1. catdynamics
  2. O wad some Power the giftie gie us

O wad some Power the giftie gie us

By catdynamics on September 16, 2010.

"...To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion:"

Yes, everyone has linked the latest, greatest XKCD:



So painful, so true.

Fortunately the other thing about physicists, is that we have a great sense of humour.
And we need it.

Steve Hsu has been doing some provocative ruminating along these lines.

This of course leads to classification of physicists, there being two types:

Type I is smart.
Type II is hard working.

Type Ib/c is smart and hard working, and therefore really sub-category of Type II
while Type Ia is smart but lazy.

Type IIn is hard working but smart,
and there is no other Type II

From which we conclude that smarts and hard work do not commute.

Interestingly, physicists are not the only field with the capacity for introspection and analysis:

The Big Picture provides a similar perspective on finance:



click to embiggen

Tags
Science
finance
physicists
xkcd

More like this

Programs are Proofs: Models and Types in Lambda Calculus

Lambda calculus started off with the simple, untyped lambda calculus that we've been talking about so far. But one of the great open questions about lambda calculus was: was it sound? Did it have a valid model?

Types in Haskell: Types are Propositions, Programs are Proofs

(This is a revised repost of an earlier part of my Haskell tutorial.)

Functions, Types, Function Types, and Type Inference

Haskell is a strongly typed language. In fact, the type system in Haskell is both stricter and more expressive than any type system I've seen for any non-functional language. The moment we get beyond

Tiptoeing into Type Theory

When Cantor's set theory - what we now call naive set theory - was shown to have problems in the form of Russell's paradox, there were many different attempts to salvage the theory. In addition to the axiomatic approaches that we've looked at (ZFC and NBG), there were attempts

I don't know if I agree with this classification system. The first classes should be distinguished by the easiest observable: hard working vs. lazy. Self-classification of smart tends to be systematically biased (besides the imposters). I for one, know I'm lazy 99% of the time.