In Asia, people can see the different from different country, we can tell, Chinese, Japanese, Koren, Taiwanese, are different. and even people can tell, Tokyo'er, Kyoto'er are different, Hong Kong'er and Shanghai'er are different.
In Europe, people can do a similar things. they can distinguish Germany, British, Greek.
Similar in Middle East.
People know their neighborhood very well, and able to classify. one result is, a boundary is built. freedom lost, conflict raised.
From Westerners eyes, Asian are Asian, we are almost the same. If we are the same, why we kill each other? why we can not understand each other? it is just because "countries" ?
If we have a bigger picture, Human are similar, we share 99.9999999% of same DNA! our structure or ingredient are the same! May be less the different between Coke and Pepsi !!
If we have even a bigger picture, all living creature are similar! we have to live in this earth. why not cooperate?? making things better to each other, Win-win situation.
In order to have bigger picture, we have to learn and discover. Move now!
致知在格物
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
1 bottle or 3 bottles ?
there is a game:
you can get 1 free bottle. or you bet this bottle, for a chance of 1/2 for 3 bottles or 0 bottle.
what will you do?
In logic, you should bet the bottle, coz the expectation is 1.5 bottle, while the other one is 1 bottle only.
However, don't for get what is "expectation", which is the mean gain from large number of trials.
if you only get one chance, what will you do?
may be we can introduce a utility for the bottle. say, you need a bottle so much. like a medicine, you need it for your life, so, the question will become weather you have a bottle for sure or chance for more or zero bottle. Thus, 3 bottles for you may be not so useful, attractive or necessary. therefore, if people have no bottle on their hands, they will prefer to have the guarantee bottle.
If people already has few bottle on their hands, thus, the guarantee bottle is not so attractive. so, why not gambling?
The utility function can be like this. it depends on the result, on how many bottles people already have.
For no bottle people, their utility function may be 1 for the guarantee bottle and also 1 for the 3-unsure-bottles. means both of them is equal attractive. thus, the expectation of utility is 1 to 1/2, ok, pick the guarantee one.
For had some bottles people, the 1 bottle may be only 1 for them, but 3 for the 3 bottles, which means, the 3 bottles is more attractive. the expected utility is 1 to 3/2. Gambling.
How about the 3 bottles changed to 100 bottles?
the utility changed. and you can see, different people has different utility.
*******************
Let's talk about utility.
although utility is different from different people, it can be compare within same people.
what does it mean i like coke more than milk? if my utility function for coke is 3, milk is 1. thus. i like to trade 1 coke for 3 milk in order i got satisfy.
wait! how about i hate milk? at this case, the utility of milk will be negative, say -1. Thus, no matter how, i will not trade a coke for milk!
next time, if you want to compare somethings logically, try to think how many of these can trade for that.
*******************
back to the game.
in order people will gambling even they got no bottle, the utility must be 1 for the 1-bottle and at least 2 for the 3-bottles. This means, you like to use 2 guarantee-bottles for 3 unsure-bottles. the uncertainty lower the attractive to 2/3 for each unsure-bottle.
How about in 1-sure-bottle vs 100-unsure-bottles with 1/2 chance?
the utility for choosing 100-unsure-bottles is still at least >2 . and the attractive for each unsure-bottle becomes at least 1/50 due to the uncertainly. we can see, this de-valuation is so huge. many people will agree the attractive of a unsure-bottle should be more than 1/50. say, 1/2. Thus, from the utility, we can see the total utility for 100-unsure-bottles is 50, very easy to larger than 2. Therefore, people may even choose to take the chance even though they did not have any bottle.
******************
Other issue, in the game holder view point.
people can buy a coke or buy a chance to win 3 coke with same price.
............um.... i have to think about this......
How about apply this "trading" for politics? to solve conflict? like terrorism?
How much they can trade for the "Muslim" to stable life?
you can get 1 free bottle. or you bet this bottle, for a chance of 1/2 for 3 bottles or 0 bottle.
what will you do?
