超世 4
做「世外高人」固然困難。
但是，真正最困難的，是同時要做「世內高人」。
— Me@2012-05-13 9:49:53 PM
2012.05.14 Monday ACHK
Category Archives: mathematical logic
The Incredible Hulk
Marvel’s The Avengers (2012 movie): What did the Hulk mean when he said his secret was that he was always angry?
It seemed that early in the movie, he was not able to control himself when he turned into the Hulk. Yet, he seemed to be able to transform at will and also listen to orders or operate as part of a team in the later part of the movie.
Mark Hughes, Screenwriter, Forbes Blogger
If Banner had to just avoid getting angry in order to not be the Hulk, he’d never succeed, because of course it’s probably almost impossible for the vast majority of people to really just stop themselves from getting angry. But what do we do instead? We can’t avoid being angry, but we learn to control our TEMPER and we can control how we RESPOND to anger.
In the previous solo Hulk film, it ends with Banner learning that the key is less about the anger itself, than the literal physical reactions caused by the anger. If he can keep his heart rate down and his metabolism from responding to the anger and pain, then he can prevent changing into the Hulk. He maintains a constant state of anger at his situation, and at the state of the world, and at the people responsible for it, as a way to keep the emotional status constant and thus allow him to ignore controlling his emotions so he can instead focus his efforts merely on controlling his physiological responses to the anger.
With anger as a constant state, his body adapts, it returns to a moderated physical state most of the time, so anger itself won’t be a trigger. Only when he allows the anger to go unchecked and gives in to his body’s “desire”/urge to change, does he become the Hulk — unless he is too overwhelmed by physical stress to hold it back, like when he was severely injured early in the film on the Helicarrier. Otherwise, he can change into the Hulk at will because he’s already always angry, and need only let the change take place.
2012.05.12 Saturday ACHK
藉口 2
「理由」是一個「決定」。
「原因」並不是一個「決定」。
「理由」是一個「決定」。「理由」是權衡輕重時，支持一個「決定」的一些考慮元素。由於是內在的主觀判斷，「理由」有所謂「充不充分」。一個「決定」沒有充分的「理由」，就為之「不合理」。
「原因」不是一個「決定」。「原因」和「結果」，只是客觀描述事件發生的時間先後次序。由於是外在的客觀事實，「原因」沒有所謂「合不合理」。
— Me@2012-04-26 10:42:10 AM
2012.04.30 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Meta 3
… the people who made money from the gold rush were not the gold miners. It was guys named Levi Strauss and Crocker, and folks who ran banks, and people who sold jeans, and sold picks and axes.
I think ultimately in the long term that the money that will get made in Minecraft will not be about Minecraft, but will be about the services and products that get introduced into it. And so that’s what’s most interesting to me about Minecraft, is that the ecosystem, it’s almost an American history lesson.
— Rich Hilleman
— Getting EA Ready for the Future
— Brandon Sheffield
— Gamasutra
2012.04.11 Wednesday ACHK
Godel 1.1
A major early proponent of formalism was David Hilbert, whose program was intended to be a complete and consistent axiomatization of all of mathematics. Hilbert aimed to show the consistency of mathematical systems from the assumption that the “finitary arithmetic” (a subsystem of the usual arithmetic of the positive integers, chosen to be philosophically uncontroversial) was consistent (i.e. no contradictions can be derived from the system).
Godel’s conclusion in his incompleteness theorems was that you cannot prove consistency within any axiomatic system rich enough to include classical arithmetic.
— Wikipedia on Formalism (mathematics)
2012.04.05 Thursday ACHK
Quantum cosmology
… the universe is the sum total of all that is in existence. Physically, a (physical) observer outside of the universe would require the breaking of gauge invariance, and a concomitant alteration in the mathematical structure of the theory. Similarly, RQM conceptually forbids the possibility of an external observer. Since the assignment of a quantum state requires at least two “objects” (system and observer), which must both be physical systems, there is no meaning in speaking of the “state” of the entire universe.
This is because this state would have to be ascribed to a correlation between the universe and some other physical observer, but this observer in turn would have to form part of the universe, and as was discussed above, it is impossible for an object to give a complete specification of itself. Following the idea of relational networks above, an RQM-oriented cosmology would have to account for the universe as a set of partial systems providing descriptions of one another. The exact nature of such a construction remains an open question.
