All posts by hevangel

News Clips

Is Math Still Relevant?

Leave a comment

Is math still relevant? That depends on your metaphysical view of the world. If the reality is indeed appearance of mathematics as some metaphysics theories suggest and we are living in endless possibility of equations, then maths is the only way to understand the Truth.

By Robert W. Lucky, IEEE Spectrum, March 2012
The queen of the sciences may someday lose its royal status

Long ago, when I was a freshman in ­engineering school, there was a required course in mechanical drawing. “You had better learn this skill,” the instructor said, “because all engineers start their careers at the ­drafting table.”

This was an ominous beginning to my education, but as it turned out, he was wrong. Neither I nor, I suspect, any of my classmates began our careers at the drafting table.

These days, engineers aren’t routinely taught drawing, but they spend a lot of time learning another skill that may be similarly unnecessary: mathematics. I confess this thought hadn’t occurred to me until recently, when a friend who teaches at a leading university made an off-hand comment. “Is it ­possible,” he suggested, “that the era of math­ematics in electrical ­engineering is coming to an end?”

When I asked him about this disturbing idea, he said that he had only been ­trying to be provocative and that his graduate students were now writing theses that were more mathematical than ever. I felt reassured that the mathematical basis of engineering is strong. But still, I wonder to what extent—and for how long—today’s under­graduate engineering students will be using classical ­mathematics as their careers unfold.

There are several trends that might suggest a diminishing role for mathematics in engineering work. First, there is the rise of software engineering as a separate discipline. It just doesn’t take as much math to write an operating system as it does to design a printed circuit board. Programming is rigidly structured and, at the same time, an evolving art form—neither of which is especially amenable to mathematical analysis.

Another trend veering us away from classical math is the increasing dependence on programs such as Matlab and Maple. The pencil-and-paper calculations with which we evaluated the relative performance of variations in design are now more easily made by simulation software packages—which, with their vast libraries of pre­packaged functions and data, are often more powerful. A purist might ask: Is using Matlab doing math? And of course, the answer is that sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t.

A third trend is the growing importance of a class of problems termed “wicked,” which involve social, political, economic, and un­defined or unknown issues that make the application of mathematics very difficult. The world is seemingly full of such frus­trating but important problems.

These trends notwithstanding, we should recognize the role of mathematics in the discovery of fundamental properties and truth. Maxwell’s equations—which are inscribed in marble in the foyer of the National Academy of Engineering—foretold the possibility of radio. It took about half a ­century for those radios to reach Shannon’s limit—described by his equation for channel ­capacity—but at least we knew where we were headed.

Theoretical physicists have explained through math the workings of the universe and even predicted the existence of previously unknown fundamental particles. The iconic image I carry in my mind is of Einstein at a blackboard that’s covered with tensor-filled equations. It is remarkable that one person scribbling math can uncover such secrets. It is as if the universe itself understands and obeys the mathematics that we humans invented.

There have been many philosophical discussions through the years about this wonderful power of math. In a famous 1960 paper en­titled “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” the physicist Eugene Wigner wrote, “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift [that] we neither understand nor deserve.” In a 1980 paper with a similar title, the computer science pioneer Richard Hamming tried to answer the question, “How can it be that simple mathematics suffices to predict so much?”

This “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics will continue to be at the heart of engineering, but perhaps the way we use math will change. Still, it’s hard to imagine Einstein running simulations on his laptop.

書評

Stumbing on Happiness – Daniel Gilbert 快樂為什麼不幸福？

Leave a comment

到底快樂是什麼？如何才可以擁有快樂呢？每個人也想追求快樂，歷代不少宗教和哲學家，也是教導人如何才活得快樂。這本書的作書是個心理學家，他引用心理學的最新研究，去解釋人會快樂這個現象。這本書不會教你快樂的秘訣，反而它指出人為什麼會不快樂，而那正因為我們腦部構造的先天局限。看完這本書雖然我們不一定會快樂，至少可以知道什麼原因令我們不快樂。

