OK, so this has been discussed a few times now, so I thought I'd make a 
thread specifically about it.

The question is: Do you think I should do a PhD?

Yes?

No?

Why?

For reference, I asked on the Haskell IRC server. One guy said he had a 
great time doing his PhD ("but not because of the PhD itself"). Another 
offered me the following helpful resources:

http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/pgh/thesis.html
http://www.nigels.com/jokes/phd1.pdf

Well, that sold it to me! o_O

 From my perspective, the answer seems quite self-evident: No. For the 
following reasons:

1. I am insufficiently intelligent to actually acheive a PhD. (I nearly 
failed my BSc as it is!)

2. I have insufficient money. (I'm still paying for my BSc. Very slowly.)

3. I don't think I can spare the time. (I have a job to do, sucky as it is.)

4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of 
positive change to my employment situation. Nobody is impressed by a 
BSc, and I doubt a PhD will be any different. Everybody wants 
"experience" and/or "people skills".

5. Presumably a PhD is a serious amount of hard work. It's not exactly a 
pleasure cruise. So I'd need a good reason to do one.

6. I rather doubt that you can get a PhD in "doing cool stuff". 
Presumably it must be something rather more specific than that.

7. Where the hell am I going to do a PhD anyway?

8. Are you mental?

I think that'll do for now. I'm sure I'll think of more later...

I seem to vaguely recall somebody (I forget who) claiming to know who to 
go to for this kind of thing, and offering to help me arrange it. 
Perhaps I'm just delusional...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:05:46 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>OK, so this has been discussed a few times now, so I thought I'd make a 
>thread specifically about it.
>
>The question is: Do you think I should do a PhD?
>
>Yes?
>

http://www.computing.open.ac.uk/8025700300415986/(httpPages)/648A4DC03818546780257328003938A6?OpenDocument

http://tinyurl.com/39xxxq


>
>Why?

You are wasted where you are.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On the other hand, if you get a doctorate in education, you can actually 
be as dumb as a half-moldy cup of yogurt, and you still won't get fired 
for anything short of a felony.

As proof I offer the U.S. public school system.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

>> The question is: Do you think I should do a PhD?
>>
>> Yes?
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/39xxxq

Hmm, interesting. It appears my degree is acceptable. I'm still not 
seeing how I'm going to pay for all of this though. (Or what use it will 
be once I've done it.)

>> Why?
> 
> You are wasted where you are.

This is self-evident. However, surely that just means I should be 
*somewhere* other than there? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> On the other hand, if you get a doctorate in education, you can actually 
> be as dumb as a half-moldy cup of yogurt, and you still won't get fired 
> for anything short of a felony.
> 
> As proof I offer the U.S. public school system.

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. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:37:50 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>>> The question is: Do you think I should do a PhD?
>>>
>>> Yes?
>> 
>> http://tinyurl.com/39xxxq
>
>Hmm, interesting. It appears my degree is acceptable. I'm still not 
>seeing how I'm going to pay for all of this though. (Or what use it will 
>be once I've done it.)
>
>>> Why?
>> 
>> You are wasted where you are.
>
>This is self-evident. However, surely that just means I should be 
>*somewhere* other than there? ;-)

You can get a loan <gulp> from the OU.
You might be more suited to academia than the workplace.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> 1. I am insufficiently intelligent to actually acheive a PhD. (I nearly 
> failed my BSc as it is!)

Rubbish!  You've demonstrated several times how quickly you can pick up new, 
often quite challenging, concepts.  You probably almost failed your BSc 
because there were subjects you just weren't interested in that much to put 
in the work.

> 2. I have insufficient money. (I'm still paying for my BSc. Very slowly.)

Aren't there lots of options for getting funding?

> 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of 
> positive change to my employment situation.

Completely incorrect, I don't even understand why you might think like that.

> 5. Presumably a PhD is a serious amount of hard work. It's not exactly a 
> pleasure cruise. So I'd need a good reason to do one.

Because you will enjoy doing it, and will have many more employment options 
once you are done.

> 6. I rather doubt that you can get a PhD in "doing cool stuff". Presumably 
> it must be something rather more specific than that.

No s**t!  List out all the "cool stuff" you enjoy, then start searching...

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> You can get a loan <gulp> from the OU.

Yay! More loans... :-}

> You might be more suited to academia than the workplace.

LOL. The last [and, incidentally first] guy who interviewed me said the 
same thing. Possibly because I informed him that a relation is merely 
some subset of the extended Cartesian product of the respective domains 
of its attributes - a fact which, surely, any database expert will agree 
with.

Then again, given the level of the "SQL test" I had to complete, maybe I 
knew more than him?

("List all customers who have placed an order this year, sorted by 
customer ID". I mean, seriously, are you KIDDING me??)

Post a reply to this message

>> 1. I am insufficiently intelligent to actually acheive a PhD. (I 
>> nearly failed my BSc as it is!)
> 
> Rubbish!  You've demonstrated several times how quickly you can pick up 
> new, often quite challenging, concepts.