In logic, you should bet the bottle, coz the expectation is 1.5 bottle, while the other one is 1 bottle only.
However, don't for get what is "expectation", which is the mean gain from large number of trials.
if you only get one chance, what will you do?
may be we can introduce a utility for the bottle. say, you need a bottle so much. like a medicine, you need it for your life, so, the question will become weather you have a bottle for sure or chance for more or zero bottle. Thus, 3 bottles for you may be not so useful, attractive or necessary. therefore, if people have no bottle on their hands, they will prefer to have the guarantee bottle.
If people already has few bottle on their hands, thus, the guarantee bottle is not so attractive. so, why not gambling?
The utility function can be like this. it depends on the result, on how many bottles people already have.
For no bottle people, their utility function may be 1 for the guarantee bottle and also 1 for the 3-unsure-bottles. means both of them is equal attractive. thus, the expectation of utility is 1 to 1/2, ok, pick the guarantee one.
For had some bottles people, the 1 bottle may be only 1 for them, but 3 for the 3 bottles, which means, the 3 bottles is more attractive. the expected utility is 1 to 3/2. Gambling.
How about the 3 bottles changed to 100 bottles?
the utility changed. and you can see, different people has different utility.
*******************
Let's talk about utility.
although utility is different from different people, it can be compare within same people.
what does it mean i like coke more than milk? if my utility function for coke is 3, milk is 1. thus. i like to trade 1 coke for 3 milk in order i got satisfy.
wait! how about i hate milk? at this case, the utility of milk will be negative, say -1. Thus, no matter how, i will not trade a coke for milk!
next time, if you want to compare somethings logically, try to think how many of these can trade for that.
*******************
back to the game.
in order people will gambling even they got no bottle, the utility must be 1 for the 1-bottle and at least 2 for the 3-bottles. This means, you like to use 2 guarantee-bottles for 3 unsure-bottles. the uncertainty lower the attractive to 2/3 for each unsure-bottle.
How about in 1-sure-bottle vs 100-unsure-bottles with 1/2 chance?
the utility for choosing 100-unsure-bottles is still at least >2 . and the attractive for each unsure-bottle becomes at least 1/50 due to the uncertainly. we can see, this de-valuation is so huge. many people will agree the attractive of a unsure-bottle should be more than 1/50. say, 1/2. Thus, from the utility, we can see the total utility for 100-unsure-bottles is 50, very easy to larger than 2. Therefore, people may even choose to take the chance even though they did not have any bottle.
******************
Other issue, in the game holder view point.
people can buy a coke or buy a chance to win 3 coke with same price.
............um.... i have to think about this......
How about apply this "trading" for politics? to solve conflict? like terrorism?
How much they can trade for the "Muslim" to stable life?
An observation on a Turkish class.
The class room is no fans. Like a tutorial, not using powerpoint. Students can speak and talk to the professor like they are chatting. Students are active, responsive. No lectture notice, student write their own. So, it quite depends on th talent of each student. Ebru does not take note, while most studnt are taking. Is she good? Or just lazy? But it seem that her way of study is by listening, rather than note taking. My style as well.
The classroom is quite hot.
The writing of the professor is quite un-organized. Some where there, some where here. But he write down the point, and develop it. Note taking students may be a problem. Words are small on the white board.
No clock.
The professor is quite talkable. He come back to previous idea. Alhough the equiment is not as good as hk, student are btter. May be also the subject are different. Economic and phyics. By the way, why economic cannot be teach in a mathematical way? Lets the formula and logic tell the story.
In physics class, a lot of mathematics. Well, no. Only othere subject less mathematic.
His writing is real ugly.he needs a copy-book. =)
He use questions, to raise up curiosity to students, and tell them the answer.
The classroom is quite hot.
The writing of the professor is quite un-organized. Some where there, some where here. But he write down the point, and develop it. Note taking students may be a problem. Words are small on the white board.
No clock.
