| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jochen" |
| Date: |
12 Feb 2004 03:31:24 AM |
| Object: |
Study groups in science |
Hello,
if you are interested in scientific online workshops, please visit
site
http://de.geocities.com/scienceworkshops/
Its goal is to organize study groups on scientific topics like quantum
field theory,
probabilistic inference or neural nets, to name a few topics I am
personally interested in
(of course, arbitray topics may be suggested).
The idea is to study some text (which is freely available over the
internet, by setting up
a study plan for 12 weeks and open a discussion groups where
participants can post questions,
or solutions to exercises.
The text must be of academic level, ranging from introductory texts to
post-graduate level.
Participation is free in these groups.
I would like to start the first workshop in fall, so if you are
interested you might either
subscribe to our mailing list or propose your own workshop.
Regards,
Jochen Gruber
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Study groups in science |
12 Feb 2004 05:33:10 AM |
|
|
"Jochen" <scienceworkshops@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:548d9847.0402120131.1f850315@posting.google.com...
Hello,
if you are interested in scientific online workshops, please visit
site
http://de.geocities.com/scienceworkshops/
Its goal is to organize study groups on scientific topics like quantum
field theory,
probabilistic inference or neural nets, to name a few topics I am
personally interested in
(of course, arbitray topics may be suggested).
What positive precautions are you taking to prevent the idiots morons and
kooks from taking it over, as has happened in sci.physics?
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Study groups in science |
14 Feb 2004 03:07:52 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c0fo9j$3nj$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
"Jochen" <scienceworkshops@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:548d9847.0402120131.1f850315@posting.google.com...
Hello,
if you are interested in scientific online workshops, please visit
site
http://de.geocities.com/scienceworkshops/
Its goal is to organize study groups on scientific topics like quantum
field theory,
probabilistic inference or neural nets, to name a few topics I am
personally interested in
(of course, arbitray topics may be suggested).
What positive precautions are you taking to prevent the idiots morons and
kooks from taking it over, as has happened in sci.physics?
Probably merely formalizing it as a study group to study a particular
text is sufficient kook-repellent. It doesn't seem like their venue.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "galathaea" |
|
| Title: Re: Study groups in science |
12 Feb 2004 01:24:30 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" wrote:
: What positive precautions are you taking to prevent the idiots morons and
: kooks from taking it over, as has happened in sci.physics?
Perhaps the textbook and the equations will keep people like you away?
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Study groups in science |
12 Feb 2004 04:05:56 PM |
|
|
"galathaea" <galathaea@excite.com> wrote in message
news:102nkn7r7us73a6@corp.supernews.com...
"Franz Heymann" wrote:
: What positive precautions are you taking to prevent the idiots morons
and
: kooks from taking it over, as has happened in sci.physics?
Perhaps the textbook and the equations will keep people like you away?
You evidently did not realise that the morons and kooks I referred to
included you.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "galathaea" |
|
| Title: Re: Study groups in science |
12 Feb 2004 04:47:52 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" wrote:
: You evidently did not realise that the morons and kooks I referred to
: included you.
Of course I understood your pretext. You post it all over the group.
I was merely pointing out that your obsession with these categorisations
without recourse to understanding or, indeed, textual analysis only serves
to decrease the quality of posts in this newsgroup. It is antirationalistic
and the antithesis of science.
So, these posts of yours are amusingly self-referential of you.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Study groups in science |
12 Feb 2004 01:28:49 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Jochen" <scienceworkshops@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:548d9847.0402120131.1f850315@posting.google.com...
Hello,
if you are interested in scientific online workshops, please visit
site
http://de.geocities.com/scienceworkshops/
Its goal is to organize study groups on scientific topics like quantum
field theory,
probabilistic inference or neural nets, to name a few topics I am
personally interested in
(of course, arbitray topics may be suggested).
What positive precautions are you taking to prevent the idiots morons and
kooks from taking it over, as has happened in sci.physics?
Are you, perhaps, familiar with Edgar Allen Poe's "The System of Doctor Tarr
and Professor Fether"?
:-)
mitch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Study groups in science |
12 Feb 2004 03:37:52 PM |
|
|
"mitch" <mitchs@rcnNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:402BD3F1.EC7E7043@rcnNOSPAM.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Jochen" <scienceworkshops@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:548d9847.0402120131.1f850315@posting.google.com...
Hello,
if you are interested in scientific online workshops, please visit
site
http://de.geocities.com/scienceworkshops/
Its goal is to organize study groups on scientific topics like quantum
field theory,
probabilistic inference or neural nets, to name a few topics I am
personally interested in
(of course, arbitray topics may be suggested).
What positive precautions are you taking to prevent the idiots morons
and
kooks from taking it over, as has happened in sci.physics?
