IIRC, it was Al Pacino in Salome who, when a cell phone rang, stopped the show, broke character, and told the woman "We'll wait until you're finished."
"What's the best way to approach this task when there's so much information bouncing about in your head you don't know where to start?"
This is the question that almost everyone, everywhere, that deals with a complex system has to deal with. Whether you're programming a kernel or writing documentation, you cannot understand everything at once. You need to start at a small section of it, and simply thread your way through the task until it all begins to form as a whole.
But IIRC, mathematicians had viewed Fermat as a dead-end, and in fact had coaxed Wiles out of even thinking about it and instead working on elliptical curves. And I coulda sworn that the documentary I saw on the topic said that Wiles created something new in solving this problem.
You also have to realize that others (Jean-Luc Picard) are going to try and come up with a proof that DOES fit in the margins, or at the very least a proof with a page count of less than 100. So, I wouldn't despair just yet.
See, there you go contradicting yourself - you say that A=A is self apparent. Yet to say this in itself requires faith. To say something is "self apparent" or "obvious" or "does not need explaination" is in itself an act of faith - you have the faith that what you say is true, even though it cannot be proven. The point of Carroll's Paradox is that all logic requires at its most basic level a step of faith. Otherwise I can do crazy things, like in Carroll's piece I can say that I agree with A and B but C still does not follow.
And yes, it is interesting (ironic?) that a discipline most people consider cold and mechanical (like Spock) still requires faith at its most basic levels.
If you don't agree with the formal axiomatic approach to mathematics, what would you propose instead?
Interesting... why do you think this is? Was it all of the time wasted checking and re-checking the proof, or was Andrew Wiles that smart that spending all his time on a useless proof set math back that much more (like when Erdos stopped using amphetimines for a month)? Or maybe there's another reason? I was always informed (by professors, et. al) that he made advances to elliptical curve theory as well as solving Fermat.
You should definitely read Carroll's Paradox. Lewis Carroll had thought about this exact problem. I think that assuming logic on faith, however, is an acceptable step in human endeavours.
Better example of why finding trillions of correct values for the Riemann hypothesis:
The Mobius function is a number theoretic function with the value:
M(n)= 1 if n=1 = -1^r if n = p1*p2...*pr where p1-pr are distinct primes = 0 otherwise.
A mathematician, Frantz Mertens, conjectured in 1897 that sum(M(k), k=1 to n) < sqrt(n). This conjecture has been proven by computer for all n < 10^9. However, in 1984, Andrew Odlyzko and Herman te Riele proved that this conjecture was false for some n <= 3.21 * 10^64.
This is why we have to prove the Riemann hypothesis. Not only does the problem quit bugging us, but we learn new things along the way. When Andrew Wiles proved Fermat, proving Fermat gave no immediate benefit, but it also proved an important conjecture about elliptical curves and I believe it provided the mathematics community with Galois theory.
Say what you want about TV causing ADHD - its fast switching topics are designed for short attention span, and as such will cause children to adapt to its style, causing inability to focus. However, video games (for children, especially learning games) demand focus from children and are probably beneficial in the same way that mobiles and toys and other baby things are. Having a computer will also get them used to dealing with technology, something which nowadays is vital. I remember I had a Commodore 64 when I was 5 and would just love to sit there and program on it and play video games.
The difference really is that television is aimed at consumers, and consumers are really at heart people with ADHD with lots of money to spend. Video games on the other hand are an involved activity, no more dangerous than solving the Junior Jumble or pushing blocks through holes - provided that you give the children children's software. Don't let your kid end up like this.
As a side note, I really like the whole Lo-Jack idea, but I don't want the police knowing where I am at all times either. Are there any do-it-yourself homing devices out there or places in Malaysia where I can pick one up myself? Or better yet, where would be a good place to find out how they work?
Are self-made homing devices even legal? Do they even exist without a large network like Lo-Jack probably has?
Inquiring minds want to know (and are too busy to use Google)
I say Japan! 1: If you don't own a computer, you can go to a 24 hour internet cafe for a very cheap rate. Tokyo is a very wired city.
2: Not sure where they stand on filesharing, but comic stores are abound with derivative works of popular series that never get cracked down on. I certainly haven't heard of any cases from there.
3: The food is GREAT. Trust me.
4: It's also hard for a nation without offensive capabilities to be doing much bombing on their own.
Wait one second... "R&D budget of 4.8 billion" *blinks* Did I see that right? Is that how much they spend annually on developing Microsoft Office or is that a cumulative figure?
Microsoft should really investigate their TCD (total cost of development) to output ratio.
This brings up the point: What do you have to know to put a computer language on your resume? Let's say that I put "Java" on my list. Am I expected to, say, know all of the built-in functions for a vector, or string, during my interview? If I put Python down on my resume, am I expected to know the names of built-in function overloaders for classes or the functions and parameters for the re module?
Basically what I'm asking is, if I put a computer language down on my resume, should I be expected to code something at an interview immediately without looking at any references? This doesn't seem unreasonable, if the program were simple, but I could imagine employers asking for more complex things. How complex is too complex and how much specific information should a computer programmer retain about a certain language, say, after not using it for 3 years (he was doing VBScript just until he could pay off his debt, I swear)?
