Mathematics is the only true discipline.
All other "disciplines" exist as a result of lack of discipline.
Therefore, the concept of interdisciplinarity is senseless.
We can only ask if our work is disciplined by mathematics or not...
Except for the fact that I had to wear a suit, the wedding was great! A few things were significantly different from Brazilian weddings, especially the location. It was in the castle of Jaunspils (and in Brasil there are simply no castles). And all guests got to sleep in the castle after the wedding evening. It was the first time I spent the night in a real castle (although I had spent a night in “castle” hostel in Nürnberg, which looks just like a house in comparison with Jaunspils).
Latvia is already impressive from the airplane. The views of Jurmala’s coastline and rivers is amazing!
Our friends Andrejs and Olga decided to marry in august of last year in Jaunpils near Riga. Katya and I of course went to the wedding, and we thought it would be a good opportunity to travel around Latvia and Lithuania afterwards. Initially we also wanted to go to Estonia, but we did not have enough time. The following posts will give an idea of how great these two countries are…. And for a detailed description and selection of photos of the wedding, I refer to Olga's Blog.
[In continuation of a previous post…]
Let:
x = “you are looking in the correct place”.
y = “you are finding what you are looking for”.
P = “probably”.
Then B’s answer in dialogue 1 (D1) could, in a first attempt, be literally translated to:
S1) P[(not x) implies (not y)]
And in dialogue 2 (D2), it could be literally translated to:
S2) P[(not x)] implies (not y)
It is kind of absurd that B might really want to mean S2 in his answer in D2, for the reasons pointed out by Harald in his comment: it doesn’t make much sense to state that the mere probability of looking in the wrong place would cause the certain impossibility of finding what it is being searched.
On the other hand, S1 is pragmatically strange. It says that it is only probable that looking in the wrong place will prevent finding what is being looked for. But this is more like a sure common sense fact to me. The statement of S1 by B gives no information to A. In fact, even if B had stated “that’s because you are looking in the wrong place”, which would literally translate as:
S1’) (not x) implies (not y)
still no information is given to A, since S1’ is already known by A (for a smart enough A).
This shows that there is an issue with interpreting “because” as implication. A second attempt might involve B trying to mean:
S3) P[(not x)] and ((not x) implies (not y))
In this case, “F1 because F2” seems to be more correctly interpreted as an abbreviation for “F2 and (F2 implies F1)”. But then we still have the issue with the “probably” modality, as D1 would lead to:
S1’’) P[(not x) and ((not x) implies (not y))]
and D2 would lead to:
S2’’) P[(not x)] and (P[(not x)] implies (not y))
Neither of these is exactly S3, although both come very close, and that might be the source of the difficulty to choose between D1 and D2, if we were B.
S1, S2, S1’, S3, S1’’ and S2’’ all have a common feature: they try to encode B’s answer as a statement that will give A some information. But if this were really the point of the dialogue, B could be as informative and much more concise by simply replying:
“you are probably looking in the wrong place”
S4) P[(not x)]
So, why does B choose to be more verbose and make a more complicated linguistic construction involving “because”?
Here is a (very speculative) answer: B is not trying to communicate a simple statement encodable as a logical formula; he is trying to communicate a whole explanation, which is more properly encodable as a proof! A’s statement in the beginning of the dialogue prompts B to help A in constructing an explanation for A’s statement. This “explanatory mode of conversation” is what recommends B to use the construction involving “because”. It is therefore more appropriate to think of “because” as an inference in a proof than as a connective in a formula.
“F1 because F2” is communicating the existence of a trivial proof of F1 from the assumption F2.
“F1 probably because F2” is communicating the probable existence of a proof… The uncertainty is in the level of the proof.
Interestingly, logics that deal with uncertainty usually consider uncertainty only in the level of formulas, but not in the level of proofs. And works on the semantics of natural language are usually trying to translate natural language sentences to formulas, but not to proofs. So, this (yet speculative) approach opens new doors to lots of work to be done…
This weekend in Baden-Baden we saw a multi-level parking building with a whole floor reserved only for women (“nur für Frauen”) and for mothers with children (“Mütter mit Kindern”)…
In France, people who are learning how to drive usually stick “A” signs in the back of their cars, where the “A” stands for “Attention”. Being logicians, we decided to buy this symbol and stick it upside down, so that now we have the symbol of universal quantification in our car…
A friend of mine sent me a cool video:
They forgot to mention the most bizarre google service: Google Latitude (http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/latitude/intro.html)! Google can know where you are (if you use Latitude).
