wu :: forums - Print Page


    
      
        wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        riddles >> general problem-solving / chatting / whatever >> what we do
        
(Message started by: william wu on Aug 17^th, 2003, 1:44pm)

Title: what we do
Post by william wu on Aug 17^th, 2003, 1:44pm

votes will not be used for solicitious purposes. i'm just curious!

if you selected "other", feel free to share what you do by replying to this thread ... i spent a while coming up with this list so i'm interested in what i missed :)

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Aug 17^th, 2003, 2:53pm

hmm.. how did bureaucrat get -1?
now the rest constitutes (currently) 125%

Title: Re: what we do
Post by william wu on Aug 17^th, 2003, 3:04pm

haha! yeah, something went really wrong after i modified some source files during the poll. i took a screenshot of the screw-up for posterity. polling gone horribly wrong:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/images/poll_profession_wrong.gif

alright, let's try this again :) let me know if anyone thinks more professions should be added to the list

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Sir Col on Aug 18^th, 2003, 6:14pm

Query: if users can vote for more than one field, what are the percentages supposed to represent? Imagine only two people had voted: I select Mathematics and Education, and my wife selects Homemaker; the poll would report Homemaker, 33%. True, 33% of the total selections are Homemaker, but it (wrongly) suggests that 33% of voters are homemakers.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by william wu on Aug 19^th, 2003, 3:33pm

Yes, true. I didn't really think of that. Originally I thought of having voters only select one field, but some friends of mine suggested that was too problematic for people who qualify well for multiple fields. Perhaps the percentage contribution should be split between the multiple fields that a user votes for. Or we can just think of anyone who votes for two fields as representing two people. The latter interpretation may not be that bad. In any case, I hypothesize that the number of people who cast multiple votes is low. Perhaps I will check this later.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Sir Col on Aug 19^th, 2003, 4:27pm

In Statistics we normally use weighted frequencies for each person when multiple responses are available. That is, each selection for a given voter is worth 1/k, where k represents the number of selections they have made.

For example, suppose there were three fields: 1, 2, and 3.

A votes: 1
B votes: 1 and 2
C votes: 1, 2, and 3
D votes: 3

Proportion for field 1 = (1 + 1/2 + 1/3)/4 ~= 46%
Proportion for field 2 = (1/2 + 1/3)/4 ~= 21%
Proportion for field 3 = (1/3 + 1)/4 ~= 33%

The reasoning/justification behind it is quite simple; if a voter insists on occupying k fields, then only 1/k th of their vote is represented in each of their chosen fields. That way, each voter gets one vote.

By the way, nice touch with the poll interface and thanks for all your hard work, William! 8)

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Icarus on Aug 19^th, 2003, 5:55pm

I myself put in three votes, since I work as an Engineer, but have degrees in Math and Physics, and have an interest in all three (though anyone who has read enough of my posts knows that I'm mainly a mathematician).

How you want to count us schizophrenic-interests types depends on what it is you want the poll to reflect. If you want it to show how interests are divided amounst respondants, then Sir Col's approach is best. If you would rather see how the various fields themselves are represented among the responders, then the current approach is better.

If you are curious about how strongly these interests are represented in the forum, then you should weigh the answers based on how many posts each respondant has made.

While my contributions would be enhanced by this approach, where I would have the most influence would be a weighing based on most excessive use of punctuation. :D

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Aug 20^th, 2003, 1:22am

I put in 6 votes, being in the field of cognitive science I deal with
engineering (making stuff, also cognitive ergonomics),
information technology (on the computer),
mathematics (logical reasoning),
linguistics (natural language processing, speech systems),
social sciences (user models, cognitive ergonomics)
and entertainment (game-AI, game theory)

I also have intrests in physics and chemistry among other things, but they're not part of my studies..

Title: Re: what we do
Post by BNC on Aug 20^th, 2003, 3:00am

6 votes? :o

My 3 seems low... I voted:

1. Engineering. I'm an engineer in spirit since kindergarten, and in degree for quite a few years.
2. Management. Oh, well. I've reached the level where I mostly produce documents :'(
3. Education. I'm teaching engineering courses at the local uviversity.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by wowbagger on Aug 20^th, 2003, 3:46am

BNC,
I hope you feel better when you read that I only voted for two categories. Since it said "field of work or study", I restricted myself to Math and Physics / Astronomy / Earth Sciences. Come to think of it, I'd probably have voted for both Physics and Earth Sciences separately, had it been possible.

Really great work, William! :)

Title: Re: what we do
Post by James Fingas on Aug 20^th, 2003, 7:08am

You sickos! :P Trying to over-represent yourselves again? I'll let my single vote speak loud and clear ...

I know ... I'm only fooling myself :(

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Kozo Morimoto on Aug 20^th, 2003, 11:43pm

I'm in Finance/Banking (mutual fund manager). Can you add this in?

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Sir Col on Aug 21^st, 2003, 7:27am

Sorry to appear pedantic, but I have another question: why does 0 have any length? And, philosophically speaking, can you have 0%?

[e]If anyone wants to be pedantic they could point out that I asked two questions.

Reason for edit...
I just noticed the category: Law/Politics/Crime

If anyone knows a lawyer or politician, I'm sure they'd find the 3rd category, crime, most fitting. ;D [/e]

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Aug 21^st, 2003, 7:42am

on 08/21/03 at 07:27:33, Sir Col wrote:

And, philosophically speaking, can you have 0%?

You mean like, you can only have things and not nothings?
hmmzz..
If nothing were anything than having nothing would be different from not having anything.. but it's not..

