This may seem like a sort of contrived question, but here goes:
Why do theorists get funding to do research in areas of math and science that have no practical application? For example, the search of the existence of the largest prime number, or other theories that have no obvious, or even subtle practical implication (from my amateur eyes). Obviously I understand the interest factor, but why do such projects get funded?
In retrospect, I guess that's the biggest difference between a scientist and an engineer, and why design interests me so much, compared to theoretical science; I quote this very relevant statement:
"An engineer designs systems that satisfy specific requirements using available technologies - there are many correct answers depending on the relative importance of performance, cost, reliability, durability, maintainability, safety, etc.
While a scientist measures, models, and understands the physical universe and the processes that takes place in it - the correct answers are predetermined."
Joined: 4/20/2005
Posts: 2161
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
DK64_MASTER wrote:
Why do theorists get funding to do research in areas of math and science that have no practical application? For example, the search of the existence of the largest prime number, or other theories that have no obvious, or even subtle practical implication (from my amateur eyes). Obviously I understand the interest factor, but why do such projects get funded?
I actually had this exact discussion with my room mate some time ago. I think the reason these kind of projects get funded is that although they're not any use to mankind right now, these mathematical models may prove some use to us in 100 years or so. There are several examples of mathematicians who researched in mathematical areas that they never thought could be used practically but are now used quite often in quantum mechanics and other areas.
Maybe the search for the largest prime numbers won't prove to be useful, but other mathematical projects without obvious purposes can work to increase our understanding of mathematics. Or something like that.
Maybe the search for the largest prime numbers won't prove to be useful, but other mathematical projects without obvious purposes can work to increase our understanding of mathematics. Or something like that.
You see, that's useful from a theorist's point of view, but still can't see any practical applications whatsoever. Anyways, my original question was unanswered (not that I mind discussion about theory vs practicality), but I can't see what would propel someone to fund such a project.
Actually, perhaps I'm thinking about it the wrong way. Maybe searching for the biggest prime number's biggest motivation is to improve searching algorithms, and test computability/efficiency. So finding the largest prime number (if an end exists) isn't really the point. Maybe it's the journey, not the destination.
Or have I missed the complete point?
No, you're heading down the right track. 'The Government' has learnt that projects with non-material goals have often turned up useful results. Now I guess they're willing to shell out a certain amount for a project like that.
The general pure maths topics - prime numbers, factorisation etc. - are often of use in de/encryption. Presumably a large-scale project about primes would turn up something of great importance, like RSA.
I'm sure this is going to get a whole load of interest*, but I'm just curious.
Assuming you could ask me one question and get an honest response from me, what would it be?
* This is sarcasm, mostly based off of my nature here. i.e., loathed. Hooray for being an asshole.
P.S. I'm more than well aware the thread is over half a year old
Assuming you could ask me one question and get an honest response from me, what would it be?
Do you think bald people have a harder time than people with hair when it rains? On one hand, the cold rain drops right on the skull... but on the other hand, it's easier to dry themselves when they get home...
Xkeeper: what's a practical, efficient, moral, and effective way to solve world hunger?
get control of the world's money and food supply. there's plenty of money and food to fix it right now.
mmbossman wrote:
XKeeper, what is your opinion on the death penalty?
sometimes it can be good to kill some people (like hitler). i don't consider death to be a punishment though. i think if we kill a murderer he might actually go to 'heaven'. but i think the reason there is death 'penalty' is to eliminate dangerous people. also, if someone kills someone you love, there's a natural instinct that makes you want to kill that person, so it might be a good idea to let that person kill the murderer.
i'm not sure if murdering murderers solves the murder-problem though... perhaps all this murdering just makes more murderers be born.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
nfq wrote:
mmbossman wrote:
XKeeper, what is your opinion on the death penalty?
sometimes it can be good to kill some people (like hitler). i don't consider death to be a punishment though. i think if we kill a murderer he might actually go to 'heaven'. but i think the reason there is death 'penalty' is to eliminate dangerous people. also, if someone kills someone you love, there's a natural instinct that makes you want to kill that person, so it might be a good idea to let that person kill the murderer.
i'm not sure if murdering murderers solves the murder-problem though... perhaps all this murdering just makes more murderers be born.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
Derakon wrote:
Xkeeper: what's a practical, efficient, moral, and effective way to solve world hunger?
;)
I know I'm not XKeeper, but I'll answer anyway.