Recently I saw a very comprehensive post in Google's official blog about their privacy and openness policies. They admit that they are still very far from ideal, but they mention a few improvements that they have been doing recently, in order to give users clear control over their data... In the case of Google's Blogger, it has become easier to import, export and delete data over the years... And in particular, users have greater control now than they used to have 5 years ago, when Blogger was not yet owned by Google...
However, the issue is: the world is evolving to a state in which people will have little to offer, but their privacy to feed the web's hunger for content. It is similar to the early days of the industrial revolution, when people had little to offer, but their mechanical labour to feed the industrial machines' hunger for mindless control and operation. So, eventually people will gladly offer all their privacy in exchange for internet services, in the same way that they offerred all their 16 hours of labour to the machines in exchange for food.
Google does not need to steal private data, because people will give it away for almost nothing in return anyway. Google can be as open as it wants about data privacy. Google's openness just leads to clear and well-regulated trading, as opposed to stealing, of privacy. And privacy will be cheap, because there will be billions of users offering it. It is an economic fact.
This situation will only improve when people find a way to generate interesting content automatically, in the same way that the situation in the industrial society only improved when people invented ways controlling and operating the machines more automatically.
But this was only possible because the surplus of people was employed in intangible (e.g. artistic, scientific, bureaucratic) content production jobs, because society would collapse if this surplus of people were simply left free.
So, the crucial questions are: how will people be employed after content production becomes automatic? What will we be doing? Won't we become completely obsolete? That will be the post-Google society... Only after we figure out answers for these questions, we will be really able to escape the invasion of privacy.
One day, our world will be dominated by computers and their flat screens... It seems that it is already happening in our appartment...
Another exotic fruit that we found another day in a chinese shop here in Nancy is a kind of litchi, but yellow and smooth outside. The taste is very similar to litchi too, although less sweet. And it also resembles a bit the taste of Abiu, a fruit that I ate a very long time ago in Brazil once.
In France, finding various kinds of fruits is somehow easier than it used to be in Austria. Recently we even found a kind of red brown banana that I had never seen in my life, even though there are dozens of different kinds of bananas in Brazil. 
It is naturally of this color, even while it is not ready yet. Because of this, we ended up losing two bananas, when we opened them thinking that they were already ready. For some time, we even thought that they were only meant for decoration, because they never seemed to become ready. But one day they did, and then they were delicious. Even inside they are kind of red white, isntead of the usual yellow white color of the common bananas.
Dialogue 1:
A: I am not finding what I am looking for.
B: That’s probably because you are looking in the wrong place.
Dialogue 2:
A: I am not finding what I am looking for.
B: That’s because you are probably looking in the wrong place.
Dialogue 3:
A: I am not finding what I am looking for.
B: That’s probably because you are probably looking in the wrong place.
Before analyzing these dialogues, I would like to ask two questions to the readers of this blog:
1) If you were B, which of the three dialogues would have naturally occurred? Which sentence would you have uttered? (Don’t think too much to answer this question…. Just say whatever sounds more natural to you…)
2) Which dialogue seems to be more logically correct? (Think as much as you want to answer this question…)
Please share your answers to these questions by commenting this post…
[If you don’t want to read all the discussion below, but want to know immediately a very simple informative action that you can take to help the environment, skip directly to end of this post.]
The Copenhagen Climate Summit made me think again about the issue of measuring environmental impact. For decades, the world has compared countries purely in terms of GDP and GDP per capita. Countries and their populations have been implicitly stimulated to compete for better positions in the GDP index. “Developing countries” have been culturally encouraged to adopt the consumerist way of life of developed countries and to try to reach their GDP levels, no matter the environmental costs.
As a consequence, environmental indexes that take into account these environmental costs have never become as prominent, well-known and well-advertised as GDP. And since they are not so prominent, people and countries have never actually cared about these indexes so much. And without care, these indexes will never become prominent. And people will never care. And… It is a stable local minimum…
Years ago, when I still watched TV sometimes, I remember that I frequently saw news announcing estimates of how much the GDP of Brazil was expected to grow in the next year or months, or how much it had grown in the previous months in comparison with what had been previously expected. But I never saw a single piece of news about Brazil’s position and score in any environmental index or about estimates of the expected evolution of any of these indexes.
So, during the Copenhagen Climate Summit, I decided to search for environmental indexes in Wikipedia, and I ended up finding some, like the Happy Planet Index , the Ecological Footprint, and the Environmental Performance Index, among others… They are all far from perfect, but they are better than nothing and they are already much better than just the GDP. Rankings of countries by these indexes is freely available in Wikipedia. This is good news.
