这是个用邮箱发布Blog的测试！
2008-02-05
年
马上新年就来到了，希望所有的朋友都快乐！这是我今年最大的希望。
还是对自己有个计划吧，不然生活少了目标，很枯燥的。
①看能否在同学给我的免费空间上安装好Wordpress，用Latex发布一系列的高等数学各章总结，希望对所有想把高等数学学好的朋友有所帮助。（这项工作比较困难）
②专业课也应该有所涉及，对实变函数和常微分方程希望也能做到各章总结
③学点经济学方面知识，看有否机会买点基金玩玩
④期待Gphone的出现，到时候就换手机
⑤丰富单身生活，多看看文学方面的书籍，自己这方面太缺乏了
⑥还有一些经典的电影，多看，多想。老觉得现在脑子已经没有那么灵活老
⑦暑假出去休息，看看祖国大好河山
⑧最后当然不能忘的是把本职工作做好，教好书
我这个人比较懒，呼呼……
就这些吧，新年新气象，新年新希望，新年新目标，新年……
还是对自己有个计划吧，不然生活少了目标，很枯燥的。
①看能否在同学给我的免费空间上安装好Wordpress，用Latex发布一系列的高等数学各章总结，希望对所有想把高等数学学好的朋友有所帮助。（这项工作比较困难）
②专业课也应该有所涉及，对实变函数和常微分方程希望也能做到各章总结
③学点经济学方面知识，看有否机会买点基金玩玩
④期待Gphone的出现，到时候就换手机
⑤丰富单身生活，多看看文学方面的书籍，自己这方面太缺乏了
⑥还有一些经典的电影，多看，多想。老觉得现在脑子已经没有那么灵活老
⑦暑假出去休息，看看祖国大好河山
⑧最后当然不能忘的是把本职工作做好，教好书
我这个人比较懒，呼呼……
就这些吧，新年新气象，新年新希望，新年新目标，新年……
2008-02-04
2008-02-03
THE 2008 WOLF FOUNDATION PRIZE IN MATHEMATICS
The Prize Committee for Mathematics has unanimously decided that the 2008 Wolf Prize will be jointly awarded to:
Pierre R. Deligne
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, New Jersey, USA
for his work on mixed Hodge theory; the Weil conjectures; the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence; and for his contributions to arithmetic.
Phillip A. Griffiths
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, New Jersey, USA
for his work on variations of Hodge structures; the theory of periods of abelian integrals; and for his contributions to complex differential geometry.
David B. Mumford
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island, USA
for his work on algebraic surfaces; on geometric invariant theory; and for laying the foundations of the modern algebraic theory of moduli of curves and theta functions.
Central to modern algebraic geometry is the theory of moduli, i.e., variation of algebraic or analytic structure. This theory was traditionally mysterious and problematic. In critical special cases, i.e., curves, it made sense, i.e., the set of curves of genus greater than one had a natural algebraic structure. In dimensions greater than one, there was some sort of structure locally, but globally everything remained mysterious. The two main (and closely related) approaches to moduli were invariant theory on the one hand and periods of abelian integrals on the other. This key problem was tackled and greatly elucidated by Deligne, Griffiths, and Mumford.
Professor David B. Mumford revolutionized the algebraic approach through invariant theory, which he renamed 'geometric invariant theory.' With this approach, he provided a complicated prescription for the construction of moduli in the algebraic case. As one application he proved that there were a set of equations defining the space of curves, with integer coefficients. Most important, Mumford showed that moduli spaces, though often very complicated, exist except for what, after his work, are well-understood exceptions. This framework is critical for the work by Griffiths and Deligne. Classically, the moduli space of curves was parameterized by using periods of the abelian integrals on them. Mathematicians, e.g., the Wolf Prize winner Andre Weil, have unsuccessfully tried to generalize the periods to higher dimensions.
Professor Phillip A. Griffiths had the fundamental insight that the Hodge filtration measured against the integer homology generalizes the classical periods of integrals. Moreover, he realized that the period mapping had a natural generalization as a map into a classifying space for variations of Hodge structure, with a new non-classical restriction imposed by the Kodaira-Spencer class action. This led to a great deal of work in complex differential geometry, e.g., his basic work with Deligne, John Morgan, and Dennis Sullivan on rational homotopy theory of compact Kaehler manifolds.