I think it's more important to know "how to program" rather than "how to program in X" because the skills you learn in one language are usually easily transferrable to another, as long as you have lots of experience in different kinds of languages: functional, procedural, OO, assembly language, etc.
As a side-note, it looks in the article like by saying that 68% of employees don't understand Java, he really means that 68% of employees have never heard of MDA and have no idea what the hell it is, or don't quickly "recognise the value of MDA," since, of course, all highly-skilled Java programmers do.
It also put global conflicts into perspective, as there was a letter city that did things with letters, and the number people and the letter people hated each other. A peacemaker, trying to better their world, made them each come to a common agreement on something. They wound up agreeing that they disagreed! not so different from the real world.
This discussion of infinity reminds me of this "proof" that pi==2:
- Begin with two points A and B that lie on opposite ends of a semi-circle with diameter 2. Let us call the length of the curve between A and B pi.
- Take a point equidistant to A and B, C, that lies on two smaller semi-circles, AC and CB. Note that the length of the curves AC + CB is still pi, and the height of the curve above the straight line AB is less than the height of the AB circle above the line AB.
- Repeat this. As you do this an infinite number of times, the height of each curve above the line AB approaches zero, but the length of the curve remains pi. Therefore eventually the curves become a straight line, the same as AB. The line AB has length 2, so therefore pi==2.
Infinity can be tricky thing if you don't think about it the right way.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if by now the majority of users think that icon somehow universally means 'Save' or if they think that's what actually inside their computer doing the saving. You know, the little thing that goes clicky-click inside there.
Plus images of floppies still tend to persist in movies and the like. Somehow they are real "hardcore computer hacker" tools or something.
If this were a virus You would be dead now Fortunately it's not Slashdot is a dangerous place; How's your security? Call Hiro Protagonist Security Associates For a free initial consultation.
YES!! I have discovered an amazing diet/exercise routine that increases your brain power by over 400%!!! It only requires 5 minutes of work a day, and best of all, IT REALLY WORKS!! I increased my GRE score from a lousy 900 to an astonishing 1550 just by using this method for only THREE WEEKS!!
To find out about this AMAZING discovery, send $50 check or money order to:
155 North Halsted Chicago, IL 60607
Don't delay!!
-- You have received this email because you are on the Slashdot Opt-In list. To unsubscribe to future emails, send email to unsubscribe-and-well-forward-your-email-to-1000-ot her-companies-just-kidding@brainpowerd.net
Bah! These books (and any other calculus texts) are no match for the mighty Spivak Calculusbook.
It gives a much more in depth understanding about the concepts that make up the calculus, and is an excellent introduction into the real world of mathematics. Not for beginners, however.
I can't believe he didn't stonewall you! I can just see you guys: You see what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass?! YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FUCK A STRANGER IN THE ASS?!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
The station wagon of computers has arrived!
Praise the day!
--Stephen
IIRC, it was Al Pacino in Salome who, when a cell phone rang, stopped the show, broke character, and told the woman "We'll wait until you're finished."
--Stephen
This is the question that almost everyone, everywhere, that deals with a complex system has to deal with. Whether you're programming a kernel or writing documentation, you cannot understand everything at once. You need to start at a small section of it, and simply thread your way through the task until it all begins to form as a whole.
--Stephen
But IIRC, mathematicians had viewed Fermat as a dead-end, and in fact had coaxed Wiles out of even thinking about it and instead working on elliptical curves. And I coulda sworn that the documentary I saw on the topic said that Wiles created something new in solving this problem.
You also have to realize that others (Jean-Luc Picard) are going to try and come up with a proof that DOES fit in the margins, or at the very least a proof with a page count of less than 100. So, I wouldn't despair just yet.
--Stephen
See, there you go contradicting yourself - you say that A=A is self apparent. Yet to say this in itself requires faith. To say something is "self apparent" or "obvious" or "does not need explaination" is in itself an act of faith - you have the faith that what you say is true, even though it cannot be proven. The point of Carroll's Paradox is that all logic requires at its most basic level a step of faith. Otherwise I can do crazy things, like in Carroll's piece I can say that I agree with A and B but C still does not follow.
And yes, it is interesting (ironic?) that a discipline most people consider cold and mechanical (like Spock) still requires faith at its most basic levels.
If you don't agree with the formal axiomatic approach to mathematics, what would you propose instead?
--Stephen
Interesting... why do you think this is?
Was it all of the time wasted checking and re-checking the proof, or was Andrew Wiles that smart that spending all his time on a useless proof set math back that much more (like when Erdos stopped using amphetimines for a month)?
Or maybe there's another reason? I was always informed (by professors, et. al) that he made advances to elliptical curve theory as well as solving Fermat.
--Stephen
Then the NOVA documentary LIED to me. LIES!!
--Stephen
--Stephen
The Mobius function is a number theoretic function with the value:
This is why we have to prove the Riemann hypothesis. Not only does the problem quit bugging us, but we learn new things along the way. When Andrew Wiles proved Fermat, proving Fermat gave no immediate benefit, but it also proved an important conjecture about elliptical curves and I believe it provided the mathematics community with Galois theory.
