""" 'For most of human history, people have lived in small tribes where everything they did was known by everyone they knew,' Dr. Malone said. 'In some sense we're becoming a global village. Privacy may turn out to have become an anomaly.' """
But, even in those tribe people can "get away." As in, there always have been ways to get some privacy and there always have been things that are just private. And that in which is public, is spread by those that wish to spread it (or someone not respecting others wishes). Even if recently in human history terms, it has been a fair while that we've had actual privacy. Go home and no-one knows what you're watching on TV, what internet sites you're going to, etc. Out in public, people don't know who you're meeting with unless they know you and see you or hear about it from someone that knows about the meeting.
This sort of non-privacy that people think that is inevitable is actually preventable. Just don't network the databases, don't allow companies, etc to get away with obtaining too much info about you and don't allow the government to create a pervasive and invasive surveillance system. There's no actual benefit to them either. That is unless one considers citizens the enemy against government.
I for one believe that we have become accustomed to our privacy. That this notion of, "who cares about it" is nothing but people being stupid and not realising the ramifications of it. Because, they haven't been bitten on the as because of it yet. Just ask anybody that has been/is a victim of identity theft and they'll tell you just how important privacy is. In other words, for the commoners to believe that not having privacy is a problem they'll (or someone they're close to) have to be affected by that in a drastic way. Otherwise there is no hope.
I don't think that was what Dr. Aaronson was getting at there (you're referring to his point 3, right?). I would think that he was pointing out that Academics are not likely to use to contribute to Wikipedia because "using "original research" as a compliment and not an accusation" is what Academics do, whereas using "original research" as an accusation (read: attack) and not a compliment is what is commonly written by non-Academics (read: the average person contributing to Wikipedia).
They couldn't just chalk this up to a win. Like all activists, they have to beat you over the head with, "You aren't doing enough" no matter how much of an improvement anything is. This, incidentally, is one of the main reasons why people tend to just not listen to such nutters. They try to shove there idealism down your throat all at once instead of taking the actually smart approach of constant incremental improvements.
""" One commenter suggests that professors should encourage students to improve the Wikipedia articles about topics they are studying. 'This will help them understand the topic and at the same time improve Wikipedia.' """
This would actually be counter productive. Student, just starting to study something, have the horrid habit of thinking they understand something that they actually don't. Students, in general, should be told to avoid writing about subjects they are studying, not encouraged.
Your assursion is that since people can be video taped in public, that they should be video taped in public for reasons that you just stated. But, I have a problem with that given that video is NOT unbiased as you say. It can be doctored and cut to make things look the way they are not. Have you seen "reality" TV? Not to mention that this system can and will be abused i.e. blackmail. You might say something along the lines that I shouldn't be talking about private things in public. But, why should I have to change my behaviour and be forced to not even use a lowered voice?
Giving up on privacy because there are people that want it not to exist and are moving forward with there plans is not a answer. In fact, it is part of the problem.
No that's not typical for a Physics program. And I've looked at a lot. But, you also don't seem to realise that there is a difference between the way that Mathematics treats PDEs v.s. Physics. I'll also point out that many Math department do have courses specific for the Sciences. So, even if you took it through the Math department, there's a good chance that it was geared towards you instead of being a proper Math course.
Wrong. QM is an Undergrad topic. It's just an upper level course i.e. 3rd or 4th year. Dumbing things down the way Griffiths does, does nothing but water it down into non-existence.
Nonsense. Especially, in the face of another Undergrad book that I suggested. I think you're confusing Undergrad with 1st/2nd year. QM is NOT a lower level course. It's taught AT THE EARLIEST in 3rd year. But, even when it's taught in 3rd year, it is continued in 4th. It is an advance topic and REQUIRES advanced treatment. By, "skimming the surface", one doesn't even come close to getting into any actual QMs.
No. ODE's are typical of Undergrad. But, PDE's are typical of Masters. That isn't to say that PDE's are taught in Undergrad, period. Rather that PDE's in Undergrad is atypical. At least in North America. Other parts of the world either have vastly superior high-school/Undergrad or skip a lot of the, necessary for actually understanding, stuff. Germany and China are respective examples.
You're assuming that bug fixes won't introduce new errors. Are you sure that's a good assumption? Because, I've used computers before, and I know that it isn't.