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Sir Col on Aug 21^st, 2003, 7:58am

The 'existence' of nothing presents a paradox:

Imagine a small room. In that room, you must agree that there are zero pink elephants. In fact, there are zero pink elephants with the number 1,2,3,4,... written on their backs. We could go even further, and agree that there are zero elephants, kangaroos, tigers, ..., with an infinite variety of impossible colours with infinitely many possible numbers written on their backs.

Now, how much space does one of those pink elephants occupy? If they occupied any amount of space, then infinitely many of them would fill an infinite amount of space.

As the room is not filled, to over-flowing, zero anythings occupy no space, and so do not exist.

Hence to talk about zero something is to talk about a state of non-existence. In other words, as soon as nothing exists, it ceases to be nothing and becomes something. Therefore you cannot have zero percent, because to have a measure of something (percent) implies we have something, not nothing. ;)

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Aug 21^st, 2003, 8:35am

on 08/21/03 at 07:58:11, Sir Col wrote:

In other words, as soon as nothing exists, it ceases to be nothing and becomes something.

no, I don't agree.
If nothing exists, then it's still nothing and stays nothing.

Now if a non-existing pink elephant were to exist, that would pose a paradox. But a non-existing pink elephant isn't nothing. Nothing exists by the grace of not anything existing. Where there isn't anything existing nothing exists.

Quote:

Therefore you cannot have zero percent, because to have a measure of something (percent) implies we have something, not nothing. ;)

You can have zero percent not because it would be a measure of something, but because it is a measure of nothing.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by James Fingas on Aug 21^st, 2003, 10:41am

Thread Title: "what we do"

Judging by the posts here we need a category "Beat non-existant horses, which, if they existed, would already be dead"

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Sir Col on Aug 21^st, 2003, 10:44am

Sorry to deviate, but the use of units with zero is one of my pet hates and a constant battle I face in education. Consequently I feel that this thread (being the showcase of the new poll) is the appropriate place to talk about the interface and its representation of data...

Existence is synomonous with something as non-existence is with nothing; the two states are mutually exclusive. You cannot talk about the existence of nothing – it would be like talking about an odd, even number.

I know this all borders on the philosophical, but as measure is applied to existing things, it is a nonsense to measure something that does not exist.

On a purely mathematical level, in the same way that 10 cm means 10 lots of 1 cm, 10% literally means 10 lots of 0.01. So 0% means 0x0.01=0; the use of % is entirely redundant and as inappropriate as talking about 0 cm.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Aug 21^st, 2003, 11:06am

in physics 0 meters means any length between -0.5 and 0.5 meters.
0.0 meters means any length between -0.05 and 0.05 meters.

Any measure in experimental science is inprecise, and thus 0 units is a very valid, and usefull concept.

Also one can very easily talk about nonsense. There is no problem with talking about odd even numbers, for instance I might say I find them quite odd. Which they are per definition of course. But even so they sound pretty and smell nice. Espescially when their round and purple and taste like tequila. More so even when they read horses which would be dead if only they existed to be beaten..

The only real difference with nothing/zero is that that is a usefull concept. And can thus be used in more usefull conversation. Regardless of wether you dislike it or not.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Aug 21^st, 2003, 11:16am

note in general: words don't make sense, people make sense of words.
"0 chairs" may not make sense in itself, it's just letters, symbols, meaningless in and of themselves. But I make sense of it, and so do most people. Anyone who doesn't want to is free to not understand everyone who does.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by william wu on Aug 21^st, 2003, 11:48am

on 08/20/03 at 23:43:18, Kozo Morimoto wrote:

I'm in Finance/Banking (mutual fund manager). Can you add this in?

finance added

Title: Re: what we do
Post by wowbagger on Aug 22^nd, 2003, 2:35am

on 08/21/03 at 11:06:33, towr wrote:

in physics 0 meters means any length between -0.5 and 0.5 meters.
0.0 meters means any length between -0.05 and 0.05 meters.

Sorry, but I have to object strongly here.
Your statement is just too general. Of course, it is standard (and good) practice to give appropriate error estimates for measured or calculated numbers, like (0 +/- 0.5)m. But "1m" (to avoid any controversy over 0m) by itself is exactly one metre, nothing more, nothing less. You may not be able to measure exactly 1m, but that's a different story.

When you give exercises involving physical calculations to students and the numbers involved are given without error intervals, do you expect them to dream the errors up themselves? Or shouldn't they just omit a calculation of errors when it isn't demanded?

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Aug 22^nd, 2003, 3:48am

Perhaps it's different where you live, but here the number of decimals signify the significance of a measurement in science.

1m has one significant digit, so it can be half a unit off. 1.0m has two significant digits so it can be 0.05 units off.
I was told it was standard practice in the scientific community, and the basis for the scientific notation of numbers.

1.2 * 3.500 = 4.2 whereas 1.200 * 3.500 = 4.200

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Sir Col on Aug 22^nd, 2003, 4:03am

I think you're both saying the same thing. wowbagger is agreeing that in a real world situation we must be aware of the degree of error. But, if you were solving a problem and were given the dimensions of, say, a triangle, unless part of the question asked you to take into account the possible error, you would proceed and calculate with the given measurements.

Strictly speaking, students are taught to write 1.32+4.28=5.6. As, 1.315+4.275=5.59 (lower bound) and 1.325+4.285=5.61 (upper bound), so writing 1.32+4.28=5.60 would be wrong.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by wowbagger on Aug 22^nd, 2003, 4:57am

on 08/22/03 at 03:48:48, towr wrote:

Perhaps it's different where you live, but here the number of decimals signify the significance of a measurement in science.

