When you are directly quoting someone's writing it is usually considered a professional courtesy not to change the spelling to suit your own preferences.
He did not say "not a single one was in favor of it", he said "not a single one was in favour of it.
Was he dictating letter-by-letter? One doesn't change spellings when quoting written material, but accepted practice when transcribing spoken material is to use the spelling appropriate to the audience, not the speaker.
Pushing a heavy ship up on the ice to crush it and thus break it may be efficient, but is hardly the only way to break ice, and probably not the most efficient all things considered.
A nuclear-powered ship should have raw power and heat in abundance. I'm thinking that super-hot steam under extreme pressure would cause any thickness of ice to crack, and cracked ice is extremely brittle and easy to crack even more, so a combination of super-hot steam and raw ramming force would crack the ice just as efficiently without the need for the ship to go on top of the ice and crush it. Would make it possible to use a more seaworthy hull shape and thus improve the conditions for the crew.
Man, those Ruskies are dumb! They spend a billion dollars building a giant icebreaking ship, and none of them made the connection that nuclear generators make heat, and heat melts ice. Hah!
If you're a mathematician who sees math articles in WP which are missing intuitive explanations that could feasibly be added, then by all means be bold and add them! Just, please, if it's an important one like "manifold", read the talk page first to see if there's already a consensus about the technical level. There's a lot of thought and effort put into striking the right balance that may not be apparent from just reading the articles.
Good question. Why don't you devote twenty years or so to becoming competent to judge, then spend all your time reading every crackpot's theory on trisecting angles or why pi isn't really transcendental, and let us know what you find out?
This is one of the things I've always hated about the reporting on math, which is not only the fault of reporters but also of mathematicians.
...
But mathematics really needs to get less abstract in its terminology. The name needs to mean something, just like how in CS you call something "method_does_this()" instead of "method_x()".
Well, the names often are meaningful, but after a while one starts running out of words, and/or the concepts just get so specialized that there aren't any words that convey anything close to the right idea of what's happening.
Actually after reading a bit more, it turns out not to be as hyperbolic as it sounds. The author has come up with a whole constellation of new mathematical constructions to support his claimed proof. As the article points out, this means it'll take quite some time for mathematicians to understand these constructions before they'll be able to judge the correctness of the proof. This kind of thing would be dismissed out of hand if it came from Joe Nobody, but Shinichi Mochizuki's reputation in this case should ensure that it gets a good look. And before the crackpots hop on, no, that's not because of any ivory-tower prejudice, but simply because no sane (and busy) professional would judge that such a large personal time investment is likely be worthwhile, without some very strong past performance.
Well WP math articles aren't designed so that every concept comes with a layman's introduction; that would involve massive duplication and bloat. And so, yes, the link you posted would be more appropriate here than a WP link. But I really don't see how you get from there to accusing the volunteer WP math editors of having a big willy contest. There's a reason those articles are written the way they are, and it's not just to make you personally feel stupid. They don't give a shit how smart you think they are.
Yeah, that "new, conceptual universes" line lit up my bullshit detector like a Christmas tree. But the author is well-established, so it's probably a bad translation and/or breathless hype inserted by the university PR office.
Nobody's measuring anyone's penis--the truth is a lot more boring (and reasonable) than that. Wikipedia is a fantastic first reference for working mathematicians or grad students--I'm sure nearly all math article editors are in these groups--who just want to quickly find out e.g. what the hell an "ultrafilter" is. And so the articles are written in a way that makes them most useful to the people who donate their time to produce them. It's not that any (non-douchebag) mathematician gets off on throwing around smart-sounding jargon. It's just that you can't actually do anything with "intuitive" descriptions.
I think bandwidth is a problem for one computer driving a shitload of scavenged LCD's, but in this case each screen comes with its own computer. All you have to do is tell each one where it is in the big picture, so it renders its own little window simultaneously with all the others.
Oh, to have mod points today. Watching the event last night, I was so proud to be a human being, and a nerd (math here). Can't we ditch the petty fanboy squabbling for a little while, and just revel in this wonder of imagination and engineering?
Yeah, about the CO2 thing...you know that visceral panic you feel when you can't breathe? It's not triggered by lack of oxygen, but rather by excess CO2. I'm sure dying from asphyxiation is unpleasant enough, but having the experience dragged out to fifteen minutes (or more, once the methods are improved) must be horrific.
I don't know anything about your field (unless it's mathematics), but when I'm digging around in the literature, I see "personal correspondence" listed in references all the time.
Astounding! With just a few minutes of thought and your superior intuition, you've dismissed the result of careful calculation and decades of training on the part of this group of scientists. Imagine what a genius of your magnitude could accomplish from within the scientific system...it truly staggers my humble intellect! But I'm sure you're working on much more important things.
am getting tired of the "cyborg apocalypse" meme accompanying every story about a robot or quadcopter. They don't reproduce, so the comment about them taking over the ocean is just stupid.
I myself and some of my friends all got undergraduate degrees that were not "hard science" degrees, and we still managed to get IT careers. How? well...
Slashdot Mirror
When you are directly quoting someone's writing it is usually considered a professional courtesy not to change the spelling to suit your own preferences.
He did not say "not a single one was in favor of it", he said "not a single one was in favour of it.
Was he dictating letter-by-letter? One doesn't change spellings when quoting written material, but accepted practice when transcribing spoken material is to use the spelling appropriate to the audience, not the speaker.