1) You didn't read what I wrote in what you first quoted of mine. Please actually read before replying to someone.
2) I'll paraphrase from the Tao: Though a program be but 3 lines long. Some day, someone will have to maintain it. Similarly, no matter how small a program is, it will contain bugs.
3) Having to go in a check the checker defeats the purpose of the checker.
4) It isn't my job to check the checker. Nor is it any Mathematicians job to check the checker.
5) Re: well defined "A sufficiently well behaved function": You're taking what I wrote completely out of context (see (1)). Note the ()'s after that in which you quote: rigorous within context
I could go on, but I won't waste my time with someone that clearly hasn't actually read what I wrote.
There is experimental Mathematics that uses programs to search problems for "interesting features." Then one can take pencil to paper to look into that specific area of the "problem." You know, to actually prove something. Software can also be used to search for counter-examples to conjectures or look for evidence that a conjecture is true or not. So, in that way, software does aid Maths. As in, software can be used to search for "things" or to be used as a "microscope." It's been like this for some time.
But, most people don't actually understand what Mathematics actually is. Hell, even in Applied Mathematics, one must actually prove something. But, that proof, and here is where the misunderstanding comes in, is not an exhaustive search nor similar. That is a "show." Proving something is very different. Proving something not only gets you to a conclusion, but you learn something a long the way. The proof always points to "other things." A "show" doesn't provide this.
Now to answer what was written in the post:
These "proof checkers" are, to put it politely, a misnomer. I find it sad that people actually think that they will work as advertised. First off, if anyone would actually look at the "code" that is needed to be entered in (at least) many of these "proof checkers" they'd realise just how problematic data entry will be. Not to mention the... numerous bugs that WILL be in the compiler and checker itself. Not to mention the impossible requirement for a zero defect environment. I could go on.
But, there are also many other concerns that make this a practical fools errand. Namely, how do you translate something like, "A sufficiently well behaved function" (no that's not ad hoc, it quite rigorous within context), or "We take (37) and proceed by parts which results in:", etc, etc, etc. To accommodate this, the proof checker will either need someone to manually code every last detail expanding details as needed, something that is intractable, or AI that is, more than likely, more than a century more advanced than what we have today.
I'll also point out that we already have a formal, axiomatized, correct Mathematics. The only problems with correctness that come up are recent results and those are typically found quickly. It's called a retraction and it happens regularly. As in, the Mathematics community already has facilities to accommodate for incorrectness in published solutions. Lets not blow everything out of proportion because some clowns with nothing better to do with there time think otherwise.
In all honesty, how many of these fallacious stories are going to be published here? Because, this has been a repeated topic over the past couple weeks. Or does/. have the same technique as FOX "News"; say it enough times and it/becomes/ true?
The Wiedijk article, "Formal Proof -- Getting Started", never says infallible. In fact, it starts with "ensuring a reliability that is orders of magnitude larger than if one had just used human minds." That doesn't mean infallible.
Hyperbole. Look it up.
The program is written once and is used many times to verify many proofs. The program uses a limited set of rules applied recursively to prove things back to axioms. So, the more the program is used, the more confidence is gained.
The program will be full of bugs just like any other program. In a zero defect environment this is unacceptable. You are also assuming a level of triviality of the process that isn't so. You really need to become familiar with Higher Mathematics before speaking on these topics. As in, you keep thinking (and implying) that Mathematics is about adding things and "turning the crank." It just isn't so. Not even for checking.
And even IF this process can be written into an algorithm, we are decades (at least) away from it. And even then, there is still a significant human factor to overcome in data entry (disregarding the flawed program).
Formal mathematics is based on axioms and rules of logic that are mechanical in application. Human proofs don't go back to axioms. Humans often make mistakes that the computer would not have, because they do proofs in an ad hoc way -- not formal.
Human proofs do indeed go back to axioms. How? Because all the machinery of Mathematics tracks back to them. One doesn't need to reformulate the proof into its most basic terms if all the techniques used in it have already been checked out.
And again, computers can't handle most things. One of them being creativity. Mathematics is creative, so is checking it. Fact. You should also stop assuming that human aren't involved in this "formalization" process. Because they are. They are there from the data entry, to compilation to machine language, to the interpreter. Humans are there every step of the way. The process is nothing more than a "computers can do things so much better than us, let's use them" in a context where this doesn't apply.