Are you, perhaps, familiar with Edgar Allen Poe's "The System of Doctor
Tarr
and Professor Fether"?
:-)
It won't work.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mitch" |
|
| Title: A question about Kripke semantics and physics (Was: Re: Study groups inscience) |
12 Feb 2004 09:35:51 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Jochen" <scienceworkshops@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:548d9847.0402120131.1f850315@posting.google.com...
Hello,
if you are interested in scientific online workshops, please visit
site
http://de.geocities.com/scienceworkshops/
Its goal is to organize study groups on scientific topics like quantum
field theory,
probabilistic inference or neural nets, to name a few topics I am
personally interested in
(of course, arbitray topics may be suggested).
What positive precautions are you taking to prevent the idiots morons and
kooks from taking it over, as has happened in sci.physics?
Hi Franz!
Let's just defuse the reference to "morons and kooks" by deferring to
Shannon's discussion concerning the statistical character of language.
I want to ask you a question about the theories physicists are promulgating
these days. So, once again, let me start with a quick Google search to
establish context.
If I use the search string '"26 dimensions" string physics' I get about 959
hits.
For my part, I could care less about the details. It is the mathematics
through which your colleagues express their explanations that is important to
me. The 26 dimensions are particularly interesting here because their
symmetries and invariants involved offer me an opportunity to ask you how to
think about truth and falsity in physical theory.
Now, Galathaea has been wanting to talk about Heyting algebras and quantum
logic. Section 6.4 of the paper
http://www.illc.uva.nl/Publications/ResearchReports/MoL-2001-09.text.pdf
is entitled "Finite projective formulas in two variables" Strangely enough,
there are precisely 26 Heyting algebras associated with 2-universal models
discussed here. Moreover, there is not a single mention of "quantum logic."
Now, isn't this just an amazing coincidence? Logicians tell mathematicians
about 'T' and 'F,' the physicists are talking about 26 dimensions, and mitch
knows just where to find a paper specifying the 26 2-generated Heyting
algebras.
Actually, I do not think it is coincidental. Unfortunately, whereas I would
love to offer an explanation, you would simply engage in more vulgarity.
But, here is a little something to consider. If I am interpreting Kip
Thorne's account correctly, Einstein applied a Kantian notion of space and
time to his formulation of special relativity. By formulating an absolute
metric, Minkowski dragged your precious "theories of everything" into the
foundational arguments of mathematics. Einstein thought that was a terrible
thing--until he recognized that he could enhance his personal reputation
further with general relativity. How convenient!
The key combinatorial concept that ties it all together is that of a nerve
defined by Eduard Cech. Apparently, these associate simplicial complexes to
open coverings. You do understand the significance of open coverings in
calculus and intuitionistic semantics, don't you?
But, Cech was not a physicist. Rather, he was just someone else whose ideas
your colleagues could use without proper citation because, after all, it was
mathematics. Here is a little something about the man in his professional
capacity:
"Whenever he was doing something in mathematics,
he always strove to achieve a thorough understanding
of the subject. The result was that even outside his fields
of research he had an extensive knowledge and deep
insight into many other areas of mathematics. This feature
of his personality also had some other consequences.
While he was not conceited and talked easily to people
with little formal education, he expected in his fellow
professors the same qualities that he himself possessed.
This did not contribute to smooth relations with some
people as he was not diplomatic but, on the contrary,
quite forthright in expressing his opinions."
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Cech.html
I'm going to guess that he had few problems with statistical entropy and
sentence construction. :-)
Unlike you, I am fairly certain that I am looking at a situation that derives
from the fundamental theorem of algebra. But, physicists are in the business
of "theories of everything" and philosophical logicians are in the business
of telling mathematicians about "truth."
My only concern, as always, is the foundation of mathematics. If you could
offer some insight--being a physicist whose education has served him well for
a long career--it would be greatly appreciated. I had been under the
impression that physical theories corresponded with physical fact. But,
then, facticity does not seem to be very important to distinguished
professors who spend more time at faculty tea than the library.
By the way, Franz. The vocabulary word for the day is "impudence."
If anyone else has any explanations to offer or papers that might clarify
this apparent correspondence, I would appreciate that as well.
Thanks.
:-)
mitch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about Kripke semantics and physics (Was: Re: Study groups in science) |
13 Feb 2004 03:02:16 PM |
|
|
"mitch" <mitchs@rcnNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:402C4617.7B28E55E@rcnNOSPAM.com...
[snip]
By the way, Franz. The vocabulary word for the day is "impudence."