Building on Mumford's and Griffiths' work, Professor Pierre R. Deligne demonstrated how to extend the variation of Hodge theory to singular varieties. This advance, called mixed Hodge theory, allowed explicit calculation on the singular compactification of moduli spaces that came up in Mumford's geometric invariant theory, which is called the Deligne-Mumford compactification. These ideas assisted Deligne in proving several other major results, e.g., the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence and the Weil conjectures.
2008-01-11
Science
Science, in practice, depends far less on the experiments it prepares than on the preparedness of the minds of the men who watch the experiments. Sir Isaac Newton supposedly discovered gravity through the fall of an apple. Apples had been falling in many places for centuries and thousands of people had seen them fall. But Newton for years had been curious about the cause of the orbital motion of the moon and planets. What kept them in place? Why didn't they fall out of the sky? The fact that the apple fell down toward the earth and not up into the tree answered the question he had been asking himself about those larger fruits of the heavens, the moon and the planets.
How many men would have considered the possibility of an apple falling up into the tree? Newton did because he was not trying to predict anything. He was just wondering. His mind was ready for the unpredictable. Unpredictability is part of the essential nature of research. If you don't have unpredictable things, you don't have research. Scientists tend to forget this when writing their cut and dried reports for the technical journals, but history is filled with examples of it.
In talking to some scientists, particularly younger ones, you might gather the impression that they find the "scientific method" a substitute for imaginative thought.(I agree!) I've attended research conferences where a scientist has been asked what he thinks about the advisability of continuing a certain experiment. The scientist has frowned, looked at the graphs, and said "the data are still inconclusive." "We know that," the men from the budget office have said, "but what do you think? Is it worthwhile going on? What do you think we might expect?" The scientist has been shocked at having even been asked to speculate.
What this amounts to, of course, is that the scientist has become the victim of his own writings. He has put forward unquestioned claims so consistently that he not only believes them himself, but has convinced industrial and business management that they are true. If experiments are planned and carried out according to plan as faithfully as the reports in the science journals indicate, then it is perfectly logical for management to expect research to produce results measurable in dollars and cents. It is entirely reasonable for auditors to believe that scientists who know exactly where they are going and how they will get there should not be distracted by the necessity of keeping one eye on the cash register while the other eye is on the microscope. Nor, if regularity and conformity to a standard pattern are as desirable to the scientist as the writing of his papers would appear to reflect, is management to be blamed for discriminating against the "odd balls" among researchers in favor of more conventional thinkers who "work well with the team."
——Graduate Examination in 1999
How many men would have considered the possibility of an apple falling up into the tree? Newton did because he was not trying to predict anything. He was just wondering. His mind was ready for the unpredictable. Unpredictability is part of the essential nature of research. If you don't have unpredictable things, you don't have research. Scientists tend to forget this when writing their cut and dried reports for the technical journals, but history is filled with examples of it.
In talking to some scientists, particularly younger ones, you might gather the impression that they find the "scientific method" a substitute for imaginative thought.(I agree!) I've attended research conferences where a scientist has been asked what he thinks about the advisability of continuing a certain experiment. The scientist has frowned, looked at the graphs, and said "the data are still inconclusive." "We know that," the men from the budget office have said, "but what do you think? Is it worthwhile going on? What do you think we might expect?" The scientist has been shocked at having even been asked to speculate.
What this amounts to, of course, is that the scientist has become the victim of his own writings. He has put forward unquestioned claims so consistently that he not only believes them himself, but has convinced industrial and business management that they are true. If experiments are planned and carried out according to plan as faithfully as the reports in the science journals indicate, then it is perfectly logical for management to expect research to produce results measurable in dollars and cents. It is entirely reasonable for auditors to believe that scientists who know exactly where they are going and how they will get there should not be distracted by the necessity of keeping one eye on the cash register while the other eye is on the microscope. Nor, if regularity and conformity to a standard pattern are as desirable to the scientist as the writing of his papers would appear to reflect, is management to be blamed for discriminating against the "odd balls" among researchers in favor of more conventional thinkers who "work well with the team."