However, I also noticed that, when a user visits the Wikipedia page of a country, such as Brazil for example, he sees a box (the so-called “country infobox”) in the right column of the page, which contains quick facts about the country. The infobox contains 6 lines about 6 variants of GDP, but not a single line about any environmental index! This means that, even though several environmental indexes already exist, they still have much less visibility than GDP.
I find it understandable that the media (e.g. the TV) and politicians want to emphasize only GDP. After all, GDP is directly correlated with the profit of the companies that are directly or indirectly owned or controlled by the elite that can influence media and politics. But Wikipedia is open and controlled by all of us. It is therefore inadmissible that it gives visibility to indexes that go against the health of our planet and hence of our own interests. It is inadmissible that it doesn’t give proper visibility to indexes that try to encourage the protection of our planet. And the fault is all ours, because Wikipedia is edited by us!
There is an ongoing discussion about the inclusion of enviromental indexes in the Wikipedia template for country infoboxes. If you care about this issue at least as much as I do, then you should give your opinion in the discussion page of the country infobox too. (If you are a portuguese speaker, you may want to give your opinion in the portuguese wikipedia too. Here is the discussion page of the portuguese country infobox. And, of course, If you are a native speaker of some other language, you could do the same for the wikipedia in your language…).
Some weeks ago I saw a Luxembourgian Newspaper. Since Luxembourg has French and German as official languages, the newspaper was made in both languages, one side in German and the other side in French, in a rotated way, so that we can’t say which side is the front and which side is the back. The funniest thing, though, is that the French part is dominated by news about Christmas and fun in general, while the German part is full of news about industry, work and economy…
Here is something interesting that I found in Chaitin's webpage:
Gian-Carlo Rota: Problem Solvers and Theorizers
Mathematicians can be subdivided into two types: problem solvers and theorizers. Most mathematicians are a mixture of the two although it is easy to find extreme examples of both types.
To the problem solver, the supreme achievement in mathematics is the solution to a problem that had been given up as hopeless. It matters little that the solution may be clumsy; all that counts is that it should be the first and that the proof be correct. Once the problem solver finds the solution, he will permanently lose interest in it, and will listen to new and simplified proofs with an air of condescension suffused with boredom.
The problem solver is a conservative at heart. For him, mathematics consists of a sequence of challenges to be met, an obstacle course of problems. The mathematical concepts required to state mathematical problems are tacitly assumed to be eternal and immutable.
Mathematical exposition is regarded as an inferior undertaking. New theories are viewed with deep suspicion, as intruders who must prove their worth by posing challenging problems before they can gain attention. The problem solver resents generalizations, especially those that may succeed in trivializing the solution of one of his problems.
The problem solver is the role model for budding young mathematicians. When we describe to the public the conquests of mathematics, our shining heroes are the problem solvers.
To the theorizer, the supreme achievement of mathematics is a theory that sheds sudden light on some incomprehensible phenomenon. Success in mathematics does not lie in solving problems but in their trivialization. The moment of glory comes with the discovery of a new theory that does not solve any of the old problems but renders them irrelevant.
The theorizer is a revolutionary at heart. Mathematical concepts received from the past are regarded as imperfect instances of more general ones yet to be discovered. Mathematical exposition is considered a more difficult undertaking than mathematical research.
To the theorizer, the only mathematics that will survive are the definitions. Great definitions are what mathematics contributes to the world. Theorems are tolerated as a necessary evil since they play a supporting role — or rather, as the theorizer will reluctantly admit, an essential role — in the understanding of definitions.
Theorizers often have trouble being recognized by the community of mathematicians. Their consolation is the certainty, which may or may not be borne out by history, that their theories will survive long after the problems of the day have been forgotten.
If I were a space engineer looking for a mathematician to help me send a rocket into space, I would chose a problem solver. But if I were looking for a mathematician to give a good education to my child, I would unhesitatingly prefer a theorizer.
[From Gian-Carlo Rota, Indiscrete Thoughts, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1997, pp. 45-46.]
Imagine a paradisiacal island whose population survives thanks to tourists that come by airplane to visit the island. If they continue to accept tourists, the pollution caused by the airplanes will contribute to global warming, raise the sea level and eventually drown the island. If they stop accepting tourists, their island might be safe from global warming, but the population will starve due to a complete disruptio of the economy. In any case, they are doomed.
Posts
All Comments