這本書的主旨十分簡單，三兩句就可以講完。不過因為書中的快樂理論創新，只講那三個重點欠缺說服力，於是作者引用很多心理學實驗，從最基本的理論開始，一步步推論出人為什麼不快樂。作者先從何謂快樂說起，快樂是一個主觀的感覺，但同時在生理也有客觀的反應。人類會感受到快樂，是因為人有記憶力和想像力。可是記憶並不完全可靠，人會用想像力補完忘記的細節，結果記憶中快樂的部份被放大，不快樂的部份被遺忘。人會根據記憶去預計未來，可是由於記憶不準確，我們往往錯估未來的快樂，因而作出錯誤的選擇。另一方面，人類的心理有自我保護機制，懂自動緩和不好的事情帶來的不快樂。結果同一件事情，在我們的記憶和預期中的感受，與在當下發生時的感受有很大差距，好事沒有帶來想像中快樂，壞事也沒有想像中的那般不快樂。

作者在書中也有提出補救的方法，叫我們不要運用記憶和想像力，只看別人冰冷的數字去計算預期的快樂，才作出正確的決擇。不過他自已也說那根本不可行，因為人腦不可能那樣思考，除非腦部受傷喪失想像和計劃末來的能力。早前看過的另一本書Predictable Irrationality，亦引用一些相同的心理學實驗，但兩書的作者應用在不同的研究方向。或許兩者之間其實也有關連，不快樂的原因於源人腦的非理性，若一個人能夠百份百理性，他便可以感受到無盡的快樂了。

佛家說快樂源於著眼當下，要忘記過去不想未來，才可以感受到快樂。可是看完這本書，我卻得出一個完全相反的結論。若果記憶和預期的快樂是一致，只是當下的感覺有差落，那少數服從多數不理當下便行了。不要去想現在發生的事現在的感受，按著心中所想的期望去做事，到了明天變成了今天時，再去回憶當日的感受，便可以重溫那預期了但不曾出現快樂。書中提出一個很好的心理實驗，說到底人其實是為創造回憶而生活。若果只照顧當下的感受，那為未來留下來的回憶，未免流於平淡無味了。

News Clips

Whales are people, too

Leave a comment

I strongly against animal right because they are not human. However, my ethical theory is based on self reflective intelligent beings and Kantian rational moral contract. According to my ethical theory, since cetacean has near human intelligent, human should grant cetaceans individual right that close to human rights. On the other hand, other non-intelligent animals should only have species right. As long as the species are not going to extinct, human can use the animals as resources to server human.

A declaration of the rights of cetaceans
Feb 25th 2012, the Economist

THE “Declaration of the Rights of Man” was a crucial step in the French revolution. The document, drafted by the Marquis de Lafayette, marked a break with the political past by proposing that everyone, however humble his birth, had certain inalienable civil rights. These were liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression. Merely being a man conferred them.

These days, such rights extend to women as well. But what if you are not human? A session on cetaceans at the AAAS meeting discussed a proposal that whales and dolphins, too, should have rights. The suggestion of the speakers was that the protections these species are afforded by human laws should be extended and recognised not as an indulgence of the human aristocracy towards the bestial peasantry, but as a right as natural as those which humans now afford, in the more civilised parts of the world, to themselves.

The proposition that whales have rights is founded on the idea that they have a high degree of intelligence, and also have self-awareness of the sort that humans do. That is a controversial suggestion, but there is evidence to support it. Lori Marino of Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, reviewed this evidence.

One pertinent observation is that dolphins, whales and their kind have brains as anatomically complex as those of humans, and that these brains contain a particular type of nerve cell, known as a spindle cell, that in humans is associated with higher cognitive functions such as abstract reasoning. Cetacean brains are also, scaled appropriately for body size, almost as big as those of humans and significantly bigger than those of great apes, which are usually thought of as humanity’s closest intellectual cousins.

Whales and dolphins have complex cultures, too, which vary from group to group within a species. The way they hunt, the repertoire of vocal signals and even their use of tools differs from pod to pod. They also seem to have an awareness of themselves as individuals. At least some can, for example, recognise themselves in a mirror—a trick that humans, great apes and elephants can manage, but most other species cannot.

Thomas White, of Loyola Marymount University, in Los Angeles, then discussed the ethical implications of what Dr Marino had said. Dr White is a philosopher, and he sought to establish the idea that a person need not be human. In philosophy, he told the meeting, a person is a being with special characteristics who deserves special treatment as a result of those characteristics. In principle, other species can qualify. For the reasons outlined by Dr Marino, he claimed, cetaceans do indeed count as persons and therefore have moral rights—though ones appropriate to their species, which may therefore differ from those that would be accorded a human (for example, the right not to be removed from their natural environment).