That's right - if the number comes from a measurement. That's all I was saying.

Quote:

1m has one significant digit, so it can be half a unit off. 1.0m has two significant digits so it can be 0.05 units off.
I was told it was standard practice in the scientific community, and the basis for the scientific notation of numbers.

1.2 * 3.500 = 4.2 whereas 1.200 * 3.500 = 4.200

I know this rule of thumb, if you will, from school and was told to discontinue using it at university. To be really precise (in more complicated situations), you would of course have to do an error calculation. There's not much insight to be gained by arguing over 4.2 vs. 4.200 as long as you don't give explicit error intervals, I'd say.

However, 1m is one metre if you don't give the specific context of a measurement. You can say: I measured the length d to be x metres, with a precision of 1m. Then d = (x +/- 0.5)m. No problem. But if you just speak of one metre without a particular context, it is one metre, not 0.71m, nor 1.23m.

on 08/22/03 at 04:03:44, Sir Col wrote:

Exactly.

Quote:

Strictly speaking, students are taught to write 1.32+4.28=5.6. As, 1.315+4.275=5.59 (lower bound) and 1.325+4.285=5.61 (upper bound), so writing 1.32+4.28=5.60 would be wrong.

Are you serious about that last part? At least mathematically, the equation is definitely correct.
(I guess Icarus would refer you to the definition of decimal numbers to show that adding 0 hundredths doesn't change the value of 5.6. ;))

Title: Re: what we do
Post by James Fingas on Aug 22^nd, 2003, 7:20am

I agree ... adding trailing zeros is a very sloppy way to show accuracy. Besides, even when I want a value to be +/- 0.05, I can still put something in the hundredths spot:

1.23 mm +/- 0.05 mm

The rule of thumb they taught us in physics lab was to only give one digit in the tolerance, and never give digits in the answer that could be completely obliterated by the tolerance. For instance, these are just silly:

1.23 mm +/- 0.0512 mm
1.23501 mm +/- 0.05 mm

Although mathematically the extra digits are meaningful, practically they're not.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Sir Col on Aug 22^nd, 2003, 7:47am

on 08/22/03 at 04:57:17, wowbagger wrote:

Are you serious about that last part?

Only in the context of rounding errors. An answer written as 5.60 implies that it is correct to 2 decimal places. However, as I demonstrated, 1.32+4.28 could be anything from 5.59 to 5.61 (using lower and upper bounds). Therefore, I can only say that the answer is 5.6 with confidence. The general rule of thumb is that combining two rounded values can at best produce an answer to one degree of accuracy less. You add two numbers, both correct to 3 d.p., and your answer can only be given accuractely to 2 d.p.

However, as we've said, unless you're asked specifically to take this into account, you would not do it. If I present two numbers, given to 3 d.p., you would assume that they are exact (not rounded), unless stated otherwise.

I believe the unique convention (of leaving trailing zeroes) arises from approximately equal signs vs. equality with qualifying statements of accuracy. For example, we can write sqr(2)[approx]1.41 or sqr(2)=1.41 (2 d.p.). As the use of trailing zeroes would normally be redundant, writing x=5.60, implies that it is correct to 2 d.p.; in other words, it is closer to 5.60 than 5.59 or 5.61. However, it is a sloppy convention, as sqr(2)=1.41 would be invalid.

I detest the whole realm of rounding and bounds. I especially object to the standards now of stating that the least and greatest values that are equal to the integer 10 are 9.5 and 10.5 respectively. In examinations, in England, candidates are expected to state that 10.5 (the lower bound of 11 to the nearest whole number) is the greatest value that 10 can be. The question will actually state: "A number, given to the nearest whole number, is 10. Write down the greatest value that this number could be." Not upper bound, but greatest value. It all stems from the general lack of understanding of bounds and limits. You will even hear examiners saying, "Well how about allowing 10.4999... then?" Argh!

Title: Re: what we do
Post by wowbagger on Aug 22^nd, 2003, 8:37am

on 08/22/03 at 07:20:16, James Fingas wrote:

The rule of thumb they taught us in physics lab was to only give one digit in the tolerance, and never give digits in the answer that could be completely obliterated by the tolerance.

That's what they teach here, too. Although it wasn't strictly only one digit in the tolerance, because you shouldn't round down. So either keep +/- 0.053, or use +/- 0.06.

on 08/22/03 at 07:47:11, Sir Col wrote:

Only in the context of rounding errors.

I thought (and hoped) so.

Quote:

In examinations, in England, candidates are expected to state that 10.5 (the lower bound of 11 to the nearest whole number) is the greatest value that 10 can be. The question will actually state: "A number, given to the nearest whole number, is 10. Write down the greatest value that this number could be." Not upper bound, but greatest value.

Shocking!

Quote:

You will even hear examiners saying, "Well how about allowing 10.4999... then?" Argh!

Title: Re: what we do
Post by James Fingas on Aug 22^nd, 2003, 10:18am

on 08/22/03 at 08:37:16, wowbagger wrote:

That's what they teach here, too. Although it wasn't strictly only one digit in the tolerance, because you shouldn't round down. So either keep +/- 0.053, or use +/- 0.06.

Seems a little pedantic. What I find apalling is how they teach you precisely how to do something, and demand that you get precisely the right answer using just the right method, but don't care a whit whether or not you understand why you're doing it. The best example of this I've seen is multiple-choice exams in first-year Calculus! Fortunately the final exam was only allowed to be up to 60% multiple choice...

