“Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem.”

 

According to the title statement, the speaker asserts that scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society and just pursue their individual interests.  As in my opinion, this assert must be considered in two facets – scholars and researchers who works in academic field and those who works in utilize field, and, if doing so, it may gained a total different conclusion.

 

G.H.Hardy, a prominent English mathematician, preferred his work to be considering “pure mathematics”. He made several famous statements, one of the most famous statements is”I have never done anything ‘useful’. No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world.” However, aside from formulating the Hardy-Weinberg principle in population genetics, his famous work on integer partitions with his collaborator Ramanujan, known as the Hardy-Ramanujan asymptotic formula, has been widely applied in physics to find quantum partition functions of atomic nuclei and to derive thermodynamic functions of non-interacting Bose-Einstein systems. Though Hardy wanted his maths to be “pure” and devoid of any application, much of his work has found applications in other branches of science.

 

According to the example above, we can conclude that those who work in academic fields may have the freedom just to pursue their individual interests. In fact, in academic field, most theory is put forward without the intent that these theories aim at makes a contribution to the larger society.  ‘What is the use of an infant? ” Dr. Franklin says to such.

 

However, in contrast, the scholars and researchers who works for the utilize field has not hold the freedom. They must concern what the outer society need and if the work they do has the practicality, and if not, the research work is useless.

 

For example, during the World War II, many scholars and researchers took part in a project named “The Manhattan project”, which is now be known as to develop atomic weapon. Those who attend the project is work for the U.S military, and their work is to follow the reasonable step to design a A-bomb. Everybody must be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the project. In fact, during war time, each science project must consider its utility, because the Nazi’s scientists were doing the same thing at the same time. If ally’s research dropped behind, they may be in hot water and be in passive phase.

 

In addition, even in the peacetime, scholars and researchers who work for the corporation may consider their work’s practicability. Obviously, the manager of a develop group must provide its production to the company, not the just the theory.  In most companies, even the most talent designer must limit by the rule, they cannot design the production without consider the cost.

 

There are still several other aspects relevant to the issue under discussion, which, unfortunately, I have no time to explore in detail.  But the above-discussed reasons should to a large extent justify my claim that scholars and researchers who works in utilize field must concern with their work whether contribute large society, and those who works for the academic does not.

第一遍写的不小心给弄丢了,又写了第二遍 太累了 肯定很多错误懒得查了 先睡了

终于结束了历时4天的美国大学生数学建模竞赛。参加数学建模大赛是一次对脑力体力的双重挑战,曾经和孔芳芳多丽娅一起参加的电工杯比赛就让我感受到了这一点(http://user.qzone.qq.com/631739906?ptlang=2052)。

这次和我一起参加比赛的是理科实验班的袁荣昌和理学院数学系的师兄卜浪。我们选择参加MCM/ICM中的ICM比赛,ICM是对交叉学科的数学建模。这次的题目是对在菲律宾Bolinao地区的一处珊瑚礁海域进行生态环境建模,我们需要通过模型来描述该地区大力推广饲养的Milkfish对当地水质产生的恶劣影响以及由水质恶化所引发的一系列问题。并且需要通过我们的模型能够计算并提供一种对该地区养殖业的改进方法以及预期收益等。

在题目公布前,我就一直在猜测今年到底会出什么样子的题目,并祈祷千万不要出类似经济危机这种包含“经济”这种字眼的题目。还好,这次这道生态系统的题目很符合我的胃口,在读到题的时候我就很想把这个问题深入的研究下。而且多年的养动物的经历让我对水,对生物,对生态平衡有了初步的概念和自己的一套理论(当然,很可能是错误的 ..)。

第一天,我们的工作大概就是弄清题意,寻找资料,理清思路。比较令人头疼的一件事情就是从纷繁复杂的资料中挑出有用的部分——要是中文资料的话,我们这些生长在信息时代的青年同志混迹于因特网多年,已经磨练出一套一目十行的阅读习惯(主要是网上的废话太多了),可惜我们所找到的资料大部分是严谨的英文论文,这种东西扫一遍和没扫基本没有什么区别,事实上,在第一天对我们帮助最大的还是网上的那些中文资料,还是母语比较亲切。我们遇到的困难主要是如何利用题目中所给的一些很专业的数据指标(比如水体中固体有机碳颗粒的含量POC,溶解有机碳的含量DOC)和我们建立的食物链平衡模型之间建立联系。