I'm assuming this is a joke
Yes. Yes, it is.
Pushing a heavy ship up on the ice to crush it and thus break it may be efficient, but is hardly the only way to break ice, and probably not the most efficient all things considered.
A nuclear-powered ship should have raw power and heat in abundance. I'm thinking that super-hot steam under extreme pressure would cause any thickness of ice to crack, and cracked ice is extremely brittle and easy to crack even more, so a combination of super-hot steam and raw ramming force would crack the ice just as efficiently without the need for the ship to go on top of the ice and crush it. Would make it possible to use a more seaworthy hull shape and thus improve the conditions for the crew.
Man, those Ruskies are dumb! They spend a billion dollars building a giant icebreaking ship, and none of them made the connection that nuclear generators make heat, and heat melts ice. Hah!
PS: Love your sig.
If you're a mathematician who sees math articles in WP which are missing intuitive explanations that could feasibly be added, then by all means be bold and add them! Just, please, if it's an important one like "manifold", read the talk page first to see if there's already a consensus about the technical level. There's a lot of thought and effort put into striking the right balance that may not be apparent from just reading the articles.
Good question. Why don't you devote twenty years or so to becoming competent to judge, then spend all your time reading every crackpot's theory on trisecting angles or why pi isn't really transcendental, and let us know what you find out?
This is one of the things I've always hated about the reporting on math, which is not only the fault of reporters but also of mathematicians.
...
But mathematics really needs to get less abstract in its terminology. The name needs to mean something, just like how in CS you call something "method_does_this()" instead of "method_x()".
Well, the names often are meaningful, but after a while one starts running out of words, and/or the concepts just get so specialized that there aren't any words that convey anything close to the right idea of what's happening.
Actually after reading a bit more, it turns out not to be as hyperbolic as it sounds. The author has come up with a whole constellation of new mathematical constructions to support his claimed proof. As the article points out, this means it'll take quite some time for mathematicians to understand these constructions before they'll be able to judge the correctness of the proof. This kind of thing would be dismissed out of hand if it came from Joe Nobody, but Shinichi Mochizuki's reputation in this case should ensure that it gets a good look. And before the crackpots hop on, no, that's not because of any ivory-tower prejudice, but simply because no sane (and busy) professional would judge that such a large personal time investment is likely be worthwhile, without some very strong past performance.
Sorry if it wasn't obvious, but I meant grad students in mathematics.
Well WP math articles aren't designed so that every concept comes with a layman's introduction; that would involve massive duplication and bloat. And so, yes, the link you posted would be more appropriate here than a WP link. But I really don't see how you get from there to accusing the volunteer WP math editors of having a big willy contest. There's a reason those articles are written the way they are, and it's not just to make you personally feel stupid. They don't give a shit how smart you think they are.
Yeah, that "new, conceptual universes" line lit up my bullshit detector like a Christmas tree. But the author is well-established, so it's probably a bad translation and/or breathless hype inserted by the university PR office.
Nobody's measuring anyone's penis--the truth is a lot more boring (and reasonable) than that. Wikipedia is a fantastic first reference for working mathematicians or grad students--I'm sure nearly all math article editors are in these groups--who just want to quickly find out e.g. what the hell an "ultrafilter" is. And so the articles are written in a way that makes them most useful to the people who donate their time to produce them. It's not that any (non-douchebag) mathematician gets off on throwing around smart-sounding jargon. It's just that you can't actually do anything with "intuitive" descriptions.
I think bandwidth is a problem for one computer driving a shitload of scavenged LCD's, but in this case each screen comes with its own computer. All you have to do is tell each one where it is in the big picture, so it renders its own little window simultaneously with all the others.
In case it wasn't 100% clear, I wish I had the points to mod parent up. "Fanboy squabbling" was referring to GP.
Oh, to have mod points today. Watching the event last night, I was so proud to be a human being, and a nerd (math here). Can't we ditch the petty fanboy squabbling for a little while, and just revel in this wonder of imagination and engineering?
Your comment has already been made, and addressed, in this discussion.
Yeah, about the CO2 thing...you know that visceral panic you feel when you can't breathe? It's not triggered by lack of oxygen, but rather by excess CO2. I'm sure dying from asphyxiation is unpleasant enough, but having the experience dragged out to fifteen minutes (or more, once the methods are improved) must be horrific.
I don't know anything about your field (unless it's mathematics), but when I'm digging around in the literature, I see "personal correspondence" listed in references all the time.
I think you might be missing the point about duplicate passwords--it's an argument FOR salting the hashes.
Note that despite the emphasis on art in the description, this phase refers to the creation of music and sound effects as well as graphics.
Music and sound effects are not art?
I read "grow" as "produce", too.
No, you couldn't, because it says that Boston is fastest.
Astounding! With just a few minutes of thought and your superior intuition, you've dismissed the result of careful calculation and decades of training on the part of this group of scientists. Imagine what a genius of your magnitude could accomplish from within the scientific system...it truly staggers my humble intellect! But I'm sure you're working on much more important things.
am getting tired of the "cyborg apocalypse" meme accompanying every story about a robot or quadcopter. They don't reproduce, so the comment about them taking over the ocean is just stupid.
Yup...the "degree ceiling" is almost always "degree versus no degree", not "this degree versus that degree".
I myself and some of my friends all got undergraduate degrees that were not "hard science" degrees, and we still managed to get IT careers. How? well...
Actually, my question was going to be "why?".