If I was a scientist, and went through the trouble of measuring some quanity that was generally accepted to be equal to 10.0, and I got an answer of 9.6 +/- 0.5, I wouldn't be happy and publish. I'd go and check my apparatus and methods until I got a clear answer one way or another. The whole point of having bounds on your answers is that it lets you know what you do and do not know, so you can tell when your agreement is as good as you'll get, versus when you really ought to check your numbers and method.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by wowbagger on Aug 22^nd, 2003, 10:48am

on 08/22/03 at 10:18:06, James Fingas wrote:

Seems a little pedantic.

You're probably right. :D

Quote:

If I was a scientist, and went through the trouble of measuring some quanity that was generally accepted to be equal to 10.0, and I got an answer of 9.6 +/- 0.5, I wouldn't be happy and publish. I'd go and check my apparatus and methods until I got a clear answer one way or another. The whole point of having bounds on your answers is that it lets you know what you do and do not know, so you can tell when your agreement is as good as you'll get, versus when you really ought to check your numbers and method.

As far as I know (from computer "experiments" mostly), it often isn't feasible to improve your answer due to limitations like computation time. In the case of lab experiments, it is often just too costly to do more precise measurements because you need better equipment or whatever.

Whether I'd publish in your example scenario depends on where the knowledge of the "correct" value of 10.0 comes from. If it's a value predicted by theory which hasn't been measured more precisely before - or not with your new ingenious method -, it's ok to get 9.6 +/- 0.5. If it has already been measured with an accuracy of, say, less than 1%, I wouldn't boast of my results.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by James Fingas on Aug 22^nd, 2003, 1:32pm

on 08/22/03 at 10:48:24, wowbagger wrote:

Good point. I don't think there's anybody who has enough money to do a good job of anything. Sniff... But we do a good job of answering puzzles! That I can feel good about!

Except that it contributes to my whole slacking off at work/procrastination/general laziness problem. The best thing about having that particular problem is that I'm not motivated enough to do anything about it ... or maybe that's the worst thing?

<WARNING: imminent mind shutdown in T-2 minutes. WARNING: weekend approaching>

Aaaah. That feels better!

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Icarus on Aug 23^rd, 2003, 8:47pm

on 08/22/03 at 04:57:17, wowbagger wrote:

(I guess Icarus would refer you to the definition of decimal numbers to show that adding 0 hundredths doesn't change the value of 5.6. ;))

Sorry - but you forgot that Icarus is not only a mathematician, but also a physicist and engineer. When working in a strictly mathematical arena, this is true. But when inaccuracy is included, it no longer holds (not even mathematically - the concept of number here is slightly different than the normal one in mathematics).

I'm sorry to hear that some of you have been told to abandon the rule that the number of decimal places in the sum or difference should be the same as least number of places in any term, and that the number of significant digits in a product or quotient is the same as the least number for a factor.

While not completely accurate, these rules have a solid mathematical basis, and are a very useful guide. I sincerely wish I could convince my coworkers of the need for them. Some of them regularly report weights in such a way that if they had weighed 7 units on a scale whose base measuring unit is 0.02 Lbs, and read off a value of 1.00, they would report the unit weight as being 0.142857 (they only stop there because they are limited to 6 decimal places).

Yes - the planes we fly in all the time are designed and built by people with so little understanding of measurement.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Aug 24^th, 2003, 7:53am

on 08/22/03 at 04:57:17, wowbagger wrote:

However, 1m is one metre if you don't give the specific context of a measurement.

Personally I would assume the opposite unless it was a mathematical context. As far as I'm concerned exact numbers only exist in math, and not even all math at that.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by wowbagger on Aug 24^th, 2003, 7:54am

on 08/23/03 at 20:47:42, Icarus wrote:

Sorry - but you forgot that Icarus is not only a mathematician, but also a physicist and engineer.

I didn't mean to give anybody the impression you were one-dimensional.

Quote:

When working in a strictly mathematical arena, this is true. But when inaccuracy is included, it no longer holds (not even mathematically - the concept of number here is slightly different than the normal one in mathematics).

It was exactly the strictly mathematical sense I was referring to at that point.

Quote:

I'm sorry to hear that some of you have been told to abandon the rule that the number of decimal places in the sum or difference should be the same as least number of places in any term, and that the number of significant digits in a product or quotient is the same as the least number for a factor.

While not completely accurate, these rules have a solid mathematical basis, and are a very useful guide.

I agree on them being a useful guide - much better indeed than to give ridiculously precise values. In my personal work, I don't encounter any ("real") measurements (fortunately), so I haven't used this rule for years.

Quote:

I sincerely wish I could convince my coworkers of the need for them. Some of them regularly report weights in such a way that if they had weighed 7 units on a scale whose base measuring unit is 0.02 Lbs, and read off a value of 1.00, they would report the unit weight as being 0.142857 (they only stop there because they are limited to 6 decimal places).

Yes - the planes we fly in all the time are designed and built by people with so little understanding of measurement.

..which is another good reason why I myself don't "fly all the time". ;D
Hm, it probably should make me wonder, however, whether the people who design our trains, cars, etc. knew any better.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by wowbagger on Aug 24^th, 2003, 7:59am

on 08/24/03 at 07:53:43, towr wrote:

Personally I would assume the opposite unless it was a mathematical context. As far as I'm concerned exact numbers only exist in math, and not even all math at that.

Well, I'm a theoretician. ;)
My interpretation of numbers is based on math as long as the context doesn't give me a good reason not to do so.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Icarus on Aug 24^th, 2003, 6:52pm

on 08/24/03 at 07:54:46, wowbagger wrote:

I didn't mean to give anybody the impression you were one-dimensional.

I only meant that because I also "indulge" in these areas, I also see their view.