——Graduate Examination in 1999
2008-01-08
不能不分享的新闻
奥运期间《花花公子》等杂志将准许出售(组图)
同一个世界，同一个梦想，这是2008北京奥运会的口号。中国政府将开戒，从前被禁止的报刊杂志如《花花公子》将获准出售。但是奥运会一结束，这些报刊杂志将重新被禁止。 http://news.163.com/08/0104/12/41C4MMT70001124J.html
记者报道辽宁西丰官员负面新闻遭警方拘传
辽宁西丰了不起，只因出个张书记，全县大权一身揽，公检法院是知己，谁敢让他不高兴， 安个罪名送牢里，管你庶民或记者，以后说话得注意，只要言错一个字，诽谤罪名就成立。 http://news.sina.com.cn/c/l/2008-01-07/022614680201.shtml
国标委:今年起馒头须是圆 不能太小要有小麦香
以后放屁也要有个标准，要含59%的氮、21%的氢、9%的二氧化碳、7%的甲烷以及4%的氧气组成，达不到这些标准，不能放屁，否则质检总局有权按标准查处，没收做案工具。 http://money.163.com/08/0103/07/4190UMVA002524SJ.html
你如果有兴趣看新闻，最好还是看看网上的评论，实在是太搞笑了
同一个世界，同一个梦想，这是2008北京奥运会的口号。中国政府将开戒，从前被禁止的报刊杂志如《花花公子》将获准出售。但是奥运会一结束，这些报刊杂志将重新被禁止。 http://news.163.com/08/0104/12/41C4MMT70001124J.html
记者报道辽宁西丰官员负面新闻遭警方拘传
辽宁西丰了不起，只因出个张书记，全县大权一身揽，公检法院是知己，谁敢让他不高兴， 安个罪名送牢里，管你庶民或记者，以后说话得注意，只要言错一个字，诽谤罪名就成立。 http://news.sina.com.cn/c/l/2008-01-07/022614680201.shtml
国标委:今年起馒头须是圆 不能太小要有小麦香
以后放屁也要有个标准，要含59%的氮、21%的氢、9%的二氧化碳、7%的甲烷以及4%的氧气组成，达不到这些标准，不能放屁，否则质检总局有权按标准查处，没收做案工具。 http://money.163.com/08/0103/07/4190UMVA002524SJ.html
你如果有兴趣看新闻，最好还是看看网上的评论，实在是太搞笑了
2007-12-28
2007-12-06
我对科学的看法
时下，科学、科普已经成为一个时髦的名词，然而究竟什么是科学，什么又是科学的精神？某人也许是一个很好的Thinker，他对这个世界有一整套完美的描述和认识，然而他是一个科学家么？科学是唯一可信赖的人类思想产物吗？
无疑，科学仅仅是描述这个客观世界的一种方法而已，它本身并没有凌驾于其他思想意识形态之上的意思。例如，任何一种宗教都有一整套对于这个世界的看法，你很难说宗教的那些看法就是错误的。但是，他们的确不是科学的，原因就在于，科学这套描述世界的方法有它自身的特点。
我认为科学世界观仅仅有两个前提：一是试验观察，另一个是逻辑推理。任何一种科学理论都无非来源于观察和严密的逻辑推理，科学崇尚一种绝对客观的精神。反过来讲，任何主观武断的判定，即使它再正确，它也不是科学的。所以我们说很多东方宗教对这个世界的认识也许是正确的，但它不一定是科学的，原因就在于这些东西是以主观体验为基础的。
不过，我们也不要被科学的这两种方法吓住，换个角度讲，科学本身并不是一个异常机械死板的教条主义。他给自由思想以及天马行空留下了广阔的空间。关键就在于我们应如何选择观察和推理。我们都知道，这个世界从某种角度说是一个观察者“看出来”的世界。同样一个事物，你从两种不同的角度去观察就会得出完全不同的结论。同样，在逻辑推理里面也是这样，任何一个公理体系都来源于公理，然而公理的选择是主观的，是允许科学家“天马行空”的。这话说得有些绝对，不过回头看看爱因斯坦当年的创举其实有很多属于奇思妙想的成分。