You need to start providing quotes that back up what you say. Especially when the article you cited says the opposite: "I do not mean that the computer should take steps that a mathematician would need to think about. Formalization of mathematics is about checking, and not about discovery."
It is you that needs to start reading (and educating yourself as well) as I said nothing of the sort. Checking Mathematics requires creativity as well. Perhaps different creative muscles, but it still requires creativity none-the-less. The computer will do no more a good job in this than humans because humans will actually be involved in this process more than the old one. And worse yet, there will be those that won't understand this process involved in it that will throw much more chaos into the process.
If this "formalization" is to make any progress, what is needed is Pure Mathematicians, Theoretical Computer Scientists, and Logicians to get together. Not these hacks doing ridiculously pre-mature work.
I suspect, again, you are referring to the physorg.com article.
You should read the articles yourself -- the PDFs from the AMS, not the physorg.com one.
I did read the AMS article. That is why I referenced it. Is your mind such a sieve that you can't retain information for that short of a time after quoting it?
But, I'm really tired of explaining these things that are trivial to people that actually know something about real Maths to programmers. Expect no reply. But, it would also be in your best interest to only comment on things that you are competent in. Just a suggestion.
Ask a computer to do something complex correctly once and it'll do it right every time.
Only if it was told how to do that thing correctly in the first place. For what you said to be true, the programming running must have zero defects. Have you used a computer lately?
Ask a human to do something complex correctly once and they will regularly screw it up.
You don't understand the peer review process. Look into that before commenting further in this context.
Also, you need to stop thinking of Maths as arithmetic or basic algebra. Higher Maths, which is what we are talking about here, is very *very* different. This basic fact completely deflates your "example." Again, look into this before commenting further in this context.
It's certainly better at performing repetitive tasks reliably.
Not really. It's just good at doing basic operations (i.e. basic arithmetic) repeatedly. That is assuming that what it's doing is input BY A HUMAN correctly. This is drastically different than checking a proof.
Where was that claimed in the article?
I cited my reference. If you would care to click a link, you'd find it.
What do you think formalization means? How is computer formalization different?
They are just putting in the exact same data as exists elsewhere (assuming there was no error on data entry) and running a human coded (i.e. flawed) program over it and calling that formalized mathematics i.e. formalized to them means "computer encoded". How exactly is that any more formally checked than a human going over it?
Computer formalization is just a tool, like a calculator. It isn't meant to replace humans, but instead be used by them.
You need to stop assuming and start reading. Again, I cited my reference. Go read it.
It is nothing but BS that the computer is better than human. Not to mention profound stupidity to think that the computer is infallible i.e. it is programmed by humans.
I read the first bit of Freek Wiedijk's article and it's political nonsense. All they've done is use the word "formalization" to describe the process of encoding mathematics "in the computer". What this does is hijack the common notion of formalization for use for there own purposes. Because, formalization is good, right? Well, not if you read and really understand what it does, and infinitely more important, does NOT mean in this context.
Point of fact, using computers does NOT take human minds out of the equation. It just hides them giving people the illusion of a more effective system.
There actually is a BIG difference between proving something and showing it. There is no context that would change that. Equivalence and equality are *not* the same thing. Just getting the same result doesn't mean that you got there the same way.
Namely, that through a "show" one _only_ gets that particular result and pretty much ends up in a dead end. And even then, only an exhaustive search would get if the result is unique or not. It is a "dumb" result.
On the other hand, proofs are *much* more deep. Beside the generality (if even as specific as this result) there is the proof technique that was used. Terry Tao has said that the proof technique is regularly more important than the result itself. Which is rather obvious given that the technique can be reused whereas the result has limited areas of applicability. One also will find during the proof, that there are implications for further research. I could go on.
But, that isn't to say that Numerics isn't useful. One need only look to Experimental Mathematics to see that it is. But, that still isn't a proof. What they do is analysis to see if there is anything to something that we aren't seeing. *Then* they go in and actually *prove* something based on that. It's similar to the relationship between Experimental and Theoretical Physics.
But, to say that there isn't a difference between the two is inane.
There is a BIG difference between the two as anyone within the Maths and the Sciences can tell you. I'm sorry, but people routinely get this wrong and it gets quite aggravating.
Seriously. I mean, I understand why people ask certain questions here. Namely, those computer related. Lots of those types here. But, asking such a question as you have just underlines that your department has tasked exactly the wrong person for the job. Tell them this and do something, if anything, that your qualified for.