I said in my previous post that the concept of number in physics and engineering differs from that in mathematics. This was mistated. It is not the concept of number that is different, but the concept of decimal notation.

In pure mathematics a decimal expression represents a single number. In applied mathematics, the concept has a few differences: First of all, we no longer have "infinite decimal expressions". These are purely a conceptual idea, not to be found in the real world. Second, an applied decimal does not represent a single real number, but rather a range of numbers which round to the actual decimal expression.

So 1.1 and 1.10 are not the same thing in application. 1.1 refers to the conceptual interval [1.05, 1.15), while 1.10 refers to the conceptual interval [1.095, 1.105), which is definitely a different beast. In this sense, 1.1 [ne] 1.10.

(As for the rest of the zero argument - quite frankly it seems to me to be nothing more than semantic haggling, which I find is almost always a waste of time.)

Title: Re: what we do
Post by hiv on Sep 18^th, 2003, 9:13am

I think you should have student on there, because what if someone is a student? I chose the career I want to be when I 'grow up' but now I am just learning.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Sep 18^th, 2003, 10:35am

it says "field of work or study",
I don't think student is generally a field of study or work :P

Title: Re: what we do
Post by James Fingas on Sep 18^th, 2003, 10:49am

Quote:

I don't think student is generally a field of study or work :P

I don't know about that! I have heard stories about "perma-students" who live off TA money and grad study grants and take post-graduate degrees until they're well past middle age.

And don't forget those students permanently enrolled in the school of hard knocks...

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Sep 18^th, 2003, 1:33pm

That's hardly "generally"
Even then it's what they study that is the field of their study, and that's rarely if ever them being a student. I'd dare say there are only very few people that really study themselves in an academic way (and in doing so making themselves the field of their studies).

Title: Re: what we do
Post by James Fingas on Sep 18^th, 2003, 1:41pm

If a man learns something, but never uses it, has he really learned anything but how to be a student?

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Sep 18^th, 2003, 2:40pm

If a man goes to university to study physics, and in doing so learns to find his way to the university, is finding his way to university his field of study?
I'd say not.

If a man learns anything, has he learned to be a student?
Not necessarily imo. In so much as learning implies being a student it needn't be learned in the first place. And in so much as being a student implies more than simply learning, one might well not learn it from all sorts of learning.

Anyway, while one can certainly study being a student, that is part of the field of psychology, not a field on its own.
Also I don't think studying and learning are equal, studying imo implies a greater commitment and activity, while learning can also be quite passive.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Icarus on Sep 18^th, 2003, 5:23pm

on 09/18/03 at 09:13:48, hiv wrote:

I think you should have student on there, because what if someone is a student? I chose the career I want to be when I 'grow up' but now I am just learning.

Welcome to the boards, hiv. For your sake, I added the "Primary-High School student". (My apologies for messing with your poll, William! :)) My fellow moderators have failed to notice the implications of your "when I grow up" statement. Either that, or they've forgotten that specialization of study does not begin until the latter stage of your education. "Undeclared" might be an appropriate choice for you - it means you haven't settled into any specializations yet, but this gives you a more specific choice.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Sep 19^th, 2003, 1:23am

If don't have a field of work and study shouldn't the answer simply be 'none'?

Besides, around here you're not called 'student' untill you go to university.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Icarus on Sep 19^th, 2003, 4:05pm

So what do you call your Pre-college school attendees? Student is the acceptable English term for anyone who studies. And "none" implies considerably more (or less) than "student" does.

The object of this poll is to find out what sort of people are visiting this forum. I see no reason to pigeon-hole the younger members in this fashion.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Sep 20^th, 2003, 4:59am

on 09/19/03 at 16:05:16, Icarus wrote:

So what do you call your Pre-college school attendees? Student is the acceptable English term for anyone who studies.

Yes, I know, but since we here in the Netherlands aren't English (yet), we call pre-college school attendees "scholieren" (not to be confuced with scholars :P), or "leerlingen" (depending on context). And university students are "studenten" ("student" in singular).
So since we have different names for both, I only associate 'student' with the university group, even in English (unless the context makes it clear that that's the wrong association).

Quote:

And "none" implies considerably more (or less) than "student" does.

Yes, but it's not a field of work or study, it's an occupation. Which frankly is what I first thought the poll was, untill I noticed it asked for something else.

Quote:

The object of this poll is to find out what sort of people are visiting this forum. I see no reason to pigeon-hole the younger members in this fashion.

Probably true, but it should reflect it better in the poll-question.
It might just as well have asked where our intrests ly. That's probably more the intend than what we do for a living, or what we study (which hopefully is inculded in the field where our intrest lies, but is usually much more limited)

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Icarus on Sep 20^th, 2003, 6:18pm

on 09/20/03 at 04:59:00, towr wrote:

I'm glad to hear you aren't English, and may any such change be long in coming. A world with one language would be considerably less interesting than ours. Keep this up and I might actually pick up something of other languages myself! :o (I've studied French and Greek, but have an appalling retention level of either. I also learned barely enough German to pass my language requirements for my degree. Since all I had to do was translate a written mathematical paper with the aid of a lexicon, this wasn't much.) Alas, 2nd languages are not something wherein I possess any native talents.

But, since we are speaking English here, I'm afraid you'll have to get used to "students" being applied to everyone from preschool to postdoctoral.