因此，我们一方面要鼓励科学原创精神，即鼓励天马行空，另一方面，我们又要尊重科学方法。其实，在科学领域做的越久就越发现，这个世界并没有绝对客观的真理，而所谓的科学大师无非是一些可以对科学游戏游刃有余的家伙，他们利用了科学的两个来源来让自己的思想天马行空。这恐怕就是广大的“民间科学家” 无法做到的事情了。
所以，问题的关键不在于你是否发现了这个宇宙的真理。如果说这个宇宙有真理的话，它只有一个，就是那个“道”，这条真理已经被古代圣贤以及后来的大师们重复发现了N次。如中国的老子，印度的佛陀，西方的亚里士多德、黑格尔等等。而问题的关键就在于你在当时的时代，如何将那条亘古不变的客观真理转化为某种科学的理论思想。牛顿做到了，爱因斯坦也做到了，他们之所以做到并不是说出了比古代圣贤们更加“对”的话，而在于将终极的“道”转变成了某种“可用” 的科学理论，于是他们成为了伟大的科学家。这就牵扯到了科学的“对错”、“有用无用的判断”。
20世纪初的一系列思想家告诉我们，宇宙并不存在一个机械式的绝对世界。例如歌德尔定理的证明告诉我们数学的绝对理性必然造成逻辑体系自发的崩溃，波谱尔哲学则教我们把“对错”的争执转化为某种“实用”的判断。
换句话说，科学和文化、艺术、文学创作等等有着更多的相似性。一种服装款式有无对错？一种绘画风格有无好坏？什么是美？我们总认为有种绝对的东西制约着人类审美的发展，但其实这种虚无缥缈的美无非就是一种进化泡沫而已。我们一生下来就处于一个大的文化泡沫之中，无穷的“谎言”告诉我们什么是美的。但那无非是达尔文式的演进在社会文化层面的反映而已。所以，用传统的眼光很难接受歇斯底里的死亡摇滚是一种音乐，也无法了解为何虚无的后现代艺术竟然成为都市青年的时尚。那些全部是文化的泡影。
科学就比这类文化现象更好吗？其实并不那么乐观，19世纪以前的科学被认为是理性的、客观的思维产物，然而20世纪以后，科学变得越来越怪异，从非欧几何到物理中的量子革命，以及后来的复杂性科学，科学似乎已经变得越来越远离我们这个“实在”的世界，它更像是后现代艺术家们头脑中的梦境创作。所以，科学无疑具有一种很强的社会文化的依赖性。一种科学理论符合了科学文化的发展潮流它就会被别的科学家接受而获得广泛传播。能否被传播就是评价科学理论对错的唯一标准。
回到我们的实际生活中，现代的中国急切呼唤科学大师的出现，于是官方的、民间的一大批人开始跃跃欲试，每个人都想当中国的爱因斯坦，开始不顾一切的构建属于自己的理论天地。殊不知，每个人只要认真思考这个世界都会有一套能够自圆其说的“理论”，然而这跟科学还相差甚远。问题的关键不在于理论的“对错”，而在于这套观点是否符合当前的科学文化，以及是否能够用科学游戏的规范表达出来、发展出来。
如果非要做个比喻，我宁愿把科学比喻成镶嵌在我们人类社会内部的大的类生命的有机体。它有它自己的客观发展规律。要想在科学领域做点什么的话，你首先要认识、感觉到这个大的类生命体的呼吸，知道它的脾气秉性。驯兽员是如何驯服猛兽的？真正的科学家就应该如何创造科学理论。
一点点个人感受，不成熟、不妥的地方请各位见谅。
无疑，科学仅仅是描述这个客观世界的一种方法而已，它本身并没有凌驾于其他思想意识形态之上的意思。例如，任何一种宗教都有一整套对于这个世界的看法，你很难说宗教的那些看法就是错误的。但是，他们的确不是科学的，原因就在于，科学这套描述世界的方法有它自身的特点。
我认为科学世界观仅仅有两个前提：一是试验观察，另一个是逻辑推理。任何一种科学理论都无非来源于观察和严密的逻辑推理，科学崇尚一种绝对客观的精神。反过来讲，任何主观武断的判定，即使它再正确，它也不是科学的。所以我们说很多东方宗教对这个世界的认识也许是正确的，但它不一定是科学的，原因就在于这些东西是以主观体验为基础的。