Slashdot Mirror
"""
'For most of human history, people have lived in small tribes where everything they did was known by everyone they knew,' Dr. Malone said. 'In some sense we're becoming a global village. Privacy may turn out to have become an anomaly.'
"""
But, even in those tribe people can "get away." As in, there always have been ways to get some privacy and there always have been things that are just private. And that in which is public, is spread by those that wish to spread it (or someone not respecting others wishes). Even if recently in human history terms, it has been a fair while that we've had actual privacy. Go home and no-one knows what you're watching on TV, what internet sites you're going to, etc. Out in public, people don't know who you're meeting with unless they know you and see you or hear about it from someone that knows about the meeting.
This sort of non-privacy that people think that is inevitable is actually preventable. Just don't network the databases, don't allow companies, etc to get away with obtaining too much info about you and don't allow the government to create a pervasive and invasive surveillance system. There's no actual benefit to them either. That is unless one considers citizens the enemy against government.
I for one believe that we have become accustomed to our privacy. That this notion of, "who cares about it" is nothing but people being stupid and not realising the ramifications of it. Because, they haven't been bitten on the as because of it yet. Just ask anybody that has been/is a victim of identity theft and they'll tell you just how important privacy is. In other words, for the commoners to believe that not having privacy is a problem they'll (or someone they're close to) have to be affected by that in a drastic way. Otherwise there is no hope.
From even the summery:
"""
Statistics had been presented using graphics only a few times previously
"""
So, she didn't invent them then, now did she. One of the first, fine. One of the ones to popularise its use, fine. But, invent, hardly.
I don't think that was what Dr. Aaronson was getting at there (you're referring to his point 3, right?). I would think that he was pointing out that Academics are not likely to use to contribute to Wikipedia because "using "original research" as a compliment and not an accusation" is what Academics do, whereas using "original research" as an accusation (read: attack) and not a compliment is what is commonly written by non-Academics (read: the average person contributing to Wikipedia).
They couldn't just chalk this up to a win. Like all activists, they have to beat you over the head with, "You aren't doing enough" no matter how much of an improvement anything is. This, incidentally, is one of the main reasons why people tend to just not listen to such nutters. They try to shove there idealism down your throat all at once instead of taking the actually smart approach of constant incremental improvements.
"""
One commenter suggests that professors should encourage students to improve the Wikipedia articles about topics they are studying. 'This will help them understand the topic and at the same time improve Wikipedia.'
"""
This would actually be counter productive. Student, just starting to study something, have the horrid habit of thinking they understand something that they actually don't. Students, in general, should be told to avoid writing about subjects they are studying, not encouraged.
Your assursion is that since people can be video taped in public, that they should be video taped in public for reasons that you just stated. But, I have a problem with that given that video is NOT unbiased as you say. It can be doctored and cut to make things look the way they are not. Have you seen "reality" TV? Not to mention that this system can and will be abused i.e. blackmail. You might say something along the lines that I shouldn't be talking about private things in public. But, why should I have to change my behaviour and be forced to not even use a lowered voice?
Giving up on privacy because there are people that want it not to exist and are moving forward with there plans is not a answer. In fact, it is part of the problem.
Here's what's probably going to go through the mind of some of the citizens there:
Hey, why can you watch me all the time? That isn't right. It doesn't matter that I'm on public property. There is ethic to... Oooo, free internet!
No that's not typical for a Physics program. And I've looked at a lot. But, you also don't seem to realise that there is a difference between the way that Mathematics treats PDEs v.s. Physics. I'll also point out that many Math department do have courses specific for the Sciences. So, even if you took it through the Math department, there's a good chance that it was geared towards you instead of being a proper Math course.
I didn't think I had to state that I was talking about a Math program given that is the topic.
I'll also add that anything more than 1 + 1 (or similar) makes the lay person squeamish. So, anything remotely Mathematics kills them.
Wrong. QM is an Undergrad topic. It's just an upper level course i.e. 3rd or 4th year. Dumbing things down the way Griffiths does, does nothing but water it down into non-existence.
