The claim that EPR effects violate the principle that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light have been countered by noting that they cannot be used for signaling because neither observer can control, or predetermine, what he observes, and therefore cannot manipulate what the other observer measures.
— Wikipedia on Copenhagen interpretation
2012.12.17 Monday ACHK
種子意念 7
ars 304 days ago | link
Isaac Asimov and Piers Anthony have both written in their books that they never suffer from writers block, and the reason both gave is that they read and reply to letters from their audience. Isaac Asimov especially replied to every single letter he received (I’m not sure about Piers Anthony).
Penn and Teller seem to have the same idea: Interact with every member of your audience who wants to talk to you. And they are one of the most successful magicians.
I think everyone should learn from this. Do you write a blog? Read every single comment you get, and reply to as many as you can. Run a business? Read as much customer service mail as you can. And if you are small read ALL of it.
— 14 years ago: the day Teller gave me the secret to my career in magic
— Hacker News
2012.12.17 Monday ACHK
SICM, 1.2 | 程式員頭腦 14
這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 3 日的對話。
“In almost all textbooks, even the best, this principle is presented so that it is impossible to understand.” (K. Jacobi, Lectures on Dynamics, 1842-1843). I have not chosen to break with tradition.
— V. I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, footnote, p. 246
— Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics
這本書的主要好處是，它會要求你，透過編寫簡短的電腦程式，來解決力學問題。反過來說，你亦可以透過解決力學問題，來練習 programming（電腦編程）。
這本書的主旨是，在經典力學，人們做公式推導的過程中，有時會把一些數字符號的意思，不自覺地改了一點，導致推導失效。例如，運算步驟的第二行和第五行，都會出現的函數 f 這個符號。但是，第二行的 f ，是代表 f(x,y)。而第五行的 f ，卻是指 f(x(t),y(t))。
即使有時會剛巧得到正確的結果，但是由於胡亂推導，大家也不知道，那個正確結果的真正由來。所以，每一代的學生，都不可能明白那一個部分。
如果透過編寫程式，來解決力學問題，你就可以避免了「暗地裡轉換意思」的陋習，因為在同一個程式中，同一個符號，電腦只會容許，有唯一的一個意思。電腦不會錯失，你任何的「概念扭曲」或者「概念滑轉」，所以不會有絲毫的容忍。
— Me@2012.12.17
2012.12.17 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
意念可樂 3
A good scientist is a person with original ideas. A good engineer is a person who makes a design that works with as few original ideas as possible. There are no prima donnas in engineering.
— Disturbing the Universe
— Freeman Dyson
handrake 2 days ago | link | parent
I think MS was pretty much the same way until very recent. Maybe companies really start making money when they stop being innovative.
— Amazon Has the Most Generous Shareholders in the World
— Hacker News
The difference between design and research seems to be a question of new versus good. Design doesn’t have to be new, but it has to be good. Research doesn’t have to be good, but it has to be new.
I think these two paths converge at the top: the best design surpasses its predecessors by using new ideas, and the best research solves problems that are not only new, but actually worth solving. So ultimately we’re aiming for the same destination, just approaching it from different directions.
— Paul Graham
2012.12.17 Monday ACHK
Physics Town 