I guess I'm still smarting from that guy yelling at me because I keep 
asking how rank-2 types work and I still can't get my head around it.

> You probably almost failed your 
> BSc because there were subjects you just weren't interested in that much 
> to put in the work.

Actually, I'm still not really comprehending why double-entry book 
keeping is really relevant to a computer science degree, but still...

>> 2. I have insufficient money. (I'm still paying for my BSc. Very slowly.)
> 
> Aren't there lots of options for getting funding?

*shrugs*

>> 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of 
>> positive change to my employment situation.
> 
> Completely incorrect, I don't even understand why you might think like 
> that.

Well, everybody seemed to think that once I had a degree, people would 
be falling over themselves to be the first to employ me. This is 
manifestly not the case. Nobody gives a **** that I have a degree. Why 
is another qualification going to be different?

>> 5. Presumably a PhD is a serious amount of hard work. It's not exactly 
>> a pleasure cruise. So I'd need a good reason to do one.
> 
> Because you will enjoy doing it

If it's true, that would be a valid reason.

> and will have many more employment options once you are done.

I currently doubt this one.

>> 6. I rather doubt that you can get a PhD in "doing cool stuff". 
>> Presumably it must be something rather more specific than that.
> 
> No s**t!  List out all the "cool stuff" you enjoy, then start searching...

I'm thinking I might make a list of cool stuff just for the hell of it, 
actually. :-D

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 13:05, Invisible wrote:
> OK, so this has been discussed a few times now, so I thought I'd make a 
> thread specifically about it.
> 
> The question is: Do you think I should do a PhD?
> 

Yes, but not in computer science. I suggest something applied. Not 
because you like it, but because you could be good at it and it would 
force you to meet other people.

> Why?

Because

[snipped some rubbish]

> I seem to vaguely recall somebody (I forget who) claiming to know who to 
> go to for this kind of thing, and offering to help me arrange it. 
> Perhaps I'm just delusional...

If you had an MSc I am pretty sure I could have arranged it. With a BSc 
it may require a bit more work. And it is not going to be 4 years. 
Though the working conditions will be much better than where you are now 
(except for the final year of course), with an option of dropping out 
anytime you like. Oh, and it would require you to not live with your 
mother anymore.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 13:38, Invisible wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> On the other hand, if you get a doctorate in education, you can 
>> actually be as dumb as a half-moldy cup of yogurt, and you still won't 
>> get fired for anything short of a felony.
>>
>> As proof I offer the U.S. public school system.
> 
> 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. ;-)

John had some problems with below average IQ and EQ people when he was 
teaching, that is why he isn't anymore.

Post a reply to this message

>> The question is: Do you think I should do a PhD?
> 
> Yes, but not in computer science. I suggest something applied. Not 
> because you like it, but because you could be good at it and it would 
> force you to meet other people.

So, what you're saying is, I'd be doing something I don't want to do, 
and being forced to get yelled at by a bunch of people? And yet you 
expect me to be "good" at this? Hmm...

>> I seem to vaguely recall somebody (I forget who) claiming to know who 
>> to go to for this kind of thing, and offering to help me arrange it. 
> 
> If you had an MSc I am pretty sure I could have arranged it. With a BSc 
> it may require a bit more work.

Heh, oh well.

> Oh, and it would require you to not live with your mother anymore.

Not living with the She Devil sounds dreamy. Having to copy with a whole 
bunch of other stuff sounds less inviting.

Post a reply to this message

> ("List all customers who have placed an order this year, sorted by 
> customer ID". I mean, seriously, are you KIDDING me??)

Hehe, I've typed about 10 lines of SQL in my whole life (and 8 of those in 
the last week) and even I know how to do that now :-)

Post a reply to this message

>> ("List all customers who have placed an order this year, sorted by 
>> customer ID". I mean, seriously, are you KIDDING me??)
> 
> Hehe, I've typed about 10 lines of SQL in my whole life (and 8 of those 
> in the last week) and even I know how to do that now :-)

EXACTLY!!

It is scaresly possible to make this any *more* simple. (I guess you'd 
have to have something with no PK/FK relationships at all - e.g., "list 
all customers born after 1980" or something.)

Seriously, this is probably the most *basic* thing you can ask SQL to 
do. Jesus... AND you've allowed to use the SQL Server CHM files.

Apparently "I've had people come in here claiming to have 20 years' 
experience with SQL who were unable to do that test as well as you just 
did". WTF?? O_O

Post a reply to this message

> Actually, I'm still not really comprehending why double-entry book keeping 
> is really relevant to a computer science degree, but still...

Exactly.

> Well, everybody seemed to think that once I had a degree, people would be 
> falling over themselves to be the first to employ me.

Maybe a few decades ago, but not anymore.

> Why is another qualification going to be different?

Becuase unlike degrees, hardly anyone has a PhD, it makes you stand out from 
the crowd (which a degree *used* to do).

>> Because you will enjoy doing it
>
> If it's true, that would be a valid reason.

Well presumably you would choose to do study a subject you enjoyed...

