 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> True but not a lot. I believe that introspection is bad for you, I also believe
> that analysis, public displays of grief and talking about your (not aimed at
> you) feelings are amongst the worst things that you can do for your mental
> health.
Ignorance is bliss?
> <Sits back and waits for the avalanche>
No avalanche, just curious.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I've already done this several times. I still don't comprehend.
OK, you understand boolean "and" and boolean "or", right? This is called
"propositional logic":
If it rains, the street is wet.
It is raining.
Therefore the street is wet.
That's propositional logic.
Go the next step, and you get first order predicate logic:
All ravens are black.
My bird is a raven.
Therefore my bird is black.
The "all X are Y" is universal quantification.
If you have "some X is Y", that's existential quantification. Usually it's
part of an expression involving universal quantification, like
"for all integers X, there exists a integer Y such that
if X is prime then Y is prime and Y > X."
That's just saying there's no biggest prime. No matter what
number we pick, if it's prime, there's some other number that's
also prime and larger. (It's not a proof, just a statement of
a boolean value. Proving the boolean is true is a separate step.)
Note also that the result is *one* boolean value. It's either true for all
X, or it isn't.
There are, of course, standard rules of deduction, like
"for all X, pred(X)"
is the same as
"not for some X, not pred(X)"
and so on.
You might be getting stuck by reading too low in the explanation stack. Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_order_predicate_logic
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I guess it's just that I've spent my entire life surrounded by people
> telling me how stupid I am,
They're wrong. All my teachers thought I was crap too. I was just bored for
the most part, and uninterested.
>> Know what? My wife has a PhD too. Know where I met her?
> Heh. What do you have a PhD *in* though?
Both our PhDs were in computers.
> I rather doubt there are many females who have a PhD in anything
> remotely related to computing.
In my university, it seemed pretty close to even, IIRC. At least in the PhD
program.
> Like I say, I couldn't figure out the application process. Maybe because
> I don't have a clear idea of how this stuff is supposed to work...
Oh. You mean, you were blocked by HR? That's not unusual.
> That's pretty impressive... I've spent years writting silly scraps of
> text, but I've never yet managed to write "a paper".
Did you ever take an intensive 3-year class in "how to write a technical
paper destined for an academic journal" taught one-on-one by someone who
does that regularly for a living? :-)
>> It's not "no apparently reason." Think of it like taking a job doing
>> something fun, for not quite as much money as you might like, but
>> probably still more than you're making now. :-)
>
> Well, if you put it like that... ;-)
I'm serious. Don't look at it as a destination. You want to get out of where
you are, so think of the PhD as a place to go, have fun, meet people, and do
exciting stuff. It doesn't matter if you finish or not, any more than
running a marathon is about whether you come in first.
> I think spending all day in a brand new, possibly hostile environment is
> quite enough to be dealing with, without living in a completely random
> country on top of all that. (Quite apart from the fact that I have no
> desire to leave the UK in the first place.)
That's fair. Part of the fun is living in a different country, mind. (Not
that I did, but ...) I can completely understand if it isn't fun, tho. Do
take advantage of the fact that you speak one of the languages that ran
rampant all over the world not too long ago, so you can get by language-wise
pretty much anywhere. China was the only place I've been that people
generally didn't know enough English to get by.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I did actually get my BSc. And yet, nobody gives a **** about that. How
> is a PhD different?
What's the difference between being a sailor in the navy and the captain of
the ship? In one, you're swabbing the decks when the captain tells you to.
In the other, you're responsible for making sure the ship gets where it's going.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:01:47 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> My brother and I used to fall asleep listening to episodes of the radio
>> series, and we'd quiz each other on the finer details. Clearly I've
>> lost my touch a little bit. ;-)
>
> You think *that* is bad?! I used to be able to sleep properly...
Heh, I've never been able to sleep properly. Better now than it used to
be, but still pretty restless.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Now, is it possible to do a search using SQL that does something like
> this: Find all the times that an experiment has gone over temperature
> while switched on (ie after a switched on event but not after a switched
> off
> event)? This is beyond my basic knowledge how I would do such a thing
> without writing some code to manually search the results and checking
> times.
I know enough about SQL to be able to get a complete list of students
(including their phone numbers and course marks) from a supposedly
important university in my area, through the SQL injection bug a friend
found, but your question goes beyond my knowledge too.
It would be easier if you had a "switched on" column on each temperature
event, saying if at that event the...thing was on or off.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:20:31 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I had them all on cassette, then a friend of mine in the UK bought me
>> the CDs - which have subsequently gone missing, so I've got another set
>> now.
>>
>> The thing I've been trying to find is a copy of the version that has
>> Marvin's bit (when they first land on Magrathea) where he plays "Rock
>> 'n Roll Music" after Arthur mentions that "that robot can hum like Pink
>> Floyd". I could swear I heard it in the radio version once upon a
>> time, but now I only seem to be able to find it in the LP (I believe, I
>> have the LP here somewhere but don't have a turntable).
>
> If it's on the LP, you're probably stuck with that, because it seems
> they lifted that bit out for copyright reasons:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_
(radio_series)#Musical_copyrights
Yeah, I'd read that it was copyright issues. A real shame, but I could
swear that I had it from the radio series that way as well.
The scripts talk about it a little bit as well.
> I've never heard that version before...
It's kinda a mix of the radio version and the BBC TV version. You get
the "dish of the day", for example, which appears in the TV version.