Nonsense. Especially, in the face of another Undergrad book that I suggested. I think you're confusing Undergrad with 1st/2nd year. QM is NOT a lower level course. It's taught AT THE EARLIEST in 3rd year. But, even when it's taught in 3rd year, it is continued in 4th. It is an advance topic and REQUIRES advanced treatment. By, "skimming the surface", one doesn't even come close to getting into any actual QMs.
Griffiths QM book is absolutely terrible. All it does is skim the surface. Greiner is vastly superior. Griffiths E&M book is good though.
No. ODE's are typical of Undergrad. But, PDE's are typical of Masters. That isn't to say that PDE's are taught in Undergrad, period. Rather that PDE's in Undergrad is atypical. At least in North America. Other parts of the world either have vastly superior high-school/Undergrad or skip a lot of the, necessary for actually understanding, stuff. Germany and China are respective examples.
You're assuming that bug fixes won't introduce new errors. Are you sure that's a good assumption? Because, I've used computers before, and I know that it isn't.
1) You didn't read what I wrote in what you first quoted of mine. Please actually read before replying to someone.
2) I'll paraphrase from the Tao: Though a program be but 3 lines long. Some day, someone will have to maintain it. Similarly, no matter how small a program is, it will contain bugs.
3) Having to go in a check the checker defeats the purpose of the checker.
4) It isn't my job to check the checker. Nor is it any Mathematicians job to check the checker.
5) Re: well defined "A sufficiently well behaved function": You're taking what I wrote completely out of context (see (1)). Note the ()'s after that in which you quote: rigorous within context
I could go on, but I won't waste my time with someone that clearly hasn't actually read what I wrote.
I only read the first couple paragraphs before I stopped reading as you clearly only skimmed mine. As in, the answers are already there.
To address the title first:
There is experimental Mathematics that uses programs to search problems for "interesting features." Then one can take pencil to paper to look into that specific area of the "problem." You know, to actually prove something. Software can also be used to search for counter-examples to conjectures or look for evidence that a conjecture is true or not. So, in that way, software does aid Maths. As in, software can be used to search for "things" or to be used as a "microscope." It's been like this for some time.
But, most people don't actually understand what Mathematics actually is. Hell, even in Applied Mathematics, one must actually prove something. But, that proof, and here is where the misunderstanding comes in, is not an exhaustive search nor similar. That is a "show." Proving something is very different. Proving something not only gets you to a conclusion, but you learn something a long the way. The proof always points to "other things." A "show" doesn't provide this.
Now to answer what was written in the post:
These "proof checkers" are, to put it politely, a misnomer. I find it sad that people actually think that they will work as advertised. First off, if anyone would actually look at the "code" that is needed to be entered in (at least) many of these "proof checkers" they'd realise just how problematic data entry will be. Not to mention the... numerous bugs that WILL be in the compiler and checker itself. Not to mention the impossible requirement for a zero defect environment. I could go on.
But, there are also many other concerns that make this a practical fools errand. Namely, how do you translate something like, "A sufficiently well behaved function" (no that's not ad hoc, it quite rigorous within context), or "We take (37) and proceed by parts which results in:", etc, etc, etc. To accommodate this, the proof checker will either need someone to manually code every last detail expanding details as needed, something that is intractable, or AI that is, more than likely, more than a century more advanced than what we have today.
I'll also point out that we already have a formal, axiomatized, correct Mathematics. The only problems with correctness that come up are recent results and those are typically found quickly. It's called a retraction and it happens regularly. As in, the Mathematics community already has facilities to accommodate for incorrectness in published solutions. Lets not blow everything out of proportion because some clowns with nothing better to do with there time think otherwise.
In all honesty, how many of these fallacious stories are going to be published here? Because, this has been a repeated topic over the past couple weeks. Or does /. have the same technique as FOX "News"; say it enough times and it /becomes/ true?
Hyperbole. Look it up.
The program will be full of bugs just like any other program. In a zero defect environment this is unacceptable. You are also assuming a level of triviality of the process that isn't so. You really need to become familiar with Higher Mathematics before speaking on these topics. As in, you keep thinking (and implying) that Mathematics is about adding things and "turning the crank." It just isn't so. Not even for checking.
And even IF this process can be written into an algorithm, we are decades (at least) away from it. And even then, there is still a significant human factor to overcome in data entry (disregarding the flawed program).
Human proofs do indeed go back to axioms. How? Because all the machinery of Mathematics tracks back to them. One doesn't need to reformulate the proof into its most basic terms if all the techniques used in it have already been checked out.