Chris Butler-Stroud, of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, in Britain, and Kari Koski of the Whale Museum in San Juan Island, Washington state, then charted some of the hesitant steps already being taken in the direction of establishing cetacean rights. Mr Butler-Stroud showed how the language used by international bodies concerned with these animals is changing. The term “stocks”, for example, with its implication that whales and dolphins are a resource suitable for exploitation, is being overtaken by “populations”, a word that is also applied to people.

Ms Koski gave an even more intriguing example. She told of how a group of killer whales that lives near Vancouver, passing between waters controlled (from a human point of view) by Canada and the United States, have acquired legal protection even though the species as a whole is not endangered. After a battle in the American courts these particular whales have been defined by their culture, and that culture is deemed endangered.

The idea of rights for whales is certainly a provocative one, and is reminiscent of the Australian philosopher Peter Singer’s proposal that human rights be extended to the great apes—chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans. Like Dr Singer’s suggestion, though, it does ignore one nagging technicality. The full title of the French revolutionary document was “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen”. No one has yet argued for votes for whales and dolphins. But considering some of the politicians who manage to get themselves chosen by human electorates, maybe it would not be such a bad idea.

電視

4 in Love

Leave a comment

早前的「天與地」被大陸禁播升上神臺，成為本年度最具話題性的電視劇，令不少觀眾認識戚其義和周旭明這對金牌組合。他們以前也拍過不少富創意劇集，有領導官庭戲潮流的「金枝慾孽」，反轉港女形像的「飛女正傳」，是無記電視工廠的流水作業生產線中，少數破格不齎拍師奶劇的監制。上次「天與地」贏盡口啤但輸了收視，拍得太有深度嚇走師奶觀眾，今次「4 in Love」則走輕鬆愛情小品的路線，簡簡單單一家大細也看得懂之餘，亦拍出有別一般無記愛情劇爛橋的精品。

這齣劇集沒有什麼劇情可言，描寫四對情侶不同的愛情道路。有大明星與小影迷因為身份距離而波折重重，有矮肥仔與高妹的長短腳之戀，有兩個蒲友在床上找到真愛，還有電視主播每段情也時間不夾。嚴格來說還有第五對，老年版的志明與春嬌。四對情侶是四個獨立故事，互相沒有任何關連，只是碰巧在同時同地發生。愛情戲的描寫很生活化，沒有什麼曲折的多角戀，卻勝在平淡中帶點浪漫溫馨。偶然在劇中加插的笑位，諷刺時下男女的典型愛情觀，有著畫龍點晴帶起整套劇的作用。

這套劇也有不少新意思，戲中戲「誰知天下父母心」，扮韓劇暗寸師奶劇老土，「難道要晚晚爭產才好看」成為本週金句。鄧子峰基的疑惑，暗戀好朋友多年不敢開口，還要怕給江欣燕搶去，於是娶了她做老婆截她糊。金剛半咸半淡的廣東話，用市場學妙論追女術，配合女角在超市買香腸的畫面簡直一絕。第一主角陳豪和余詩曼那對，比較起來反而沒有其他配角的情節好看。

結局UFO飛來旺角是神來之筆，其實UFO不過是一個比喻，換作是大地震大海嘯也可以，又或者是什麼生離死別的大件事。人總要在經歷明天可能失去一切的時候，才能夠敞開心扉面對自已，拋開平日無聊的面子和顧慮，把愛意亳無保留地說出來。臨完場也要向地產霸權抽水，李氐力場不單只可以推走颱風，連UFO也可以推走以免影響股市。

戚其義和周旭明二人，拍完「金枝慾孽2」便會離開無線。希望他們出走電視工廠後，會有更大的自主創作空間，再繼續拍多些有意思的劇集。

News Clips

Hong Kong Was Better Under the British

Leave a comment

Maybe it is politically incorrect, but this article simply state the fact. If there is a referendum in Hong Kong today, asking the people whether they want to rejoin the UK or stay with China, I am pretty sure people will pick UK over China. If people are allow to migrate from one country to another, why can’t a whole city migrate too?

by Hugo Restall, WSJ, Feb 23 2012

The slow-motion implosion of Henry Tang, Beijing’s pick to be Hong Kong’s next chief executive, brings to mind a speech given shortly before the 1997 handover by former Far Eastern Economic Review Editor Derek Davies. Entitled “Two Cheers for Colonialism,” it attempted to explain why the city flourished under the British. Fifteen years later, the Chinese officials who are having trouble running Hong Kong might want to give it a read.