(IANAM.)
--Stephen
Looks like Apple is finally listening to ESR. Way to take the initiative, Apple!
--Stephen
The difference really is that television is aimed at consumers, and consumers are really at heart people with ADHD with lots of money to spend. Video games on the other hand are an involved activity, no more dangerous than solving the Junior Jumble or pushing blocks through holes - provided that you give the children children's software. Don't let your kid end up like this.
--Stephen
See subject.
As a side note, I really like the whole Lo-Jack idea, but I don't want the police knowing where I am at all times either. Are there any do-it-yourself homing devices out there or places in Malaysia where I can pick one up myself? Or better yet, where would be a good place to find out how they work?
Are self-made homing devices even legal? Do they even exist without a large network like Lo-Jack probably has?
Inquiring minds want to know (and are too busy to use Google)
--Stephen
--Stephen
I say Japan!
1: If you don't own a computer, you can go to a 24 hour internet cafe for a very cheap rate. Tokyo is a very wired city.
2: Not sure where they stand on filesharing, but comic stores are abound with derivative works of popular series that never get cracked down on. I certainly haven't heard of any cases from there.
3: The food is GREAT. Trust me.
4: It's also hard for a nation without offensive capabilities to be doing much bombing on their own.
--Stephen
Wait one second...
"R&D budget of 4.8 billion"
*blinks*
Did I see that right? Is that how much they spend annually on developing Microsoft Office or is that a cumulative figure?
Microsoft should really investigate their TCD (total cost of development) to output ratio.
Unbelievable,
--Stephen
This brings up the point:
What do you have to know to put a computer language on your resume? Let's say that I put "Java" on my list. Am I expected to, say, know all of the built-in functions for a vector, or string, during my interview? If I put Python down on my resume, am I expected to know the names of built-in function overloaders for classes or the functions and parameters for the re module?
Basically what I'm asking is, if I put a computer language down on my resume, should I be expected to code something at an interview immediately without looking at any references? This doesn't seem unreasonable, if the program were simple, but I could imagine employers asking for more complex things. How complex is too complex and how much specific information should a computer programmer retain about a certain language, say, after not using it for 3 years (he was doing VBScript just until he could pay off his debt, I swear)?
I think it's more important to know "how to program" rather than "how to program in X" because the skills you learn in one language are usually easily transferrable to another, as long as you have lots of experience in different kinds of languages: functional, procedural, OO, assembly language, etc.
As a side-note, it looks in the article like by saying that 68% of employees don't understand Java, he really means that 68% of employees have never heard of MDA and have no idea what the hell it is, or don't quickly "recognise the value of MDA," since, of course, all highly-skilled Java programmers do.
--Stephen
"I don't agree to that."
"Neither do I!"
--Stephen
This discussion of infinity reminds me of this "proof" that pi==2:
- Begin with two points A and B that lie on opposite ends of a semi-circle with diameter 2. Let us call the length of the curve between A and B pi.
- Take a point equidistant to A and B, C, that lies on two smaller semi-circles, AC and CB. Note that the length of the curves AC + CB is still pi, and the height of the curve above the straight line AB is less than the height of the AB circle above the line AB.
- Repeat this. As you do this an infinite number of times, the height of each curve above the line AB approaches zero, but the length of the curve remains pi. Therefore eventually the curves become a straight line, the same as AB. The line AB has length 2, so therefore pi==2.
Infinity can be tricky thing if you don't think about it the right way.
--Stephen
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if by now the majority of users think that icon somehow universally means 'Save' or if they think that's what actually inside their computer doing the saving. You know, the little thing that goes clicky-click inside there.
Plus images of floppies still tend to persist in movies and the like. Somehow they are real "hardcore computer hacker" tools or something.
--Stephen
Actually the written portion is now scored on a 0-6 scale, in half-point increments.
Nyeh.
If this were a virus
You would be dead now
Fortunately it's not
Slashdot is a dangerous place;
How's your security?
Call Hiro Protagonist Security Associates
For a free initial consultation.
--Stephen
Deep structures, anyone?
YES!! I have discovered an amazing diet/exercise routine that increases your brain power by over 400%!!! It only requires 5 minutes of work a day, and best of all, IT REALLY WORKS!!
t her-companies-just-kidding@brainpowerd.net
I increased my GRE score from a lousy 900 to an astonishing 1550 just by using this method for only THREE WEEKS!!
To find out about this AMAZING discovery, send $50 check or money order to:
155 North Halsted
Chicago, IL 60607
Don't delay!!
--
You have received this email because you are on the Slashdot Opt-In list. To unsubscribe to future emails, send email to unsubscribe-and-well-forward-your-email-to-1000-o
It gives a much more in depth understanding about the concepts that make up the calculus, and is an excellent introduction into the real world of mathematics. Not for beginners, however.
God bless you, Y.P.
--Stephen
I can't believe he didn't stonewall you!
I can just see you guys:
You see what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass?! YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FUCK A STRANGER IN THE ASS?!!!!
--Stephen