> I'm thinking I might make a list of cool stuff just for the hell of it, 
> actually. :-D

Yes, I want to see another thread with "List of things I enjoy" :-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Well, everybody seemed to think that once I had a degree, people would 
>> be falling over themselves to be the first to employ me.
> 
> Maybe a few decades ago, but not anymore.

I thought it was more like a few centuries?

>> Why is another qualification going to be different?
> 
> Becuase unlike degrees, hardly anyone has a PhD, it makes you stand out 
> from the crowd (which a degree *used* to do).

Hey, if *I* can actually get one, it can't be that rare.

>>> Because you will enjoy doing it
>>
>> If it's true, that would be a valid reason.
> 
> Well presumably you would choose to do study a subject you enjoyed...

Uh, well yeah, but you generally don't find out whether you enjoy 
something until after you've started doing it?

>> I'm thinking I might make a list of cool stuff just for the hell of 
>> it, actually. :-D
> 
> Yes, I want to see another thread with "List of things I enjoy" :-)

Your wish is my comonad!

Er, wait...




C... co... comonoid... coroutine... covarience...

...parley?

Ah, YES! Parley. Parley.

Post a reply to this message

> It is scaresly possible to make this any *more* simple. (I guess you'd 
> have to have something with no PK/FK relationships at all - e.g., "list 
> all customers born after 1980" or something.)
>
> Seriously, this is probably the most *basic* thing you can ask SQL to do. 
> Jesus... AND you've allowed to use the SQL Server CHM files.
>
> Apparently "I've had people come in here claiming to have 20 years' 
> experience with SQL who were unable to do that test as well as you just 
> did". WTF?? O_O

OK so as an SQL beginner let me ask if this is possible.

Say you have lots of experiments, and each experiment is made up of several 
events repeated some number of times (like over-temperature, switched-off, 
switched-on etc).

I'm thinking that I make a table for events first, like:

EventID, Description
0, Switched on
1, Switched off
2, Over-temperature warning
...

Then I make another table for experiments

ExperimentID, StartDateTime, DeviceNumberTested, Description
0,blahblah,53535,"Test 1"
1,blahblah,23112,"Test 2"
...

You get the idea.

Then I should make another table to hold all the events that occur in all 
the experiments.

ExperimentID,EventDateTime,EventID
0,blah,1
0,blah,0
0,blah,2
0,blah,1
1,blah,1
...

OK.  That all seems quite basic to me so far and seems the best way to 
organise things.

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.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> OK so as an SQL beginner let me ask if this is possible.
> 
> Say you have lots of experiments, and each experiment is made up of 
> several events repeated some number of times (like over-temperature, 
> switched-off, switched-on etc).
> 
> I'm thinking that I make a table for events first, like:
> 
> EventID, Description
> 0, Switched on
> 1, Switched off
> 2, Over-temperature warning
> ...
> 
> Then I make another table for experiments
> 
> ExperimentID, StartDateTime, DeviceNumberTested, Description
> 0,blahblah,53535,"Test 1"
> 1,blahblah,23112,"Test 2"
> ...
> 
> You get the idea.
> 
> Then I should make another table to hold all the events that occur in 
> all the experiments.
> 
> ExperimentID,EventDateTime,EventID
> 0,blah,1
> 0,blah,0
> 0,blah,2
> 0,blah,1
> 1,blah,1
> ...
> 
> OK.  That all seems quite basic to me so far and seems the best way to 
> organise things.
> 
> 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.

Mmm, difficult to see, the Dark Side is...

I would suggest a 3-way self-join of the event table with itself. Find 
all occurrances of event #0, event #1 and event #2 in the same 
experiment, with constraints on the time orderings therein.

If that makes sense?

Post a reply to this message

>> Then I should make another table to hold all the events that occur in 
>> all the experiments.
>>
>> ExperimentID,EventDateTime,EventID
>> 0,blah,1
>> 0,blah,0
>> 0,blah,2
>> 0,blah,1
>> 1,blah,1
>> ...
>>
>> OK.  That all seems quite basic to me so far and seems the best way to 
>> organise things.
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Mmm, difficult to see, the Dark Side is...
> 
> I would suggest a 3-way self-join of the event table with itself. Find 
> all occurrances of event #0, event #1 and event #2 in the same 
> experiment, with constraints on the time orderings therein.
> 
> If that makes sense?

SELECT *
FROM EventRecord AS X, EventRecord AS Y, EventRecord AS Z
WHERE
   X.ExperimentID = Y.ExperimentID AND
   Y.ExperimentID = Z.ExperimentID AND
   X.EventID = 0 AND
   Y.EventID = 2 AND
   Z.EventID = 1 AND
   X.EventDateTime < Y.EventDateTime AND
   Y.EventDateTime < Z.EventDateTime;

Or similar. (It's been a while since I did SQL...)

Post a reply to this message

>> Maybe a few decades ago, but not anymore.
>
> I thought it was more like a few centuries?

Don't think so, ask your dad how what % of the population went to University 
when he was that age.

> Hey, if *I* can actually get one, it can't be that rare.