The Brits created a relatively incorrupt and competent civil service to run the city day-to-day. Mr. Davies’ countrymen might not appreciate his description of them: “They take enormous satisfaction in minutes, protocol, proper channels, precedents, even in the red tape that binds up their files inside the neat cubby holes within their registries.” But at least slavish adherence to bureaucratic procedure helped to create respect for the rule of law and prevented abuses of power.

Above the civil servants sat the career-grade officials appointed from London. These nabobs were often arrogant, affecting a contempt for journalists and other “unhelpful” critics. But they did respond to public opinion as transmitted through the newspapers and other channels.

Part of the reason was that Hong Kong officials were accountable to a democratically elected government in Britain sensitive to accusations of mismanaging a colony. But local officials often disobeyed London when it was in the local interest—for this reason frustrated Colonial Office mandarins sometimes dubbed the city “The Republic of Hong Kong.” For many decades it boasted a higher standard of governance than the mother country.

Mr. Davies nailed the real reason Hong Kong officials were so driven to excel: “Precisely because they were aware of their own anachronism, the questionable legitimacy of an alien, non-elected government they strove not to alienate the population. Their nervousness made them sensitive.”

The communists claim that the European powers stripped their colonies of natural resources and used them as captive markets for their manufacturers. But Hong Kong, devoid of resources other than refugees from communism, attracted investment and built up light industry to export back to Britain. And as for taking back the profits, Mr. Davies noted, “No British company here would have been mad enough to have repatriated its profits back to heavily-taxed, regularly devaluing Britain.”

Most expatriate officials retired to Blighty, so they were less tempted to do favors for the local business elite. The government rewarded them with pensions and OBEs. A Lands Department bureaucrat didn’t have to worry whether his child would be able to find employment in Hong Kong if a decision went against the largest property developer.

Contrast all this with Hong Kong post-handover. The government is still not democratic, but now it is accountable only to a highly corrupt and abusive single-party state. The first chief executive, Tung Chee Hwa, and Beijing’s favorite to take the post next month, Henry Tang, are both members of the Shanghainese business elite that moved to the city after 1949. The civil service is localized.

Many consequences flow from these changes, several of which involve land, which is all leased from the government. Real estate development and appreciation is the biggest source of wealth in Hong Kong, a major source of public revenue and also the source of most discontent.

In recent years, the Lands Department has made “mistakes” in negotiating leases that have allowed developers to make billions of Hong Kong dollars in extra profit. Several high-level officials have also left to work for the developers. This has bred public cynicism that Hong Kong is sinking into crony capitalism.

This helps explain why the public is so upset with Mr. Tang for illegally adding 2,400 square feet of extra floor space to his house. Likewise Michael Suen, now the secretary for education, failed to heed a 2006 order from the Lands Department to dismantle an illegal addition to his home. His offense was arguably worse, since he was secretary for housing, planning and lands at the time.

In both cases the issue is not just a matter of zoning and safety; illegal additions cheat the government out of revenue. But it’s unlikely Mr. Tang will face prosecution because nobody above or below him is independent enough to demand accountability. So now there is one set of rules for the public and another for the business and political elites.

Under the British, Hong Kong had the best of both worlds, the protections of democracy and the efficiency of all-powerful but nervous administrators imported from London. Now it has the worst of both worlds, an increasingly corrupt and feckless local ruling class backstopped by an authoritarian regime. The only good news is that the media remains free to expose scandals, but one has to wonder for how much longer.

Hong Kong’s Chinese rulers have been slow to realize that, to paraphrase Lampedusa, the only way to keep Hong Kong the same is to accept change. It is no longer a city of refugees happy to accept rule by outsiders. And democracy is the only system that can match the hybrid form of political accountability enjoyed under the British.

Mr. Davies ended his appraisal of colonialism’s faults and virtues thus: “I only hope and trust that a local Chinese will never draw a future British visitor aside and whisper to him that Hong Kong was better ruled by the foreign devils.” Fifteen years later, that sentiment is becoming common.