Step 1. Education for everyone and get some sort of infrastructure going there. Teach them to make stuff like food and houses.
Step 2. Trade with them stuff so they get profit or other stuff they need. They get more stuff and become stronger.
Step 3. Eventually create a unified global trading infrastructure system thing.
So, upgrade fourth-world countries to at least third world or whatever the "well you're poor but at least you have something to eat" stage is. Whatever the hell that even means. This would also be an important step towards finally establishing world peace.
As usual, delayed. Busy with other things or occasionally just not thinking I can answer some. Anyway...
Bisqwit wrote:
What kind of life do you want to lead 10 years from now? I.e., where do you see yourself, what kind of family situation, etc.?
Honestly? I don't know. I've been idly thinking about it over the past x days. Before that, it was on my mind for a few years. I honestly don't know where I'm going or what I want to eventually end up doing.
I've held interests in programming for a long time, but the sheer mass of things I have started but never accomplished has been very discouraging. In some cases, I don't even know where to begin (for example, Lua bot.)
In terms of family, I will probably be single and alone for a long, long time. I have no interest in any relationship above the intimacy of "friend". It's also been that way for a long time, despite many suggestions that I should look into the prospect of a girlfriend.
Xkeeper wrote:
This is sarcasm, mostly based off of my nature here. i.e., loathed. Hooray for being an asshole.
Self-deprecating humor, yay.
You can ask a few people I talk to. In general, I tend to beat up on myself. (This is no exception.)
--
Derakon wrote:
Xkeeper: what's a practical, efficient, moral, and effective way to solve world hunger?
;)
:P
A good question, the answer of which would be required for a good answer, is "is there still a large amount of potential farmland in underdeveloped areas?" If so, these areas could be utilized for crop production in efficient manners (e.g. mechanical), allowing larger farm sizes and higher yields.
Of course, this would have its own problems (e.g. dealing with irrigation if it isn't already there, proper land maintainence in said underdeveloped areas, etc.)
--
mmbossman wrote:
Xkeeper, what is your opinion on the death penalty?
This has been asked many times over the years, and my opinion still stands somewhat firm on it; only for the people who have comitted truly heinous crimes, e.g. mass murders, in which there is undeniable proof that the suspect actually was the culprit.
This, however, brings up the "life sentence" problem, as it is arguably a greater punishment: dying fairly quickly versus living your life in a concrete room for 10-90+ years. Arguably, wasting away in a cell for a majority of your life is worse.
(Although to that end, I don't think life sentences are always the answer, either.)
--
Baxter wrote:
Do you think bald people have a harder time than people with hair when it rains? On one hand, the cold rain drops right on the skull... but on the other hand, it's easier to dry themselves when they get home...
Hm, considering I'm not bald, this may be tough; however, do keep in mind that hair (especially longer) tends to trap things like heat, and rain is no exception. If you get soaked, your hair's going to stay wet, and it is nowhere near as easy to get dry. Compare baldness, where one good wipe with a cloth (such as a shirt) can easily dry the area.
In the short term (little water exposure), longer haired people would likely have an easier time than bald ones; in long term, however, baldness would likely win out (especially if breaks could be taken; it could dry off and warm up again, versus hair staying wetter longer especially without a quick method of drying.
Strange question.
--
nfq wrote:
[...]
Nice hijacking. :) Perhaps it can be used to compare answers later.
(No, I didn't cheat.)
--
Warp wrote:
I suppose my question would be: Why should I care?
Truthfully, that answer can only be answered by yourself. Obviously, if you have nothing you want to ask me, then you have no reason to care; however, if you are at least somewhat intrigued by my personality or outlook on things, then you may want to find out a bit more.
Though if you would rather have a response on why I asked this question, it is because having an oppertunity to think about some things is always welcome. (See: Lua scripting requests)
--
RT-55J wrote:
Why can't everybody just get along?
Inherant mechanics of pride. Invariably, somebody will think somebody else's opinion is wrong. When this disagreement comes with something either of these people have a strong position on, then the potential for an argument arises. This chance only increases if the person is very stubborn.
--
Interesting to see the questions. Hopefully the answers are equally interesting for you.
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 688
Location: WA State, USA
After realizing the fact that having so many questions yet only having one person answer them isn't conducive to the health of this thread, I've decided to answer the questions myself just for the halibut.
You can all start hating me now if you feel so inclined.