What % of people in Milton Keynes do you think can program in a functional 
language, know half of what you know about knot theory, and half of what you 
know about fourier transforms etc?  What % would even be capable of 
understanding?  I can tell you, not many.

Post a reply to this message

> SELECT *
> FROM EventRecord AS X, EventRecord AS Y, EventRecord AS Z
> WHERE
>   X.ExperimentID = Y.ExperimentID AND
>   Y.ExperimentID = Z.ExperimentID AND
>   X.EventID = 0 AND
>   Y.EventID = 2 AND
>   Z.EventID = 1 AND
>   X.EventDateTime < Y.EventDateTime AND
>   Y.EventDateTime < Z.EventDateTime;
>
> Or similar. (It's been a while since I did SQL...)

Oh cool that helps a lot, I'm copying and pasting that to a file somewhere 
for reference, thanks.  I still need to order myself an SQL book...

I guess that's the sort of question they should ask you at an interview :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> SELECT *
>> FROM EventRecord AS X, EventRecord AS Y, EventRecord AS Z
>> WHERE
>>   X.ExperimentID = Y.ExperimentID AND
>>   Y.ExperimentID = Z.ExperimentID AND
>>   X.EventID = 0 AND
>>   Y.EventID = 2 AND
>>   Z.EventID = 1 AND
>>   X.EventDateTime < Y.EventDateTime AND
>>   Y.EventDateTime < Z.EventDateTime;
>>
>> Or similar. (It's been a while since I did SQL...)
> 
> Oh cool that helps a lot, I'm copying and pasting that to a file 
> somewhere for reference, thanks.

It seems so easy when you already know how, eh? ;-)

> I still need to order myself an SQL book...

You wanna know what I have on *my* bookshelf?

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Database-Systems-C-Date/dp/0201385902

As I understand it, this is considered one of the "seminal texts" on 
relational databases. Take a look at those stats: it's almost a thousand 
pages, and weighs over 1.6 Kg. In other words, it's a *tome*.

And I've read it, cover to cover.

Even I cannot comprehend the relational calculus though. Relational 
algebra, sure. But relational calculus? Nah.

> I guess that's the sort of question they should ask you at an interview :-)

What, as opposed to "what is the unladen velocity of a swallow?"? 0;-)

Post a reply to this message

>>> Maybe a few decades ago, but not anymore.
>>
>> I thought it was more like a few centuries?
> 
> Don't think so, ask your dad how what % of the population went to 
> University when he was that age.

Mmm, OK. Well I certainly don't know, I just thought that degrees being 
rare dated back to the days when reading and writing was uncommon.

BTW, apparently my dad has a qualification in technical drawing. o_O

>> Hey, if *I* can actually get one, it can't be that rare.
> 
> What % of people in Milton Keynes do you think can program in a 
> functional language, know half of what you know about knot theory, and 
> half of what you know about fourier transforms etc?  What % would even 
> be capable of understanding?  I can tell you, not many.

On the other hand, I sat in a room full of about 80 people, and almost 
all of them got a Computer Science degree. Most of them *still* don't 
know what a "segmentation fault" actually is, but they all got their 
degrees.

Hell, most of them weren't even all that interested in computers. (Uh... 
WTF?) I never did figure that one out!

Anyway, as to what percentage of the population understand the Fourier 
Transform, I wouldn't like to say. I don't meet many people... I'm sure 
in any kind of competetive process though, you're going to meet a hell 
of a lot of them.

Post a reply to this message

> What, as opposed to "what is the unladen velocity of a swallow?"? 0;-)

I'd say about 30mph because when driving at that speed sometimes birds 
appear to be going about the same speed :-)

Some of the gems I've heard:

Estimate the mass of air in this room.
Would birds be hotter or colder with fur on their legs?
Draw x^infinity + y^infinity = 1
Prove which is bigger, e^pi or pi^e

But the best one was at my university interview, the guy had given me some 
quite tricky geometry/trig problem to solve and I think I almost had the 
answer, but the equation was a huge mess and I was dreading to try and solve 
it for x (or whatever, it had squares and cubes all over the place).  But 
then at that point he says "great, you seem to have the answer if you just 
tidy it up a bit, let's move on".  Was the best I could have hoped for!

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 14:30, Invisible wrote:
>>> The question is: Do you think I should do a PhD?
>>
>> Yes, but not in computer science. I suggest something applied. Not 
>> because you like it, but because you could be good at it and it would 
>> force you to meet other people.
> 
> So, what you're saying is, I'd be doing something I don't want to do, 

No I said you would not do the things that you now think that you would 
want to. Because I think you have the wrong impression of what you like.  ;)

> and being forced to get yelled at by a bunch of people? 

Last time somebody yelled at me... let me think... never happened.
Last time I yelled at somebody ... also never happened.
What makes you think working includes yelling?

> And yet you expect me to be "good" at this? Hmm...

If you put it that way: I think you might be an expert at being yelled at.