The professor is quite talkable. He come back to previous idea. Alhough the equiment is not as good as hk, student are btter. May be also the subject are different. Economic and phyics. By the way, why economic cannot be teach in a mathematical way? Lets the formula and logic tell the story.
In physics class, a lot of mathematics. Well, no. Only othere subject less mathematic.
His writing is real ugly.he needs a copy-book. =)
He use questions, to raise up curiosity to students, and tell them the answer.
Some Turkish suffix
"to be" / continuous tense / future tense / aorist tense:
+ (y)im i
sin you
[nothing] he/she/it
(y)iz we
siniz you (plural / formal )
ler they
past tense :
+ m i
+ (y)im i
sin you
[nothing] he/she/it
(y)iz we
siniz you (plural / formal )
ler they
past tense :
+ m i
n you
[nothing] he/she/it
k we
niz you (plural / formal )
ler they
possessive :
+ (i) m my
(i) n your
(s) i (n) his / her / its
(i) miz our
(i) niz your (plural / formal )
leri (n) their
optative :
+ yim i
sin you
[nothing] he/she/it
lim we
siniz you (plural / formal )
sinler they
E = m c square
There are 3 mass definitions:
inertial mass, which respond with acceleration when force applied.
gravitational mass, which produced the among of force by gravity.
relativistic mass, which is a fictional mass created by Einstein.
Many people say, when something get heated, than energy increased, thus the mass increased and it becomes heavier. According to Einstein's equation E = m c^2. Completely incorrect. They totally mix all three definitions of mass all together, and has a mis-understanding of heavy and "hard to be moved".
This equation tells us that mass and energy are equal, mass can change to energy and vice versa.
therefore, as long as the kinetic energy still "functioning", as shown that the heated thing still hot. thus the energy did not covered to mass yet.
In nuclear reaction:
He-4 + N-14 -> O-17 + H-1
the mass of He-4 + N-14 = 18.00567 unit
the mass of O-17 + H-1 = 18.00696 unit
The gain of mass from energy. the energy is needed because, the 2 nuclei has great electromagnetic force between 2 cluster of protons. After the combination, the kinetic energy will be converted to mass, as a blinding energy.
To fully understand this equal, we have to distinguish 2 similar but different concepts - equivalent and exchange. Both concepts are simple. They mean the same or equal value. Like 1 US dollar can exchange/equivalent for 7.8 HK dollars. However they are little bit different.
First of all, may be we should return to a more fundamental equation:
E = K + mc^2
Where K is the kinetic energy, m is the rest mass of the object.
This equation means the total energy contains 2 parts. 1st is the kinetic part (you can say, the energy because of motion), 2nd is the mass part (you can say, the still one). Now, you may argue why "Total" energy only has these 2 things, how about sound energy? light energy? chemical energy? The answer is, if you are smart enough, the kinetic part contained all this kind of energy and the truly amazing thing is, mass can be energy as well!!
Let me explain a little bit about the kinetic energy as well. As we known, sound energy is same as vibrating energy of air molecules. For light, it is a non-stop particle (in particle sense), and according to special relativity, it only has kinetic energy but no mass. And for chemical energy, which is in fact electromagnetic energy, which is light energy. How about Potential energy?? Good question! as you can see, for gravitational potential energy, this energy is stored in the field, not on the object.
Thus, E = m c^2 is just a simplified form when there is no kinetic energy.
According to special relativity, it is more harder to accelerate a body for a higher speed. however, it does not implies the body was heavier! More technically, it is because the momentum changes lesser due to non-linear space-time.
remember, there is no relativistic mass. this is a great misleading simplification of Einstein. he likes to simplify equation a lot and he made this:
K + m c ^2 = M c^2
where m is the mass (or rest mass), and M is the so called "relativistic mass".
He introduced this misleading concept because it is much more easy to tell the public why it is harder and harder to reach the light speed.