Quote:

Yes, but it's not a field of work or study, it's an occupation. Which frankly is what I first thought the poll was, untill I noticed it asked for something else. ... It might just as well have asked where our intrests ly. That's probably more the intend than what we do for a living, or what we study (which hopefully is inculded in the field where our intrest lies, but is usually much more limited)

I had the impression that William was looking for both. Thats' why I chose 3 answers myself. One is my occupation, the other two are my education and interests. Engineering per se is not of great interest to me, even if it is my job. (That does not mean I find my work uninteresting - but that my interests in it tend to differ from those of my coworkers.) Math and Physics are of considerable interest, but they are not (directly) my occupation. By asking the question he has, I pick up on all three.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Sep 21^st, 2003, 8:34am

on 09/20/03 at 18:18:55, Icarus wrote:

I'm glad to hear you aren't English, and may any such change be long in coming. A world with one language would be considerably less interesting than ours.

Well, there are many other things that make it interesting. And the world would probably become more united. In many respects things would be easier, and we wouldn't have anymore bad dubs from (or to) English :P

Anyway, I don't think all other languages would disappear even if English were to become the main language of every country on earth. Klingon would still be very popular among trekkies ;) Besides, a lot of small languages are surviving quite admirably next to much larger languages. Welsh in Brittain, Frisian (my second first language) in the Netherlands, Breton in France etc. Dispite having been repressed in former times (though there's now EU-funding to preserve and promote them, because they were slowly going downhill).

Quote:

Keep this up and I might actually pick up something of other languages myself! :o (I've studied French and Greek, but have an appalling retention level of either. I also learned barely enough German to pass my language requirements for my degree. Since all I had to do was translate a written mathematical paper with the aid of a lexicon, this wasn't much.) Alas, 2nd languages are not something wherein I possess any native talents.

I've never been good at languages myself.. I just had the luck of growing up bilingual, and watching a lot English cartoons on TV.
Nowadays though, there's dozens of dubbed cartoons (which are also pretty crappy aside from the bad translation, but that's besides the point). So there's little chance of kids learning to speak/understand English (or any other language) this way anymore. Despite the fact that it's the ideal time and method to learn a language.
(For some insane and unfunded reason parents seem to think children wouldn't be able to understand or like cartoons in another language.)

Quote:

But, since we are speaking English here, I'm afraid you'll have to get used to "students" being applied to everyone from preschool to postdoctoral.

Well, it's just something I have to give second thought. I don't think I'll ever get used to it in the sense that it'll be my first association.
I also pretty much associate everyone on the internet with my age (actually with the age 23, since I was 17 or so, it's just a coincidence I'm now actually 23). Only when I get any clue as to what someone's real age is will I adjust my mental representation of them.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by wowbagger on Sep 22^nd, 2003, 7:29am

on 09/20/03 at 18:18:55, Icarus wrote:

I also learned barely enough German to pass my language requirements for my degree. Since all I had to do was translate a written mathematical paper with the aid of a lexicon, this wasn't much.

I didn't know there are such language requirements. Is that common in the USA?

on 09/21/03 at 08:34:55, towr wrote:

I just had the luck of growing up bilingual, and watching a lot English cartoons on TV.
Nowadays though, there's dozens of dubbed cartoons (which are also pretty crappy aside from the bad translation, but that's besides the point). So there's little chance of kids learning to speak/understand English (or any other language) this way anymore. Despite the fact that it's the ideal time and method to learn a language.

I can't remember any cartoons in English on German TV when I was a child. When I was first confronted with English at school I was already nine. Apart from the grounding I learned there, I think most of the progress I made was because of reading books and newspapers, not due to watching TV or films. But that may be just a matter of personal disposition. And with many teenage students it seems to be difficult enough to get them reading in their native language, let alone a foreign one...
O tempora! O mores! ;)

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Sep 22^nd, 2003, 8:19am

I simply watched BBC, and Sky Channel. We didn't have any cartoons on Dutch tv then afaik.
The problem with books/newspapers, is that you have to understand some of the language to read it (or a dictionary), moreso you have to be able to read. For some reason kids aren't taught to read anything untill their language-learning-peak has passed. And of course you can't hear how to pronounce words from newspapers and books :p (espescially not in english). I do think books help more to broaden your vocabulary, once you can speak(/read/write) a language.
Cartoons and reallife have the advantage that you can see what people are talking about. Cartoons probably moreso, since their world is simpler (less detail, less elements that distract from the story).

I allways thought it a shame that they seem to dub everything in Germany. Moreso that it used to be done so badly (and maybe still, I avoid the German channels these days). I like subtitles, and the original script and voices.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by wowbagger on Sep 22^nd, 2003, 9:15am

on 09/22/03 at 08:19:20, towr wrote:

I simply watched BBC, and Sky Channel.

We (=my parents) didn't have cable TV for quite a long time...

Quote:

The problem with books/newspapers, is that you have to understand some of the language to read it (or a dictionary), moreso you have to be able to read. For some reason kids aren't taught to read anything untill their language-learning-peak has passed.

Are your sure this peak occurs that early? Or are you in the Netherlands taught to read a little later than elsewhere? ;)

Quote:

And of course you can't hear how to pronounce words from newspapers and books :p (espescially not in english).

That's right, but it does help your spelling. ::)
Anyway, I was referring to progress after learning the basics like reading and pronunciation. Well, more or less of the latter, in the case of English. Other languages are much more reader-friendly.

Quote:

I allways thought it a shame that they seem to dub everything in Germany.