---
Bisqwit wrote:
What kind of life do you want to lead 10 years from now? I.e., where do you see yourself, what kind of family situation, etc.?
In within the next ten years (I'll be ~27.75 by then) I expect to go on a Mormon proselyting mission thing (like my 3 older brothers), go to college, get married, get a job, and have kids.
Granted, this is ignoring the multitude of factors that could derail my genius plans. I'm also ignoring the facts that I've never been on a date, I haven't even considered which university I'll be going to, and I barely have the foggiest clue what my occupation will be. Computer science as always interested me, but I haven't been able to take any real classes related to the subject yet, so I don't really know how well I'm suited to the field. I have thought about with the idea of stuff like teaching or politics, but something tells me that the president doesn't really have his own personal assault mecha.
---
Derakon wrote:
Xkeeper: what's a practical, efficient, moral, and effective way to solve world hunger?
I consider that impossible to do in a timely matter, but I'll try to think of an answer anyway.
First off, we'd need to find a way to produce more food in a sustainable manner. An obvious solution is to find or make more arable land, but that's a finite resource. Our best bet would probably be finding a way to improve the efficiency of meat production. Simply stated, the amount of grain required per pound of meat is exorbitantly high. IIRC, there are several proposed solutions (such as cloned meat or whatever), but more research will be needed to find a method that is feasible.
The next major hurdle would be the distribution of the food. First off, we'd need to get rid of large scale conflict or civil war in order for the distribution system to actually be effective. In order to actually ship the food, we'd need to either move everybody into cities or increase the amount of vehicles trucking the food, which might strain our oil resources (but that's another issue entirely). In order for people to actually be able to get the food, we'd need to eliminate severe poverty or create a large-scale welfare program.
After that it's just nit-picky little details such as population control and obesity. I'm also deliberately ignoring anorexic people.
tl;dr Expect it to happen some time after the Last Trump.
---
mmbossman wrote:
Xkeeper, what is your opinion on the death penalty?
I don't have any real problems with it, provided that the crime is severe enough and that enough evidence has been gathered to conclusively prove the criminal innocent. Compared to a life sentence, the death penalty has the advantage of permanently removing the offender from society. Whether or not the death penalty is any better or worse than a life sentence is another debate in and of itself, but it does bring up a good question. Is punishment merely a system of institutionalized revenge, or is it meant for the betterment of a society as a whole by reforming or removing bad eggs?
---
Baxter wrote:
Do you think bald people have a harder time than people with hair when it rains? On one hand, the cold rain drops right on the skull... but on the other hand, it's easier to dry themselves when they get home...
Interesting question, but you seem to be ignoring the inventions of the umbrella, rain poncho, and hat. Smart-alecry aside, I'm surprised how little I've thought about the subject. I've never like the fact that my hair takes so long to dry after a shower, but the thought of shaving my head has never arisen from that. If I ever feel inclined to shave my head, it's usually because I want to look like Patrick Stewart. Granted, I'd be willing to bet that my scalp would simply fall off, given the amount of dandruff I produce.
Because you asked the most esoteric question, I shall give you a question of my own. What is the length of a day in furlongs?
---
Warp wrote:
I suppose my question would be: Why should I care?
Do you need a reason for everything? Ultimately, I can't see how his request is any less important than the rest of this site.
---
RT-55J wrote:
Why can't everybody just get along?
Pride, envy, lust, overzealousness, incompetence, and testosterone.
Nach wrote:
I also used to wake up every morning, open my curtains, and see the twin towers. And then one day, wasn't able to anymore, I'll never forget that.
After realizing the fact that having so many questions yet only having one person answer them isn't conducive to the health of this thread, I've decided to answer the questions myself just for the halibut.
You can all start hating me now if you feel so inclined.
Oh, I never intended this to simply become "Ask me a question and only I will respond". (Though admittedly it was a short-term goal)... if others feel like answering them, who am I to stop them?
What kind of life do you want to lead 10 years from now? I.e., where do you see yourself, what kind of family situation, etc.?
Ouch, a boomerang!
In 10 years…
Financially: Stable
Family situation: Marriage, with love and God as the foundation. But I'm also prepared to live alone.
Professionally: A managing role in a software engineering firm, with enough pay that I will be financially stable and that I will get an adequate pension when I'm at that age.
Hobbies: I would like to see God give me a satisfying mission. Maybe even such fulfilling (and demanding) that I don't need a professional job. I have some inkling on what it might be, but I don't know yet for certain.