Correct interpolation for E = m c^2 is exchange, or replace, but not equal. This means, energy or mass can either exist, but not both. Just like you pay 2 dollars for an apple, you will not get back the 2 dollars. another example is light, photon. Photon has energy in electromagnetic form. Does it mean photon has mass? NO, photon has no mass according to special relativity, otherwise, it cannot move in speed of light. Therefore, we can see, the kinetic energy has no contribution to mass.
inertial mass, which respond with acceleration when force applied.
gravitational mass, which produced the among of force by gravity.
relativistic mass, which is a fictional mass created by Einstein.
Many people say, when something get heated, than energy increased, thus the mass increased and it becomes heavier. According to Einstein's equation E = m c^2. Completely incorrect. They totally mix all three definitions of mass all together, and has a mis-understanding of heavy and "hard to be moved".
This equation tells us that mass and energy are equal, mass can change to energy and vice versa.
therefore, as long as the kinetic energy still "functioning", as shown that the heated thing still hot. thus the energy did not covered to mass yet.
In nuclear reaction:
He-4 + N-14 -> O-17 + H-1
the mass of He-4 + N-14 = 18.00567 unit
the mass of O-17 + H-1 = 18.00696 unit
The gain of mass from energy. the energy is needed because, the 2 nuclei has great electromagnetic force between 2 cluster of protons. After the combination, the kinetic energy will be converted to mass, as a blinding energy.
To fully understand this equal, we have to distinguish 2 similar but different concepts - equivalent and exchange. Both concepts are simple. They mean the same or equal value. Like 1 US dollar can exchange/equivalent for 7.8 HK dollars. However they are little bit different.
First of all, may be we should return to a more fundamental equation:
E = K + mc^2
Where K is the kinetic energy, m is the rest mass of the object.
This equation means the total energy contains 2 parts. 1st is the kinetic part (you can say, the energy because of motion), 2nd is the mass part (you can say, the still one). Now, you may argue why "Total" energy only has these 2 things, how about sound energy? light energy? chemical energy? The answer is, if you are smart enough, the kinetic part contained all this kind of energy and the truly amazing thing is, mass can be energy as well!!
Let me explain a little bit about the kinetic energy as well. As we known, sound energy is same as vibrating energy of air molecules. For light, it is a non-stop particle (in particle sense), and according to special relativity, it only has kinetic energy but no mass. And for chemical energy, which is in fact electromagnetic energy, which is light energy. How about Potential energy?? Good question! as you can see, for gravitational potential energy, this energy is stored in the field, not on the object.
Thus, E = m c^2 is just a simplified form when there is no kinetic energy.
According to special relativity, it is more harder to accelerate a body for a higher speed. however, it does not implies the body was heavier! More technically, it is because the momentum changes lesser due to non-linear space-time.
remember, there is no relativistic mass. this is a great misleading simplification of Einstein. he likes to simplify equation a lot and he made this:
K + m c ^2 = M c^2
where m is the mass (or rest mass), and M is the so called "relativistic mass".
He introduced this misleading concept because it is much more easy to tell the public why it is harder and harder to reach the light speed.
Correct interpolation for E = m c^2 is exchange, or replace, but not equal. This means, energy or mass can either exist, but not both. Just like you pay 2 dollars for an apple, you will not get back the 2 dollars. another example is light, photon. Photon has energy in electromagnetic form. Does it mean photon has mass? NO, photon has no mass according to special relativity, otherwise, it cannot move in speed of light. Therefore, we can see, the kinetic energy has no contribution to mass.
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Best of worst VS Worst of best
i like to think i am smarter than others, mostly. i am not only can think, generate new ideas, but also make them real.
But the truth is, i am smart just because others are not so good.
take chess as an example.
i beat many people, does it mean i am smarter?
may be, but the more reasonable reason is, i play more.
when practice chess with computer, i knew there are many many tricks and skill i dun know. and my national ranking (if there is any) is below mean of the world chess players.
Thus, the reason that i always win is just because my opponents are not chess player or not played more than i do.
I suddenly recognized that it is so danger for i did not notices that before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)