>>> I seem to vaguely recall somebody (I forget who) claiming to know who 
>>> to go to for this kind of thing, and offering to help me arrange it. 
>>
>> If you had an MSc I am pretty sure I could have arranged it. With a 
>> BSc it may require a bit more work.
> 
> Heh, oh well.

But not impossible.

>> Oh, and it would require you to not live with your mother anymore.
> 
> Not living with the She Devil sounds dreamy. Having to copy with a whole 
> bunch of other stuff sounds less inviting.

Just wait for the full offer ;)

Post a reply to this message

> On the other hand, I sat in a room full of about 80 people, and almost all 
> of them got a Computer Science degree. Most of them *still* don't know 
> what a "segmentation fault" actually is, but they all got their degrees.

That's exactly my point, and is why simply having a degree doesn't really 
help you in life, they are too easy for anyone to get.

Post a reply to this message

>> What, as opposed to "what is the unladen velocity of a swallow?"? 0;-)
> 
> I'd say about 30mph because when driving at that speed sometimes birds 
> appear to be going about the same speed :-)

Heh. I don't think you can try that on horseback. (Although after 
several months I have yet to discover what the typical speed of a horse 
actually is.)

> Estimate the mass of air in this room.

3 grams?

> Would birds be hotter or colder with fur on their legs?

Presumably this varies depending on the external temperature?

> Draw x^infinity + y^infinity = 1.

            __ __               __ __
           |__|__|             |__|__|

    \    /        |     \    /                  /|
     \  /         |      \  /        --------    |
      \/       ---+---    \/                     |
      /\          |       /          --------    |
     /  \         |      /                       |
    /    \              /                      --+--


...oh, wait, maybe you meant the *graph* of this?

> Prove which is bigger, e^pi or pi^e

Hmm. Well two cubed is 8, while three squared is 9, so I'm going to go 
with pi^e being larger. Presumably "proving" this would simply involve 
slightly more arithmetic. :-P

> But the best one was at my university interview, the guy had given me 
> some quite tricky geometry/trig problem to solve and I think I almost 
> had the answer, but the equation was a huge mess and I was dreading to 
> try and solve it for x (or whatever, it had squares and cubes all over 
> the place).  But then at that point he says "great, you seem to have the 
> answer if you just tidy it up a bit, let's move on".  Was the best I 
> could have hoped for!

Heh, neat.

I remember spending about a week trying to figure out how Euler's 
relation allows me to compute the complex exponent of a complex 
quantity. I don't know why it took me so long; it's really quite simple 
when you look at it. I think I just confused myself too much to see it...

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 15:18, Invisible wrote:

> Anyway, as to what percentage of the population understand the Fourier 
> Transform, I wouldn't like to say.

In my experience very little. Which does not stop them from using it 
when a package provides it.
Proposition #6 from my thesis: the use of FFT to extract clinically 
relevant parameters should be forbidden in the field of cardiology.

> I don't meet many people... I'm sure 
> in any kind of competetive process though, you're going to meet a hell 
> of a lot of them.

Then why do have to import our PhD students? After Dutch and English, 
Russian is now the third language in our lab. Two years ago it was Italian.

Post a reply to this message

>> Anyway, as to what percentage of the population understand the Fourier 
>> Transform, I wouldn't like to say.
> 
> In my experience very little. Which does not stop them from using it 
> when a package provides it.
> Proposition #6 from my thesis: the use of FFT to extract clinically 
> relevant parameters should be forbidden in the field of cardiology.

Uh... I was under the impression that most of the useful information in 
a cardiagram is in the time-domain anyway...? (OTOH, IANAD.)

>> I don't meet many people... I'm sure in any kind of competetive 
>> process though, you're going to meet a hell of a lot of them.
> 
> Then why do have to import our PhD students? After Dutch and English, 
> Russian is now the third language in our lab. Two years ago it was Italian.

No idea.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 15:51, Invisible wrote:
>>> Anyway, as to what percentage of the population understand the 
>>> Fourier Transform, I wouldn't like to say.
>>
>> In my experience very little. Which does not stop them from using it 
>> when a package provides it.
>> Proposition #6 from my thesis: the use of FFT to extract clinically 
>> relevant parameters should be forbidden in the field of cardiology.
> 
> Uh... I was under the impression that most of the useful information in 
> a cardiagram is in the time-domain anyway...?

Spot on.
I once saw this procedure to find a phenomenon that occurs every other 
beat.: Find the time instant in every beat where you expect the change. 
Create a time series of that. Do an FFT. look at the amplitude of the 
center frequency. Ok, I admit it works and you can include a spectrum in 
your paper...

Post a reply to this message

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
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> John had some problems with below average IQ and EQ people when he was 
> teaching, that is why he isn't anymore.

My wife is a teacher (elementary students) I seriously don't understand 
how she keeps from going homicidal. She's a very patient person.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>>> Proposition #6 from my thesis: the use of FFT to extract clinically 
>>> relevant parameters should be forbidden in the field of cardiology.
>>
>> Uh... I was under the impression that most of the useful information 
>> in a cardiagram is in the time-domain anyway...?
> 
> Spot on.