I have to wholeheartedly agree with that. :'(

Quote:

I like subtitles, and the original script and voices.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Sep 22^nd, 2003, 10:07am

on 09/22/03 at 09:15:06, wowbagger wrote:

Are your sure this peak occurs that early? Or are you in the Netherlands taught to read a little later than elsewhere? ;)

I'm pretty sure it's very early, around the same time a child learns its language :P
I think the real peak is around 3 or 4, but it'll linger a bit. But basicly the earlier you start, the better and easier it is to learn.
Actually, to get the pronounciation just right, you need to hear a language before you're even three months old, after that you'll stop distinguishing phonemes that aren't important in your language. It's very hard to relearn making such distinctions.
There is ofcourse a big BUT if you're thinking about teaching your kids multiple languages this way. If you're not carefull they may not distinguish the different languages, and speak a pingin version no one but their siblings can understand. So I think it's important to keep it structured, so they can learn that there is a difference from the context (f.i. which day, which time, which place)

Title: Re: what we do
Post by hiv on Sep 22^nd, 2003, 10:22am

Wow sorry I didnt mean to stir up such a great controversy. What I had felt the poll implied was what you are doing in the majority of your time now. Since most of my time is spent in high school (sadly enough) I didn't want to vote for Computer Science, the work which I do in my spare time and on weekends

I like these forums a lot, people are so intelligent here. I had been reading around for several months and I finally decided to post once. Well, thanks for your replies

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Icarus on Sep 22^nd, 2003, 6:51pm

Glad to have you with us, hiv. Feel free to post anyplace you disagree/have questions/just feel like posting. We may quickly jump in to "put it straight", but everyone who is a regular here appreciates an honest post by someone who is simply trying to figure it out, even if the post is wrong.

This is no real controversy. Towr & I will continue to have differing opinions on many things, and air them regularly. But even when we disagree, we still respect each other (at least I do, and hope he does! ;)).

on 09/22/03 at 07:29:52, wowbagger wrote:

I didn't know there are such language requirements. Is that common in the USA?

Well - I can't speak for every university, but it is my impression that the ability to translate mathematical papers in at least two of French, German, and Russian is a minimum requirement of most doctoral programs in the US. Possibly this may have been relaxed since there are now programs that will do the basic translation for you. (Yes, I know they do a terrible job, but then, so did I when I was attempting it! :D)

Concerning cartoons - Americans are finally getting our come-uppence with the popularity of Anime. Now, we too get to watch badly dubbed versions of foreign cartoons. And I know of no place where they are shown in the original language with subtitles.

Quote:

O tempora! O mores! ;)

Help me out here: "O time! O habits!" ??

Title: Re: what we do
Post by towr on Sep 23^rd, 2003, 12:31am

on 09/22/03 at 18:51:52, Icarus wrote:

This is no real controversy. Towr & I will continue to have differing opinions on many things, and air them regularly. But even when we disagree, we still respect each other (at least I do, and hope he does! ;)).

indeed.
It's hard to discuss anything properly without mutual respect, without that it's likely to turn into a flamewar. If I didn't respect the other regulars I would have left the board long ago.

Quote:

Concerning cartoons - Americans are finally getting our come-uppence with the popularity of Anime. Now, we too get to watch badly dubbed versions of foreign cartoons. And I know of no place where they are shown in the original language with subtitles.

Well, there's the internet. Generally fansubbed (subtitled by fans), but nonetheless pretty well translated. I think you can also order them as DVD, considering it's not entirely legal to download them. (Though given the image quality of downloadable versions, you'd have to buy the DVD to get a full appreciation of it.)
Actually, I think some of those shows can only be fun if they are badly dubbed. Of course I suspect they dub them here from the english version, which makes the overall translation even worse :P and consequently funnier.
The real problem anime faces in the west is the dumbing down, people here in the west seem to think cartoons are only for kids. While every sane person knows they're really for (university) students ;)

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Sir Col on Sep 23^rd, 2003, 3:04am

on 09/22/03 at 18:51:52, Icarus wrote:

Help me out here: "O time! O habits!" ??

"o tempora! o mores!"
The 'o' is used as an utterance of despair, as in, "Alas! Woe!". So it translates, "Oh, for the times! Oh, for the things we do (customs/morals/behaviour)!"; in other words, "What have we done?!"

Title: Re: what we do
Post by wowbagger on Sep 23^rd, 2003, 4:29am

on 09/22/03 at 18:51:52, Icarus wrote:

everyone who is a regular here appreciates an honest post by someone who is simply trying to figure it out, even if the post is wrong.

Very true, according to my experience.

Quote:

This is no real controversy. Towr & I will continue to have differing opinions on many things, and air them regularly.

Which is not only delightful, but also thought-provoking for others. :)

Quote:

That really surprises me. I don't know of any comparable official requirement here in Germany (for physics). But then again, if you don't understand papers in English, you're very limited in your studies anyway.

Quote:

Possibly this may have been relaxed since there are now programs that will do the basic translation for you. (Yes, I know they do a terrible job, but then, so did I when I was attempting it! :D)

;D

Quote:

I once found one by chance while switching channels. It was on a German cable channel and Japanese, as far as I could tell (the sound, not the subtitles ;)). I listened for a few minutes because I like to hear different languages, but I'm not very interested in Anime, so I soon quit. They regularly showed such films (rather late at night) for a while, but don't do so any longer.

on 09/23/03 at 00:31:51, towr wrote:

The real problem anime faces in the west is the dumbing down, people here in the west seem to think cartoons are only for kids. While every sane person knows they're really for (university) students ;)

Actually, it took quite a while until the German station that airs the Simpsons moved it from a typical children's cartoon time and day to a more adult-friendly place on their schedule. :D

on 09/22/03 at 18:51:52, Icarus wrote:

Help me out here: "O time! O habits!" ??

on 09/23/03 at 03:04:08, Sir Col wrote:

