This one's for Nick
http://xkcd.com/675/
-- R
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Well played.
--Doug
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Robert Holmes rob...@holmesacosta.comwrote:
This one's for Nick
http://xkcd.com/675/
-- R
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's
Yuss, and the really depressing thing about Physics is that people can prove
you're wrong
Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures
Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.
1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:(505)983-7728
- Original
Enough of this triumphalism of the hard scientists!
Everything I learned about physics i learned at the feet of members of this
list.
if there are incongruities in what you taught me, you have only yourself to
blame.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and
Okay, this one is for Nick, too, in his guise as a weather geek.
NASA Earth Observatory picked up the press release for this:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=41646src=eorss-manews
But it turns out that the New Journal of Physics is open sourced, so you can
go read the
Yuss, and the really depressing thing about Physics is that people can prove
you're wrong
Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures
Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.
1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:(505)983-7728
- Original
What struck me as strange and disappointing (although since I'm really not
able to read the scientific details I may have missed it) was the lack of
any discussion of the presumed underlying model. As I understand it the
experiment showed that heat is transported between the hot and cold gases at
Dear Friammers,
We have decided to carry on from our seminar on Emergence to one on
Mathematical Thinking. Although we don't meet for a month, I found myself
reading the first assignment, Thurston's On Proof and Progress in Mathematics.
Now Thurston loves mathematics and is apparently good
Quite flattering to us programmers. (Here's the actual
article.http://www.ams.org/bull/1994-30-02/S0273-0979-1994-00502-6/S0273-0979-1994-00502-6.pdf)
My experience, though, is that programming is easier. (I was a mediocre math
major as an undergraduate and then found computer science, something I
Programming is much easier because much of it is a process of trial
and error. You can generate any old crap (many programmers do) and
gradually refine it by successively throwing it at:
a) a compiler,
b) a set of unit tests (written by yourself)
c) a set of system tests
d) a set of
Careful, here, everybody.
I don't want to be party to a misrepresentation of Thurston's point. It is not
that maths is easier that computer programming or that computer programmers are
more rigorous than mathematicians. It is that the heart of mathematical proof
is not in its rigor. Rigor
11 matches
Mail list logo