Quite. It was impudent of you to waste such a long space in this thread as
that which I have just snipped without reading.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "mitch" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about Kripke semantics and physics (Was: Re: Study groupsin science) |
14 Feb 2004 01:47:25 AM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"mitch" <mitchs@rcnNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:402C4617.7B28E55E@rcnNOSPAM.com...
[snip]
By the way, Franz. The vocabulary word for the day is "impudence."
Quite. It was impudent of you to waste such a long space in this thread as
that which I have just snipped without reading.
Glad you recognized the word.
As for the rest of your reply, it is to be expected of someone who spent more
time at faculty teas than at the library.
:-)
mitch
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "galathaea" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about Kripke semantics and physics (Was: Re: Study groups in science) |
17 Feb 2004 01:29:04 AM |
|
|
"mitch" wrote:
: So, once again, let me start with a quick Google search to
: establish context.
That is always a fun way to learn, and getting better every year!
: If I use the search string '"26 dimensions" string physics' I get about
959
: hits.
:
: For my part, I could care less about the details. It is the mathematics
: through which your colleagues express their explanations that is important
to
: me. The 26 dimensions are particularly interesting here because their
: symmetries and invariants involved offer me an opportunity to ask you how
to
: think about truth and falsity in physical theory.
:
: Now, Galathaea has been wanting to talk about Heyting algebras and quantum
: logic. Section 6.4 of the paper
:
: http://www.illc.uva.nl/Publications/ResearchReports/MoL-2001-09.text.pdf
:
: is entitled "Finite projective formulas in two variables" Strangely
enough,
: there are precisely 26 Heyting algebras associated with 2-universal models
: discussed here. Moreover, there is not a single mention of "quantum
logic."
:
: Now, isn't this just an amazing coincidence? Logicians tell
mathematicians
: about 'T' and 'F,' the physicists are talking about 26 dimensions, and
mitch
: knows just where to find a paper specifying the 26 2-generated Heyting
: algebras.
:
: Actually, I do not think it is coincidental. Unfortunately, whereas I
would
: love to offer an explanation, you would simply engage in more vulgarity.
I only today got through this reference in my "first run through" and still
have much organising to get a better understanding, but I was wondering if
you were thinking of a particular relationship here between the constraint
equation in string theory and the n=2 formula in the paper. The constraint
for strings arises from a requirement for Weyl invariance of the action,
which has a very interesting topological structure, so I can certainly see a
motif. Have you pursued this to the next exposition stage, or are you still
hunting down the connections? This paper is very interesting!
=)
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about Kripke semantics and physics (Was: Re: Study groups in science) |
16 Feb 2004 04:18:06 AM |
|
|
In message <402C4617.7B28E55E@rcnNOSPAM.com>, mitch
<mitchs@rcnNOSPAM.com> writes
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Jochen" <scienceworkshops@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:548d9847.0402120131.1f850315@posting.google.com...
Hello,
if you are interested in scientific online workshops, please visit
site
http://de.geocities.com/scienceworkshops/
Its goal is to organize study groups on scientific topics like quantum
field theory,
probabilistic inference or neural nets, to name a few topics I am
personally interested in
(of course, arbitray topics may be suggested).
What positive precautions are you taking to prevent the idiots morons and
kooks from taking it over, as has happened in sci.physics?
Hi Franz!
Let's just defuse the reference to "morons and kooks" by deferring to
Shannon's discussion concerning the statistical character of language.
I want to ask you a question
[snip nearly 100 lines...]
So what _was_ the question?
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Funky" |
|
| Title: Re: Study groups in science |
12 Feb 2004 06:35:48 PM |
|
|
"Jochen" <scienceworkshops@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:548d9847.0402120131.1f850315@posting.google.com...
Hello,
if you are interested in scientific online workshops, please visit
site
http://de.geocities.com/scienceworkshops/
Its goal is to organize study groups on scientific topics like quantum
field theory,
probabilistic inference or neural nets, to name a few topics I am
personally interested in
(of course, arbitray topics may be suggested).
The idea is to study some text (which is freely available over the
internet, by setting up
a study plan for 12 weeks and open a discussion groups where
participants can post questions,
or solutions to exercises.
The text must be of academic level, ranging from introductory texts to
post-graduate level.
Participation is free in these groups.
I would like to start the first workshop in fall, so if you are
interested you might either
subscribe to our mailing list or propose your own workshop.
Regards,
Jochen Gruber
The site has great links to useful online books. I don't think you should
limit yourself to online books, but should also include online papers such
as those of Einstein and classics such as The Principle Of Relativity from
Dover books and The Principle Of Quantum Mechanics by Dirac which people are
prepared to buy. It's also important that there are a few academics that are
prepared to kindly give their time for free. It'll end up the blind leading
the blind otherwise. Are you an academic?
Funky
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