Uh... so you're telling me I know more about cardiagrams than the people 
attempting to interpret them? o_O

> I once saw this procedure to find a phenomenon that occurs every other 
> beat.: Find the time instant in every beat where you expect the change. 
> Create a time series of that. Do an FFT. look at the amplitude of the 
> center frequency. Ok, I admit it works and you can include a spectrum in 
> your paper...

I have a vague recollection that somebody designed an ANN that worked on 
ECG data in the frequency domain and was reputedly quite accurate. OTOH, 
the details were sparse. (It was an introductory text on ANNs, basically 
it had a section on "hey, look how useful these are! You should learn 
about them.")

Post a reply to this message

> My wife is a teacher (elementary students) I seriously don't understand 
> how she keeps from going homicidal. She's a very patient person.

...so she teaches Boron and Lithium who to do their ABCs?

Post a reply to this message

>> 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 now I'm thinking about the "Ode to a lump of putty I found in my 
left armpit". :-S

Post a reply to this message

>> Estimate the mass of air in this room.
>
> 3 grams?

Estimate, not guess! You'll never make an Engineer if you can't tell when 
your calculations are off by several orders of magnitude.  BTW a cubic metre 
of air is about 1kg, so you must be in a very small room.

>> Would birds be hotter or colder with fur on their legs?
>
> Presumably this varies depending on the external temperature?

I think it's safe to assume the external temperature is lower than the 
internals of the bird, but anyway the point of this one was that for 
cylinders below a certain radius lagging them actually makes them release 
more heat rather than less, because the surface area increase has more 
affect than the lagging.  Useful to know if you ever think about insulating 
thin pipes :-)

> ...oh, wait, maybe you meant the *graph* of this?

Har har.

> Hmm. Well two cubed is 8, while three squared is 9, so I'm going to go 
> with pi^e being larger.

Wrong!

> Presumably "proving" this would simply involve slightly more arithmetic. 
> :-P

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/53916.html

> quantity. I don't know why it took me so long; it's really quite simple 
> when you look at it. I think I just confused myself too much to see it...

That was the story of my whole thermodynamics course at university!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> The question is: Do you think I should do a PhD?
> 
> Yes?
> 

Yes!

> 
> Why?
> 

What do you have to lose? You could always become a professor at the 
university, teaching people signal processing theory or some such.

> 1. I am insufficiently intelligent to actually acheive a PhD. (I nearly 
> failed my BSc as it is!)

I call BS on this one.

> 2. I have insufficient money. (I'm still paying for my BSc. Very slowly.)

Possible, but there are loans and grants.

> 3. I don't think I can spare the time. (I have a job to do, sucky as it 
> is.)

Make time!

> 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of 
> positive change to my employment situation. Nobody is impressed by a 
> BSc, and I doubt a PhD will be any different. Everybody wants 
> "experience" and/or "people skills".

It couldn't hurt.

> 5. Presumably a PhD is a serious amount of hard work. It's not exactly a 
> pleasure cruise. So I'd need a good reason to do one.

Right lots of work, but you'll learn a lot and could be an interesting 
journey.

> 6. I rather doubt that you can get a PhD in "doing cool stuff". 
> Presumably it must be something rather more specific than that.

Depends, You'd need to do lots of research and such. But, you could pick 
something that interests you and pursue that.

> 7. Where the hell am I going to do a PhD anyway?

At a university, of course!

> 8. Are you mental?

Yes, yes I am.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>>> Estimate the mass of air in this room.
>>
>> 3 grams?
> 
> Estimate, not guess!

Well, with no actual data to estimate with, it's kinda hard. :-P

> You'll never make an Engineer if you can't tell 
> when your calculations are off by several orders of magnitude.

Heh. Well, I have no idea what the volume of this room is. I don't even 
"really" know how big a meter is. It used to be the length of my arms, 
but they're a tad bigger now. ;-)

> BTW a 
> cubic metre of air is about 1kg, so you must be in a very small room.

Really? I was under the impression that all gasses are absurdly light. 
(E.g., off the top of my head Oxygen is supposed to be something silly 
like 0.000004 g per cubic meter or something.)

> I think it's safe to assume the external temperature is lower than the 
> internals of the bird, but anyway the point of this one was that for 
> cylinders below a certain radius lagging them actually makes them 
> release more heat rather than less, because the surface area increase 
> has more affect than the lagging.  Useful to know if you ever think 
> about insulating thin pipes :-)

Now, see, I was under the impression that lagging traps air, and hence 
the "effective" surface area would still be the same.

>> ...oh, wait, maybe you meant the *graph* of this?
> 
> Har har.

Aww, c'mon! I thought that was a really neat drawing! :-D

>> Hmm. Well two cubed is 8, while three squared is 9, so I'm going to go 
>> with pi^e being larger.
> 
> Wrong!
> 
>> Presumably "proving" this would simply involve slightly more 
>> arithmetic. :-P
> 
> http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/53916.html

...OK, I am now completely bemused. Apparently e^3 is roughly 20. I 
cannot work out how that can possibly be. 2^3 is clearly 8. My head 
hurts just thinking about it.

