also means wormholes might exist, and even though there is no evidence of them, scientists are open to the possibility because they'd fit in with other theories that are out there, and so they do consider these.
If someone told you there were invisible pink elephants in his back yard, you would keep an open mind about that and not think that maybe your buddy had flipped his lid? Even after going out and pointing out to your buddy that these elephants left no tracks, dung, or anything else behind to show their presence, or that you could walk over every inch of his back yard and not run into one, you would still choose not to disbelieve him if he insisted they existed and were there? Seriously? That's not science or critical thinking, that's just being foolish.
Would I disbelieve him? Of course. Would I go further and, without proof, tell him there is no way on Earth? For pink elephants -- probably so. For something much more mysterious, why bother?
I know you keep wanting to bring up these pink elephants, however the reality is that agnostics do not worry themselves over the question of God. There is neither proof or disproof, and so it is an interesting but pointless thought experiment.
For someone to see a lack of evidence and firmly come down against something is just as bad as firmly coming down in favor of it. This is why people often call Atheism a religion.
In addition, I would wager that many people that refer to themselves as atheists actually mean they are agnostic, but are perhaps not familiar with that terminology. Many of my so-called atheist friends would admit they are agnostic if you questioned them about what they really think.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
A classic experience relating to my perception of fundamentalism was w/ a friend's child who was finally taken to see her grandfather's workshop (he was a classic old-school cabinetmaker w/ the only power tool in his shop a band saw 'cause he couldn't find apprentices to do that sort of tedious thing who was said to ``make things by hand'').
The daughter on seeing the shop and the walls lined w/ neatly arranged saws, chisels, draw knives, planes, spokeshaves, clamps &c. shrieked, ``Mommy! You lied! Grandpa doesn't make things by hand! He uses tools!''
IME fundamental creationists exhibit a similar na{\"\i}vet\'e as to how God works.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
It amazes me how many of the responses to this post managed to so thoroughly misunderstand it, and how defensive the reactions were.
Some posters responded by saying, essentially, "Just because he's a smart computer scientist doesn't mean I have to believe what he says about religion." This is obviously true, and a very interesting response because no one suggested that you should believe what he says about religion. What the OP was saying, for those who need it to be spelled out, is that people who try to tell others they shouldn't believe in God "because only stupid people believe in God", need to rethink their position. Not that they need to start believing themselves, but that they should admit that belief in God is not evidence of stupidity.
The OP wasn't ridiculing unbelievers, he was ridiculing the intolerance and arrogant condescension of some unbelievers.
The responses I found really funny, though, were the ones who jumped right in and essentially repeated the claim that people who believe in God are stupid, in a knee-jerk reaction triggered by the word "God", apparently completely oblivious to the fact that they had just been lampooned.
The absolute best of the bunch, though, has to be the one who claimed that the fact that Knuth is Christian places his computer science research in question! That has to be the epitome of closed-minded stupidity -- to base a rejection of well-founded research on grounds of a gently-stated opinion on a non-scientific matter... mind-boggling.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
and they would like to have a written transcript of the interview with him.
Yeah, but Armstrong and Aldrin (and Collins) were the guys with their asses on the line during the mission. If anything went wrong, they were the ones who might have paid with their lives.
"For someone to see a lack of evidence and firmly come down against something is just as bad as firmly coming down in favor of it. This is why people often call Atheism a religion."
Hogwash. If someone tells you there are magic elephants in their back yard that can not be detected by any means, you have no evidence that they are right and no evidence that they are wrong. If choose to beleive that there are elephants, or choose to beleive that there are not, well, I say one of these positions is more reasonable.
An agnostic would say, it is impossible to determine for sure whether the undetectable elephants exist. This is true, so perhaps that makes me an agnostic.
An atheist would say, "I do not beleive there are elephants". Thus, I am an atheist. Perhaps Atheists and Agnostics are not entirely disjoint sets.
You seem to think an atheist has to say "There cannot possibly be elephants.", but this is not so. Atheist do not (all) say God is impossible. They say they do not beleive God exists.
I do not beleive God exists. I do not beleive undetectable elephants exist. I do not beleive either of those beleifs can reasonably be called a religion.
I submit that it is you who do not understand the terminology. You are not alone. Many people seem to like to redefine Atheism to mean only super-extra-strong-to-the-point-of-obvious-falacy Atheism. This is dumb, because I know of no one at all who subscribes to that beleif set, and so Atheist becomes a useless term. It seems much more useful to ditinguish between people who do not beleive God exists, people who do, and people who are undecided.
Agnosticism is very similar to atheism with one key difference: agnostics believe that the theory "God exists" is not testable, and is thus disinteresting from the point of view of science.
Some view this as the "easy way out" of the deist question, but it's actually just another way of looking at the question from a scientific perspective. A theory must be testable in order for it to be verified or rejected through experiments. Theories which are not testable are nothing more than nice ideas or speculation from the perspective of science.
Most atheists and agnostics are not openly hostile to organized religion, but some are, and the rest of us get a bad name because of these loud few. Please do not associate atheism or agnosticism with anything more than differing opinions on how the scientific method should be applied to the question of God. Both atheism and agnosticism are closely related and in a different class from all other beliefs regarding God, in that they both reject faith as a way to find truth of God's existence or lack of existence.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web