Originally by Marcus Tullius Cicero (from his first speech against Catilina). Actually, I can't really judge Sir Col's translation of "mores", because I haven't learned Latin (yet).
But not really knowing what I'm saying hasn't ever kept me from posting... :D

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Sir Col on Sep 23^rd, 2003, 5:12am

on 09/23/03 at 04:29:05, wowbagger wrote:

Actually, I can't really judge Sir Col's translation

pertinax simia, experto credite! :P
::[hide]cheeky monkey, trust the expert![/hide]::

Actually, I am no expert. My Latin is restricted to liturgy and a working knowledge of the basic grammar; so I'm able to use a lexicon to decipher, but not necessarily construct, Latin.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by wowbagger on Sep 23^rd, 2003, 5:52am

on 09/23/03 at 05:12:40, Sir Col wrote:

pertinax simia, experto credite! :P

I will (have to). See, I can't even answer that in Latin. :'(
Well, I could ask two friends of mine who both did quite well at school, but it'd take time and I have to post quickly now in order to catch up with T&B! ;)

Quote:

Actually, I am no expert. My Latin is restricted to liturgy and a working knowledge of the basic grammar; so I'm able to use a lexicon to decipher, but not necessarily construct, Latin.

Which is to say that in comparison with me, you can be called an expert.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Icarus on Sep 23^rd, 2003, 7:31pm

I should clarify that translating papers into English from at least 2 of French, German, and Russian, is a requirement for Mathematics doctoral programs. Probably Physics as well, but in other areas, the particular languages most needed may be different. Or they may not see the need for a language requirement at all. (For instance - some of the more "amerocentric" fields in the Humanities may not have a large body of foreign literature to draw on.)

"pertinax simia, experto credite!" - It's tempting to change my signature again! ;)

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Sir Col on Sep 24^th, 2003, 9:33am

Actually I should have thought more carefully about that Latin phrase. The 2nd half is sound, but I would say that 'impudens simia' is more fitting for the 1st part. Pertinax, means rude in the obstinate/stubborn sense, whereas, impudens, means something more akin to impudent, insolent, presumptuous, cheeky. That's the problem with trying to Latinise modern expressions; especially when my ability to construct is lacking.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by John_Gaughan on Dec 18^th, 2003, 2:03pm

I am in the U.S. Air Force (military), my job is computer programming (info tech), and I am a Staff Sergeant (management).

I think it would be better, given the amount of computer professionals here, to separate "info tech" into programming, computer/network administration, and maybe a general IT category.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Aurora on Jun 18^th, 2007, 9:32am

// preceding post by Jan-A removed for spam. --towr

I know it's a couple of months since the last post, but Jan-A, you're over 3 years too late. Please look at the date of the last post!

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Sir Col on Jun 18^th, 2007, 3:25pm

I'm not sure if Jan-A is a real person, Aurora. It's likely to be a cheap trick to get publicity in search engines for his/her website. All he/she does is add the company URL to the signature and make a series of random comments on a popular forum, such as this, and leave the search engine bots to index the links.

Of course if we were to make general references about crap hosting services it might accidently appear in the same search results.

However, I would like to make it clear that I am in no way linking directly or otherwise webhosting.uk.com with any negative comments that I might make in this post as I've never heard of them.

Problems we encounter with dodgy hosting services include massive downtime, poor or non-existant customer support, inadequate storage, low bandwidth, and excessive charges and as I've never heard of webhosting.uk.com I am in no position to suggest that any of these undesirable issues are associated with them.

But can I make it clear that I am in no way linking directly or otherwise webhosting.uk.com with any negative comments that I might make in this post as I've never heard of them. My greatest concern now is that the negative comments I have made might appear in someone's search results for webhosting.uk.com. It certainly wouldn't be helpful for them if someone typed webhosting.uk.com in a search engine and in the brief outline of the search results words like, rubbish, crap, don't use them, rip you off, might appear, as I've never heard of them. In fact, comments like, "I've never heard of them" might also appear and that wouldn't inspire much confidence. Oops. Perhaps I'd better stop. ::)

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Sir Col on Jun 18^th, 2007, 3:33pm

I can't delete posts. It's returning the following error when I click "Remove" and click "OK".

Method Not Implemented

GET to /~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi not supported.

Delete now works again. 8)

Title: Re: what we do
Post by JiNbOtAk on Jun 20^th, 2007, 12:04am

Do what Grimbal did (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_easy;action=display;num=1182012030), just delete everything and put a POST REMOVE sign :P

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Grimbal on Jun 20^th, 2007, 3:13am

Yep. Usually, when I want to correct a post I just wrote, I get back, re-submit it and delete the first version. It looks cleaner. But since removing a post is not possible any more, I was stuck with 2 very similar posts. I had no choice. :(

Title: Re: what we do
Post by fizyka on Oct 1^st, 2011, 4:43am

I am in information technology and in physics :P

Title: Re: what we do
Post by khuram4u on Dec 25^th, 2011, 1:40am

at present times, Jobs, careers, SEO and web developments are the most desired niche. Consider them for inclusion.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by Jan_Claesen on May 2^nd, 2012, 1:39pm

I'd say zero is like a seed, it doesn't have any branches, but it can grow. A seed is not the same as no seed at all.

I don't do anything, but I could do something.

I am referencing to the discussion started by reply #12.

P.S. : This is not how I normally introduce myself.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by venkatsha on May 1^st, 2013, 8:25am

I'm into Information Technology. Please add in.

Title: Re: what we do
Post by CatherinJose on Oct 18^th, 2013, 4:16am

Hi

I am new to this forum.I m saying about online education.E learning play an important role in our daily life.E learning is a self paced independent mode of studying.