— Wikipedia on Relational quantum mechanics
2012.03.27 Tuesday ACHK
連繫智力 2.2
無足夠資料 7.2 | 西瓜 4
無知 （matters of facts） 綜合句
要去除無知，就要博覽群書，看破紅塵，以獲取充足的思考材料。
愚蠢 （relations of ideas） 重言句
要刪減愚蠢，就要連繫意念，融會貫通，以建構高速的思考網絡。
— Me@2012.03.26
2012.03.26 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
One as many
Probability is one as many.
Probability is an one body statistics.
For example, expected value (in probability) is an one sample version of weighted average (in statistics).
— Me@2011.11.02
2012.03.22 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
連繫智力
軟硬智力 3 | 西瓜 3 | 程式員頭腦 13 | Amazing Gags 1.2
這段改編自 2010 年 3 月 20 日的對話。
（安：如果「比喻」是那麼重要，可不可以這樣說：只要觀察一個人，是否能夠善於利用比喻，就可以估計到他的思考水平？）
不一定，因為那有一個技術上的困難。如果一個人不是從事教學工作，他就近乎沒有需要，透過運用比喻，去解釋複雜的意念。那樣，你就沒有理據，由他利用比喻的頻率，去判斷他智力的高低。
「Intelligence is the ability to recognize connections. – Carolus Slovinec」
智力的一個核心元素是，連繫意念的能力。提出比喻，是這種能力的一個典型示範，因為所謂「比喻」，就是察覺到，原本貌似互不相干的兩個意念，背後原來有關係。利用那個關係，或者相似之處，把那兩個意念相連起來，就有助人增強理解之效。
如果一個「比喻」，格外奇特有趣，加上能夠給予聽眾，一點魔幻感覺的話，就為之一個「笑話」。讀書的致勝之道，在於將千般知識 和 萬種意念，融會貫通。所以，無論是「比喻」還是「笑話」，都對教學有很大的幫助。這種「認清不同意念之間關係」的本領，構成了智力的主要部分。
但是，意念的關係，並不一定是比喻。例如「1 + 1 = 2」，道出了「一」、「二」、「加」和「等如」這四個概念的關係。但是，它並不是一個「比喻」。換句話說，即使你少用比喻，也不代表思考水平低，因為智力的化身，除了「善用比喻」外，還有其他。
— Me@2012.03.20
2012.03.20 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Friends
重頭愛你
Love me once again
.
The way to keep new friends is to turn them into old ones.
The way to keep old friends is to turn them into new ones.
— Me@2012-03-15 12:42:25 AM
.
.
2012.03.16 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
樹 | 根, 3
We cannot change anything until we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses.
— Carl Jung
2012.03.13 Tuesday ACHK
Douglas Hofstadter
Douglas Richard Hofstadter (born February 15, 1945) is an American academic whose research focuses on consciousness, analogy-making, artistic creation, literary translation, and discovery in mathematics and physics. He is best known for his book Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, first published in 1979, for which he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction and the National Book Award for Science.
Hofstadter has said that he feels “uncomfortable with the nerd culture that centers on computers”. He admits that “a large fraction [of his audience] seems to be those who are fascinated by technology”, but when it was suggested that his work “has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence” he replied that he was pleased about that, but that he himself has “no interest in computers.”
— Wikipedia on Douglas Hofstadter
2012.03.10 Saturday ACHK
Meta-company
Meta 2
“You know what’s great about the YC network? It gives the benefit of being part of a large company without being part of a big company,” Graham says. “The problem with doing a startup–even though it’s better in almost every other respect–is that you don’t have the resources of a big company to draw on. It’s very lonely; you have no one to give you advice or help you out. In a big company, you might be horribly constrained, but there are like 1,000 other people you can go to to deal with any number of problems. Now [with YC] you have 1,000 people you can go to to deal with problems, and you don’t have all the restrictions of a big company.”
— Paul Graham: Why Y Combinator Replaces The Traditional Corporation
— Austin Carr
2012.02.29 Wednesday ACHK
Meta-teacher
Meta 1.2 | Recursion 9.2
如何拯救眾生 3
.