I also like programming, but I would like to do that either for the work or the hobby, not both, to avoid burnout. If it's for work, it should be something I really enjoy and would do for hobby otherwise.
Derakon wrote:
Xkeeper: what's a practical, efficient, moral, and effective way to solve world hunger?
I think the best way to solve any problem involving suffering is through the opposite of sin, i.e. love. I mean the kind of love that is tolerant and kind, does not envy, boast or preen, behaves fine, is not selfish nor easily provoked, thinks no evil, rejoices in the truth and not iniquity, and so on.
Love sends people to help other people. Love sends missionaries, and makes them build schools, toilets and houses; send medicine, cloth and food, educate, etc.
And for people to stay in love, i.e. out of sin, doing God's will, listening to God is the way.
Also, people should procreate less at those areas where natural resources are more scarce. ;)
mmbossman wrote:
what is your opinion on the death penalty?
I think there are only two reasons with which the death penalty can be criticised:
― The penalized person may eventually turn, repent and change, and become a productive citizen
― The penalized person may have been unjustly judged, and evidence indemnifying them may appear in time, or laws concerning their sentence may change
Obviously it is impossible to know for certain whether either case happens for that particular prisoner. I certainly cannot tell when death penalty would be acceptable, but I cannot say it's to be forbidden either.
Baxter wrote:
Do you think bald people have a harder time than people with hair when it rains? On one hand, the cold rain drops right on the skull... but on the other hand, it's easier to dry themselves when they get home...
If rain is a problem, use an umbrella. If the cold is a problem, use a hat.
Warp wrote:
I suppose my question would be: Why should I care?
You obviously care enough to post about it. Think back along that thread of thought, and you'll find the answer to your question as well.
RT-55J wrote:
Why can't everybody just get along?
Sin :)
I smile because it's such an easy answer.
People focus too much on theirselves, and on other people, and their problems, when they should focus on what God can do for them.
RT-55J wrote:
What is the length of a day in furlongs?
0905>bisqbot .cl day*c in gigafurlongs
0905BisqBot- day*speed of light in vacuum = 128.7583928418039 gigafurlongs (day=24 hr, speedoflight=c=2.99792458e8 m/s, hr=hour=60 min, min=minute=60 s, gigafurlongs=1e9 furlong, furlong=40 rod, rod=5.5 yard, yard=3 ft, ft=foot=12 inch, inch=2.54 cm, cm=centi m=1e-2 m)
I suppose nobody cares about my opinion, but I decided to join the fun anyways.
Bisqwit wrote:
What kind of life do you want to lead 10 years from now? I.e., where do you see yourself, what kind of family situation, etc.?
Deducing from my past 10 years, I don't expect any big changes. At most I might move to another city because of a job.
Derakon wrote:
Xkeeper: what's a practical, efficient, moral, and effective way to solve world hunger?
There probably is no such solution.
mmbossman wrote:
Xkeeper, what is your opinion on the death penalty?
From a purely economical point of view every prisoner is an economic burden to society. OTOH, *not* keeping criminals in jail can be an even larger economic burden to society, so it's a no-win situation, and keeping people in jail is the lesser of two evils (from an economical point of view).
In theory the death penalty reduces the amount of people in jail, without releasing them to harm the citizens. In practice, however, even in the US the amount of people on death row is minuscule compared to the total amount of people in jail, so abolishing the death penalty would not increase economic costs significantly. Thus in practice there's not even an economical reason for death penalty.
From a moral point of view, given the two options, ie. life in prison or death penalty, the former is the lesser of two evils. Since people in prison cannot harm citizens, and since they do not significantly increase economic costs (because people in prison who do not deserve the death penalty are so much more numerous), it only makes sense to not to have the death penalty.
Baxter wrote:
Do you think bald people have a harder time than people with hair when it rains? On one hand, the cold rain drops right on the skull... but on the other hand, it's easier to dry themselves when they get home...
IMO hair is enormously overrated in all cultures. Extremely short hair, or no hair at all, makes your life in all ways easier. The longer your hair, the bigger the nuisance.
Warp wrote:
I suppose my question would be: Why should I care?
No love for long hair, huh? You're missing out on all the aesthetic aspects. Plus not having to deal with getting your hair cut all the time (though that's counteracted to an extent by having to use more shampoo and by shedding being more noticeable).
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