As an aside, I notice the difference turns out to be especially tiny. :-P

>> I don't know why it took me so long; it's really quite 
>> simple when you look at it. I think I just confused myself too much to 
>> see it...
> 
> That was the story of my whole thermodynamics course at university!

I think you need... THERMITE!! 8^D

Post a reply to this message

> Yes!

o_O

>> Why?
> 
> What do you have to lose?

My mind? My livelihood? My youth? My virginity?

Oh, wait...

> You could always become a professor at the 
> university, teaching people signal processing theory or some such.

LOL! As if anybody would care...

>> 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of 
>> positive change to my employment situation.
> 
> It couldn't hurt.

There is such a thing as "over-qualified". Apparently.

>> 5. Presumably a PhD is a serious amount of hard work. It's not exactly 
>> a pleasure cruise. So I'd need a good reason to do one.
> 
> Right lots of work, but you'll learn a lot and could be an interesting 
> journey.

Well, I guess it depends on finding a good subject.

>> 6. I rather doubt that you can get a PhD in "doing cool stuff". 
>> Presumably it must be something rather more specific than that.
> 
> Depends, You'd need to do lots of research and such. But, you could pick 
> something that interests you and pursue that.

Certainly all the stuff the OU is looking at seems to be socially based. 
"How can we make computers more cuddly?" I really don't give a fig.

>> 8. Are you mental?
> 
> Yes, yes I am.

Ah, I'm glad we sorted that one out. :-)

Post a reply to this message

> Well, with no actual data to estimate with, it's kinda hard. :-P

The point is you are meant to have a rough understanding of density of 
gases.

> Heh. Well, I have no idea what the volume of this room is.

Usually best to simplify it to a shape that it is easy to calculate the 
volume of, ie a cuboid.

> I don't even "really" know how big a meter is. It used to be the length of 
> my arms, but they're a tad bigger now. ;-)

You can estimate though, I suspect you can tell if your room is 2 metres 
long or 10 metres long, or 50 metres long.  Remember you are about 2 metres 
tall...

> (E.g., off the top of my head Oxygen is supposed to be something silly 
> like 0.000004 g per cubic meter or something.)

Wikipedia tells me it's 1.429 kg per cubic metre...

> Now, see, I was under the impression that lagging traps air, and hence the 
> "effective" surface area would still be the same.

No, because the lagging has thickness, and the outer surface of the lagging 
is the effective surface area for radiating the heat.  Even though the 
surface temperature will be less with the lagging, for small radii the 
surface area increase is enough to overcome the effectiveness of the 
lagging.  Obviously the exact radius depends on the situation, but there 
will always be a minimum value where lagging works (below that it has the 
opposite effect than you probably imagined).

> Aww, c'mon! I thought that was a really neat drawing! :-D

Yes I have to admit it was pretty cool.

> ...OK, I am now completely bemused. Apparently e^3 is roughly 20. I cannot 
> work out how that can possibly be. 2^3 is clearly 8. My head hurts just 
> thinking about it.

Think about 2^3 and 3^3, then e^3 doesn't seem so bad.

> As an aside, I notice the difference turns out to be especially tiny. :-P

Would have been cool if e^pi = pi^e

> I think you need... THERMITE!! 8^D

Unfortunately this was one of the few lecture courses with no fun examples 
shown off by the lecturer - we had boomerangs, magnetic guns, launched 
ping-pong balls etc, but sadly no model jet engine :-(  The whole course was 
spent studying the thermodynamic cycles of various types of heat engines, 
combined cycle power stations, pressures, velocities, energies argghh my 
head hurts just thinking about it.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 16:07, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Proposition #6 from my thesis: the use of FFT to extract clinically 
>>>> relevant parameters should be forbidden in the field of cardiology.
>>>
>>> Uh... I was under the impression that most of the useful information 
>>> in a cardiagram is in the time-domain anyway...?
>>
>> Spot on.
> 
> Uh... so you're telling me I know more about cardiagrams than the people 
> attempting to interpret them? o_O

Of course not. Perhaps just that you would not be confused by shiny 
buttons into forgetting a basic fact. I wouldn't trust you to find a WPW 
in between a bunch of infarctions and normal ECG's. The guy who wrote 
that paper could do that, but would probably not be equipped to 
understand how that specific potential was caused by what part of the heart.

Post a reply to this message

>> Well, with no actual data to estimate with, it's kinda hard. :-P
> 
> The point is you are meant to have a rough understanding of density of 
> gases.
> 
>> Heh. Well, I have no idea what the volume of this room is.
> 
> Usually best to simplify it to a shape that it is easy to calculate the 
> volume of, ie a cuboid.

This room *is* a cuboid! ;-)

>> I don't even "really" know how big a meter is. It used to be the 
>> length of my arms, but they're a tad bigger now. ;-)
> 
> You can estimate though, I suspect you can tell if your room is 2 metres 
> long or 10 metres long, or 50 metres long.  Remember you are about 2 
> metres tall...