Now, the common paradigm is that the teacher-student ratio is critical — fewer students means higher-quality teaching. But if you turn your students into teachers, you gain leverage. You move the fulcrum over.
– The 8th Habit p. 32, by Stephen Covey
.
.
.
2008.10.24 Friday ACHK
種子論起點 11.0.2
這段改編自 2010 年 3 月 20 日的對話。
.
我們暫時叫它做「種子論」吧！
大概而言，你需要不斷散播種子，但又不知道哪些會發芽。你幾乎完全不能控制，哪些種子會長大成樹、開花結果。但你又不能不播種，因為沒有「種子」，就一定不會有「結果」。你所能做到的，就只是勤奮地，盡量提高「種子發芽、長大成樹 和 開花結果」的機會率。
時間上，你要不間斷地播種。空間上，你要在很多領域播種。策略上，因為人生的時間和空間，都十分有限，散播種子要有，先後緩急之分。相對於你自己來說，「種子結成果」機會越高的時空，就是越適合你的「田地」和「季節」。你就應該散播得越多「機遇種子」。
同時，你要從一開始就知道，絕大部分種子會，無疾而終。可能每一百萬粒種子之中，只有一粒有結果。然後每一百萬個果實之中，只有一個是美味的。
但是，即使你失敗了一千億次，只要有一次成功，你就永遠改變了歷史。
— Me@2010.03.21
— Me@2010.09.26
— Me@2012.02.20
.
.
2012.02.22 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Meta
Recursion 9
I am a meta-teacher.
— Me@2012.02.19
2012.02.21 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
種子論起點 11.0.1
這段改編自 2010 年 3 月 20 日的對話。
.
剛才我講的那個理論，我們應該為它，起一個名字，以防日後討論問題時，需要用到它。
其實，根據剛才的討論內容，這個理論本來，可以叫作「種子靈感天線搞 gag 間書太極謀事在人成事在天可遇不可求有心栽花花不香無心插柳柳成蔭踏破鐵鞋無覓處得來全不費功夫原理」。
但是，這個名字實在太長，不適宜日常的運用。如果不是那麼長，又很難可以完全準確地，捕捉到它的神髓。這就是困難所在。
（安：根據你這個理論本身，如果你刻意地，硬要立刻想出，一個好的名字，你反而不能如願。）
— Me@2010.03.21
— Me@2010.09.26
— Me@2012.02.20
.
.
2012.02.20 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Lisp macros 2.2
I think one of the problems with Lisp is that it is too powerful. It has so much meta ability that it allows people to invent their own little worlds, and it takes a while to figure out each person’s little world (SoftwareGivesUsGodLikePowers).
— Lisp is Too Powerful
2012.02.19 Sunday ACHK
Verification principle, 2
Verification- and falsification-principles
The statements “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified” and “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified” are both claimed to be self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified.
— Wikipedia on Self-refuting idea
Verification principle: That meaningful statements should be analytic, verifiable or falsifiable
Falsifiability: The possibility that an assertion may be disproved
— Wikipedia on Verification theory
Strong verification principle (aka verification principle) may or may not be self-refuting, depending on whether your regard it as an analytic statement or not. It can be regarded as an analytic statement (aka tautological statement) in a sense that verification principle defines what “meaningful” means, distinguishing meaningful statement from meaningless one. It is related to the definitions of “analytic statement” and “synthetic statement”.
Weak verification principle (aka confirmation principle) is not self-refuting.
Falsification principle is not self-refuting. Falsification principle is about science statements. Itself is not a science statement. Instead, it is part of the definition of “science statements” (aka synthetic statements). So it should not be applied to itself.
— Me@2011.10.21
2011.10.21 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK
Agent Smith
Have you ever stood and stared at it, marveled at its beauty, its genius? Billions of people just living out their lives, oblivious. Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this, the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization, which is of course what this is all about. Evolution, Morpheus, evolution. Like the dinosaur. Look out that window. You had your time. The future is our world, Morpheus. The future is our time.
— Agent Smith
— The Matrix
2011.09.24 Saturday ACHK
Physics Town 
You must be logged in to post a comment.