One of my math professor (Canadian) once told us a story (~10 years ago) that the US border control asked him to "state and prove Rolle's theorem" after he had told them he was traveling to a math conference. Apparently he answered "it's something to do with the mean value theorem, right?" and that was good enough.
Thanks for the answer, I deleted my original question shortly after posting because I thought it was abit disrespectful.
For those who are curious, the question was: is "for Hackers" a new way of saying for those who don't feel like actually studying the math, going through the proofs and working through the problem sets?
"Peer-reviewed" does not mean correct, or vice versa. The study they are talking about was done by the Research Council of Norway. I am assuming the goal was to inform the public, not to get published in a scientific journal. It was not an academic exercise. I, for one, am very happy that the Economist included this study in their survey.
I am in the process of migrating all of my analyses from Matlab and R to Python. I have been meaning to do this for quite some time and finally pandas is mature enough to be able to completely replace both Matlab and R for straightforward tasks. If I need something Python doesn't offer, it's still fairly simple to do isolated tasks elsewhere. For me the biggest reasons for change are easy integration with the web and better language features (for Matlab, R language is great, just terribly slow for intensive tasks).
What I miss the most:
- Matlab <--> Excel link (on Windows) - an excel add-on that lets you send back and forth arrays very easily. You need a spreadsheet when you work with datasets, and interchanging data through files just isn't that convenient.
- Matlab's IDE features (debugging, documentation, publishing, variable inspection).
>Philosophy of mind is probably the dominant research area in contemporary philosophy, and I think you'd find a lot that doesn't overlap at all with empirical psychology.
It's not really my area of expertise, but maybe the reason that philosophy of mind is such a big research area in contemporary philosophy is because we haven't figured out how to study mind yet. Once we figure out the correct questions about things like consciousness, we should be able to address them scientifically (much like we are doing with perception, learning, etc. through neuroscience), or figure out why it can't be addressed scientifically, or come to some kind of other logical conclusion.
I disagree with your comment completely. It's not that philosophy teaches us how to think, and sciences teach us what to think. Philosophy teaches us how to pose questions. As soon as we are able to address those questions the problem becomes science (e.g. natural philosophy--> physics, philosophy of mind--> psychology, etc.)
Waterloo is well known in Canada for having an exceptional Mathematics program (if I'm not mistaken you graduate with BMath, not a BA/BSc with a math major).
I agree, even if you don't agree with Adam Curtis's politics, his documentaries are very thought provoking and well worth watching. Some of my favourites include "The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream", "The Century of self", "Pandora's Box", "All watched over by Machines Loving Grace". If you enjoyed this particular blog post, check out "The Power of Nightmares".