不过，我们也不要被科学的这两种方法吓住，换个角度讲，科学本身并不是一个异常机械死板的教条主义。他给自由思想以及天马行空留下了广阔的空间。关键就在于我们应如何选择观察和推理。我们都知道，这个世界从某种角度说是一个观察者“看出来”的世界。同样一个事物，你从两种不同的角度去观察就会得出完全不同的结论。同样，在逻辑推理里面也是这样，任何一个公理体系都来源于公理，然而公理的选择是主观的，是允许科学家“天马行空”的。这话说得有些绝对，不过回头看看爱因斯坦当年的创举其实有很多属于奇思妙想的成分。
因此，我们一方面要鼓励科学原创精神，即鼓励天马行空，另一方面，我们又要尊重科学方法。其实，在科学领域做的越久就越发现，这个世界并没有绝对客观的真理，而所谓的科学大师无非是一些可以对科学游戏游刃有余的家伙，他们利用了科学的两个来源来让自己的思想天马行空。这恐怕就是广大的“民间科学家” 无法做到的事情了。
所以，问题的关键不在于你是否发现了这个宇宙的真理。如果说这个宇宙有真理的话，它只有一个，就是那个“道”，这条真理已经被古代圣贤以及后来的大师们重复发现了N次。如中国的老子，印度的佛陀，西方的亚里士多德、黑格尔等等。而问题的关键就在于你在当时的时代，如何将那条亘古不变的客观真理转化为某种科学的理论思想。牛顿做到了，爱因斯坦也做到了，他们之所以做到并不是说出了比古代圣贤们更加“对”的话，而在于将终极的“道”转变成了某种“可用” 的科学理论，于是他们成为了伟大的科学家。这就牵扯到了科学的“对错”、“有用无用的判断”。
20世纪初的一系列思想家告诉我们，宇宙并不存在一个机械式的绝对世界。例如歌德尔定理的证明告诉我们数学的绝对理性必然造成逻辑体系自发的崩溃，波谱尔哲学则教我们把“对错”的争执转化为某种“实用”的判断。
换句话说，科学和文化、艺术、文学创作等等有着更多的相似性。一种服装款式有无对错？一种绘画风格有无好坏？什么是美？我们总认为有种绝对的东西制约着人类审美的发展，但其实这种虚无缥缈的美无非就是一种进化泡沫而已。我们一生下来就处于一个大的文化泡沫之中，无穷的“谎言”告诉我们什么是美的。但那无非是达尔文式的演进在社会文化层面的反映而已。所以，用传统的眼光很难接受歇斯底里的死亡摇滚是一种音乐，也无法了解为何虚无的后现代艺术竟然成为都市青年的时尚。那些全部是文化的泡影。
科学就比这类文化现象更好吗？其实并不那么乐观，19世纪以前的科学被认为是理性的、客观的思维产物，然而20世纪以后，科学变得越来越怪异，从非欧几何到物理中的量子革命，以及后来的复杂性科学，科学似乎已经变得越来越远离我们这个“实在”的世界，它更像是后现代艺术家们头脑中的梦境创作。所以，科学无疑具有一种很强的社会文化的依赖性。一种科学理论符合了科学文化的发展潮流它就会被别的科学家接受而获得广泛传播。能否被传播就是评价科学理论对错的唯一标准。
回到我们的实际生活中，现代的中国急切呼唤科学大师的出现，于是官方的、民间的一大批人开始跃跃欲试，每个人都想当中国的爱因斯坦，开始不顾一切的构建属于自己的理论天地。殊不知，每个人只要认真思考这个世界都会有一套能够自圆其说的“理论”，然而这跟科学还相差甚远。问题的关键不在于理论的“对错”，而在于这套观点是否符合当前的科学文化，以及是否能够用科学游戏的规范表达出来、发展出来。
如果非要做个比喻，我宁愿把科学比喻成镶嵌在我们人类社会内部的大的类生命的有机体。它有它自己的客观发展规律。要想在科学领域做点什么的话，你首先要认识、感觉到这个大的类生命体的呼吸，知道它的脾气秉性。驯兽员是如何驯服猛兽的？真正的科学家就应该如何创造科学理论。
一点点个人感受，不成熟、不妥的地方请各位见谅。
订阅：
博文 (Atom)