ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ย. 2013
- In an exploration of this year's University of Washington's Common Book, "The Meaning of it All" by Richard Feynman, guest lecturer Persi Diaconis, mathematician and magician, discusses the connections between his work and Feynman's physics. What are the physics of coin tossing? What does it mean to be random? How can we use randomness to understand the world around us and how do you make decisions in the face of uncertainty? In this enlightening talk, Diaconis exposes how mathematical thinking makes the world come alive and how simple questions can unravel what we thought we knew.
This dude is a hero. I stood up and started clapping and cheering in front of my computer screen when he brought up how he beat the roulette wheel.
everybody that on a glance of a deck of cards sees ANYTHINGclose to him,knows who Persi is.A legend.Steve Forte,Richard Turner,Persi,legends.
Most Exalted High Priest of Nerdy Passions
Persi Warren Diaconis es un matemático americano especializado en coincidencias y mago, de ascendencia griega. Es el profesor de estadística y matemáticas de la universidad de Stanford.
overhead projector? what year was this?
Says 2013, clearly he is old school and doesn't have much of a budget, but still an interesting subject.
Badass.. like Penrose!
I also like what Seth Lloyd has to say. That PowerPoint is a tool created by business people to convince other business people of things that aren't true and has no place in science
subtitule
Ceres hasn't been reclassified as a planet, though. It's a dwarf planet, same as Pluto.
RFC3514 It was promoted to dwarf planet (it was classified as an asteroid before) in 2006 because of the new categorization of celestial bodies.But is true that is not a planet. I guess he get the news wrong (and he probably don't care too much about astronomy, lol).
Jose Luis Rodriguez Hence "Ceres hasn't been reclassified as a planet", as I wrote above. Forgive me for not posting the full record of Ceres' astronomical classifications. :-P At this point we might as well add that it was classified as a planet in January 1801 (after its discovery), and demoted about fifty years later.
BTW, "asteroid" isn't really a well-defined astronomical classification, and is non-exclusive, so it's fine to describe Ceres as both a dwarf planet _and_ an asteroid.
And as a South-African town, I guess. ;-)
RFC3514 I was just pointing out that there was a reclassification indeed, but not the one that he say. I think i was trying to make sense of his error (and some conversation).
I didn´t know you where so sensitive to comments. Sorry about that.
of course he is talking about climate change science
Flipping a coin is 'physics' and not random? The mere fact that you are forced to use the real number system to mathematically resolve physics equations should be sufficient proof. You don't have to seek out the minor flaws in experiments that can't possibly encompass all of the influential elements of the universe in a given space and time to 'see' this. You don't have to 'search' for randomness; it is not only all around you, but it is also within you and floods the very pathways of your thinking. You don't have to be physicist to understand that, just open to reality. It's unfortunate that the most learned of our species mistake the subtlety of randomness in their thoughts as proof that they have discovered the secrets of the universe. Your book should be titled, "The Randomness of the Universe, Duh."
+Brian Tumor
TL;DR, everything is mathematically imperfect. No such thing as "perfect plumber square."
> You don't have to be physicist to understand that
No, but it helps to be a physicist if you want to test things that 'everybody knows' and occasionally discover that reality and human intuition don't always intersect.
> It's unfortunate that the most learned of our species mistake the subtlety of randomness in their thoughts as proof that they have discovered the secrets of the universe.
It's not particularly fortunate that laypeople who don't know much of anything about a subject assume that the learned must be idiots because the learned don't see things that are 'obvious' to people who have spent all of three minutes thinking about the subject.
It is usually a rather huge mistake to assume that an expert on a subject hasn't already asked the first question that pops into the head of any random passerby.
B.Tumour.....and you're saying this because ? Daft as a brush, sunbeam.
u dont know shit about math or physics.
Clearly you missed the part where he made a coin flipping machine that consistently applied the same force to the coin every time, and as a result the coin landed heads every time. So no coin flips are not inherently random, they are governed by physics causality, it is the input variables that create uncertainty.