Personally, I prefer the Hagunennons to Hotblack Desiato, though, but it
was interesting to see David Prowse outside the Darth Vader outfit - and
to hear why Lucas had to use James Earl Jones to do the voice for that
character in the Star Wars films.
>>> I recently watched the film again, and it's really astounding how
>>> badly they buggered up Zaphod's character in that version... pretty
>>> good apart from that though.
> >
>> Yeah, I didn't think Rockwell captured the character well at all. I
>> also didn't think Mos Def made a convincing Ford, it often sounded he
>> was just reading the lines.
>
> Essentially Zaphod is about right in the film, but in the previous
> versions the character managed to stay likeable, never becoming outright
> unpleasant. You just want Martin Freeman's Arthur to pummel him. In the
> other versions it's much more low-level jibing and Arthur gives as good
> as he gets in most cases. ("Well, go bang your heads together,
> foureyes!")
Well, yeah - that's why he isn't right in the film - he's a bit too
unpleasant. But Mark Wing-Davey nailed the role in the radio version and
the TV version.
> Mos Def was actually better than I expected. Unfortunately the original
> actors' interpretations are so firmly embedded in my mind that I doubt
> anyone else will do it as well to my ears... although, as you say,
> Stephen Fry was excellent.
I expected Mos Def to do much better than he did. His interpretation was
just flat, though. I preferred Geoffrey McGivern's interpretation over
all of them, though I understand why he couldn't do the TV version (hard
to be an "impoverished hitchhiker" given how large he is).
I was surprised, though, that I felt that Martin Freeman did an
outstanding job as Arthur. Given that Adams wrote the part essentially
just for Simon Jones (kinda like the part for the book was written for
someone with a "Peter Jones-y sort of voice"), I didn't think anyone
could do the role justice.
Of all the Trillians, though, I preferred Susan Sheridan. She came
across as the most believable when it came to holding a degree in
astrophysics. I remember reading somewhere that Adams originally wanted
someone of Indian ancestry to play the role - that could've worked well
as well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>
>> I actually have no idea what you're talking about - although spending
>> 3 years evaluating the intelligence of a half-mouldy cup of yogurt
>> does seem like an amusing prospect. ;-)
>
> That could be your dissertation. :-D
And there's probably a line item for it in Obama's stimulus bill...
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's kinda a mix of the radio version and the BBC TV version. You get
> the "dish of the day", for example, which appears in the TV version.
> Personally, I prefer the Hagunennons to Hotblack Desiato
Agreed - the idea of disaster area was very funny, but I thought the
hagunenons (far too many 'n's in that name) were better too.
> was interesting to see David Prowse outside the Darth Vader outfit - and
> to hear why Lucas had to use James Earl Jones to do the voice for that
> character in the Star Wars films.
*grin* I reckon Prowse's broad west accent sound is about the least
suitable voice for Vader I could possibly imagine!
> But Mark Wing-Davey nailed the role in the radio version and
> the TV version.
Completely. "Hand me the rap-rod, plate captain!"
> I expected Mos Def to do much better than he did. His interpretation was
> just flat, though. I preferred Geoffrey McGivern's interpretation over
> all of them, though I understand why he couldn't do the TV version (hard
> to be an "impoverished hitchhiker" given how large he is).
Haha, interesting, I never knew that. I don't think I've ever seen what
he looks like IRL... :)
> I was surprised, though, that I felt that Martin Freeman did an
> outstanding job as Arthur. Given that Adams wrote the part essentially
> just for Simon Jones (kinda like the part for the book was written for
> someone with a "Peter Jones-y sort of voice"), I didn't think anyone
> could do the role justice.
He was very different. It didn't really spoil it for me, but I did have
trouble linking him in my mind to the character.
> Of all the Trillians, though, I preferred Susan Sheridan. She came
> across as the most believable when it came to holding a degree in
> astrophysics.
Yes, the improbably-named Deschanel (how fitting!) was good in the film,
but the girl in the TV series was terrible. Far too ditzy and shallow.
As you say, the original was pretty definitive. She had such a sexy
voice too!
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I've already done this several times. I still don't comprehend.
>
> OK, you understand boolean "and" and boolean "or", right? This is called
> "propositional logic":
>
> If it rains, the street is wet.
> It is raining.
> Therefore the street is wet.
> That's propositional logic.
>
> Go the next step, and you get first order predicate logic:
> All ravens are black.
> My bird is a raven.
> Therefore my bird is black.
>
> The "all X are Y" is universal quantification.
>
> If you have "some X is Y", that's existential quantification. Usually
> it's part of an expression involving universal quantification, like
> "for all integers X, there exists a integer Y such that
> if X is prime then Y is prime and Y > X."
> That's just saying there's no biggest prime. No matter what
> number we pick, if it's prime, there's some other number that's
> also prime and larger. (It's not a proof, just a statement of
> a boolean value. Proving the boolean is true is a separate step.)
>
> Note also that the result is *one* boolean value. It's either true for
> all X, or it isn't.
Hmm, OK. That seems simple enough. I guess the problem is that all that
relational calculus stuff is abstracted to the point where it's just
moving symbols around and it's difficult to determine how this is
related to reality.
> There are, of course, standard rules of deduction, like
> "for all X, pred(X)"
> is the same as
> "not for some X, not pred(X)"
> and so on.
But, notably, if X being true implies Y being true, then X being false
does not necessarily imply Y being false.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