If I had to guess, I'd say this room is 3 m by 3 m by 3 m.

>> (E.g., off the top of my head Oxygen is supposed to be something silly 
>> like 0.000004 g per cubic meter or something.)
> 
> Wikipedia tells me it's 1.429 kg per cubic metre...

Really? Wow, that's pretty crazy... I'm *sure* when I looked it up it 
was way less than that.

Ah, here we go: H2 is "0.08988 g/L". Apparently air itself is heavier 
than that.

(You would, of course, *expect* air to be heavier than the lightest gas 
in the universe. But not thousands of times heavier...)

>> Now, see, I was under the impression that lagging traps air, and hence 
>> the "effective" surface area would still be the same.
> 
> No, because the lagging has thickness, and the outer surface of the 
> lagging is the effective surface area for radiating the heat.  Even 
> though the surface temperature will be less with the lagging, for small 
> radii the surface area increase is enough to overcome the effectiveness 
> of the lagging.  Obviously the exact radius depends on the situation, 
> but there will always be a minimum value where lagging works (below that 
> it has the opposite effect than you probably imagined).

Heh. So does it matter which bird then? A hummingbird has different size 
legs to an ostrich. ;-)

>> Aww, c'mon! I thought that was a really neat drawing! :-D
> 
> Yes I have to admit it was pretty cool.

WIN! :-D

>> ...OK, I am now completely bemused. Apparently e^3 is roughly 20. I 
>> cannot work out how that can possibly be. 2^3 is clearly 8. My head 
>> hurts just thinking about it.
> 
> Think about 2^3 and 3^3, then e^3 doesn't seem so bad.

If I could actually compute 3^3 mentally I'd probably agree with you. ;-)

>> As an aside, I notice the difference turns out to be especially tiny. :-P
> 
> Would have been cool if e^pi = pi^e

I can't find it now, but I'm pretty damned certain there's a quote on 
Bash.org where somebody claimed this was true, and some poor sap spent 
hours trying to figure out why their math implementation was wrong...

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 17:01, Invisible wrote:

> 
> If I could actually compute 3^3 mentally I'd probably agree with you. ;-)

What exactly is so difficult about 3x3x3?

Post a reply to this message

>> If I could actually compute 3^3 mentally I'd probably agree with you. ;-)
> 
> What exactly is so difficult about 3x3x3?

I don't know what 3x9 is? If I had pen and paper I could work it out, 
it's just not something I happen to know off the top of my head.

Post a reply to this message

> Ah, here we go: H2 is "0.08988 g/L". Apparently air itself is heavier than 
> that.
>
> (You would, of course, *expect* air to be heavier than the lightest gas in 
> the universe. But not thousands of times heavier...)

Only seems like a factor of 10 difference to me.  You do realise that 1g/L 
is 1kg/m^3...

> I can't find it now, but I'm pretty damned certain there's a quote on 
> Bash.org where somebody claimed this was true, and some poor sap spent 
> hours trying to figure out why their math implementation was wrong...

Yeh sounds familiar.

Post a reply to this message

> I don't know what 3x9 is? If I had pen and paper I could work it out, 
> it's just not something I happen to know off the top of my head.

Try 9+9, then +9 again...

On second thoughts maybe you shouldn't do a PhD :-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> Becuase unlike degrees, hardly anyone has a PhD, it makes you stand
>> out from the crowd (which a degree *used* to do).
> 
> Hey, if *I* can actually get one, it can't be that rare.

	Yes, I'm sure you daily meet people who are aware that the graph of a
function is a subset of a cartesian product, right? After all, if *you*
knew that, so must most people - right?

-- 
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."-Asimov


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

>> Ah, here we go: H2 is "0.08988 g/L". Apparently air itself is heavier 
>> than that.
>>
>> (You would, of course, *expect* air to be heavier than the lightest 
>> gas in the universe. But not thousands of times heavier...)
> 
> Only seems like a factor of 10 difference to me.  You do realise that 
> 1g/L is 1kg/m^3...

Heh. I hadn't noticed that the mass unit was different as well as the 
volume unit. ;-)

Even so, 10x higher still seems rather large. I would have expected 
something more like a few percent denser.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> I don't know what 3x9 is? If I had pen and paper I could work it out, 
>> it's just not something I happen to know off the top of my head.
> 
> Try 9+9, then +9 again...
> 
> On second thoughts maybe you shouldn't do a PhD :-)

<Insert witty remark about PhD holders here>

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> So, what you're saying is, I'd be doing something I don't want to do,
> and being forced to get yelled at by a bunch of people? And yet you
> expect me to be "good" at this? Hmm...

	There are exceptions, but generally the relationship of a graduate
student with everyone else is not an employer/employee relationship.
Hence, no shouting.

	As I said, there are exceptions. And so current graduate students often
told new graduate students which professors not to become students of.

	Usually, the a****les are the ones who are quite famous, so they know
there will always be students knocking on their doors. The others are
those who just don't care, in which case you wouldn't want to be their
student anyway.

-- 
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."-Asimov


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message