And again, computers can't handle most things. One of them being creativity. Mathematics is creative, so is checking it. Fact. You should also stop assuming that human aren't involved in this "formalization" process. Because they are. They are there from the data entry, to compilation to machine language, to the interpreter. Humans are there every step of the way. The process is nothing more than a "computers can do things so much better than us, let's use them" in a context where this doesn't apply.
It is you that needs to start reading (and educating yourself as well) as I said nothing of the sort. Checking Mathematics requires creativity as well. Perhaps different creative muscles, but it still requires creativity none-the-less. The computer will do no more a good job in this than humans because humans will actually be involved in this process more than the old one. And worse yet, there will be those that won't understand this process involved in it that will throw much more chaos into the process.
If this "formalization" is to make any progress, what is needed is Pure Mathematicians, Theoretical Computer Scientists, and Logicians to get together. Not these hacks doing ridiculously pre-mature work.
I did read the AMS article. That is why I referenced it. Is your mind such a sieve that you can't retain information for that short of a time after quoting it?
But, I'm really tired of explaining these things that are trivial to people that actually know something about real Maths to programmers. Expect no reply. But, it would also be in your best interest to only comment on things that you are competent in. Just a suggestion.
Only if it was told how to do that thing correctly in the first place. For what you said to be true, the programming running must have zero defects. Have you used a computer lately?
You don't understand the peer review process. Look into that before commenting further in this context.
Also, you need to stop thinking of Maths as arithmetic or basic algebra. Higher Maths, which is what we are talking about here, is very *very* different. This basic fact completely deflates your "example." Again, look into this before commenting further in this context.
Not really. It's just good at doing basic operations (i.e. basic arithmetic) repeatedly. That is assuming that what it's doing is input BY A HUMAN correctly. This is drastically different than checking a proof.
I cited my reference. If you would care to click a link, you'd find it.
They are just putting in the exact same data as exists elsewhere (assuming there was no error on data entry) and running a human coded (i.e. flawed) program over it and calling that formalized mathematics i.e. formalized to them means "computer encoded". How exactly is that any more formally checked than a human going over it?
You need to stop assuming and start reading. Again, I cited my reference. Go read it.
It is nothing but BS that the computer is better than human. Not to mention profound stupidity to think that the computer is infallible i.e. it is programmed by humans.
I read the first bit of Freek Wiedijk's article and it's political nonsense. All they've done is use the word "formalization" to describe the process of encoding mathematics "in the computer". What this does is hijack the common notion of formalization for use for there own purposes. Because, formalization is good, right? Well, not if you read and really understand what it does, and infinitely more important, does NOT mean in this context.
Point of fact, using computers does NOT take human minds out of the equation. It just hides them giving people the illusion of a more effective system.
There actually is a BIG difference between proving something and showing it. There is no context that would change that. Equivalence and equality are *not* the same thing. Just getting the same result doesn't mean that you got there the same way.
Namely, that through a "show" one _only_ gets that particular result and pretty much ends up in a dead end. And even then, only an exhaustive search would get if the result is unique or not. It is a "dumb" result.
On the other hand, proofs are *much* more deep. Beside the generality (if even as specific as this result) there is the proof technique that was used. Terry Tao has said that the proof technique is regularly more important than the result itself. Which is rather obvious given that the technique can be reused whereas the result has limited areas of applicability. One also will find during the proof, that there are implications for further research. I could go on.
But, that isn't to say that Numerics isn't useful. One need only look to Experimental Mathematics to see that it is. But, that still isn't a proof. What they do is analysis to see if there is anything to something that we aren't seeing. *Then* they go in and actually *prove* something based on that. It's similar to the relationship between Experimental and Theoretical Physics.
But, to say that there isn't a difference between the two is inane.
There is a BIG difference between the two as anyone within the Maths and the Sciences can tell you. I'm sorry, but people routinely get this wrong and it gets quite aggravating.
... it's completely broken.
So, who's this Ph.D. candidate and her supervisor? Because, I want names. I want to know who to stay the hell away from with regards to security.
Seriously. I mean, I understand why people ask certain questions here. Namely, those computer related. Lots of those types here. But, asking such a question as you have just underlines that your department has tasked exactly the wrong person for the job. Tell them this and do something, if anything, that your qualified for.