第二天,我们就开始建模了。我们开始对题目中的各个数值进行比对并且做回归分析。为了找到更多的数据,我们又继续开始阅读英文论文。我发现,那些令我头大的英文论文里面提供的信息对于我们建模非常的重要,于是还得静下心来仔细阅读每一篇论文,这里要特别要感谢下我的金山词霸兄弟呵呵,要没有它,那十多篇论文还真不知道什么时候才能读完。感慨一下:学好英语真的很重要,大量的有用的最新的信息还都是英文。每当我被这些论文折磨的怨念值满点的时候,我都要这么想——“我这是在提前准备GRE阅读/...../..我这是在提前准备GRE阅读”然后也就释然了。袁荣昌说的很对,这时候谁读的论文多,谁就会离胜利更进一步。特别一提的是,今天袁荣昌的公式撰写能力给我留下了深刻的印象。

第三天,开始疯狂的赶制论文,袁荣昌和卜浪分析讨论后,袁荣昌每隔一段时间,就会产出大量的公式,此时卜浪负责检查,我则帮忙翻译下里面的中文,不过我的语法实在是不太好,翻译的时候碰到了很多问题,感觉英文论文的写作更像撰写G中Argument而不是issue。到了第四天的凌晨,我们的论文整体的架构终于搭建了出来。我和袁荣昌最后把题目中要求的写给印度洋海洋局的官员的information papaer和论文的摘要在凌晨4点写完,当然,是中文版的。

第四天,翻译,翻译,翻译。我和卜浪疯狂的翻译论文,袁荣昌很投入的在做计算。终于在下午的时候完成了大部分的工作。之后晚上的时候,我才发现有个Simile软件可以对进行生态链进行模拟。不过也发现的太晚了,不过我还是下载下来学着用了下。Simile图形化的界面很容易上手,我试着用它将我们建立的模型的前一部分进行了验证(后面那一部分验证起来太困难了,数学关系太复杂(而且袁荣昌和卜浪太强了..我的那点可怜的数学知识已经不够用了,当然线性代数部分还得赖那个Lxx)而且还有几个重要数据没有找到)。我们在晚上最后把我们的模型进行了最后的修改,之后便是一整夜的论文写作翻译以及修改。这一天是我这个寒假里第一次看到了日出:) 最后在7点多的时候完成了全部论文的撰写,转换为PDF,发往邮箱,刻录光盘,大功告成。

8点多一躺下就睡了,4天,熬下来还真的是很累。中午12点,体力刚刚恢复了一点就起来了,我们还要把我们那论文打印并寄到遥远的美国去。大家又集合在一起奔向浴室的打印室。31页打印出来拿在手里沉甸甸的,颇有成就感。之后我们又前往清华,在走过了半个清华园后终于在紫荆公寓的某个角落发现了UPS联邦快递。寄完后,又再次穿越半个清华园坐车回来。这时候我才想到我已经一天都没吃饭了,匆匆去肯德基填饱了肚子,回到宿舍就沉沉的睡去了。我们的ICM竞赛结束了。

最后毫不客气的自我总结下:相比较袁荣昌和卜浪师兄,我的水平还是差了很多。试想几年后的某天微软公司(YY一下)招聘的HR如果问我在这次竞赛中都做了些什么,那么诚实的我估计也就只能回答“帮助找了资料,翻译论文,验证了下公式”。不过值得安慰的是,这次没有拖全队的后腿,至少所有的任务基本上都完成了,我做不到的我已经都果断的说了“不”,毕竟,在这种争分夺秒的比赛中,最重要的一件事就是不要揽下自己做不了的事情。而且,袁荣昌实在是太强了,每次他一回去他的宿舍——闭关修炼,那么我们的数学模型的版本必然会增加1,最恐怖的是我一次小睡2小时之后,下床登陆FTP一看我们的模型论文居然升了两个版本,多了无数的公式.......

另:上次和孔芳芳多丽娅她们参加的比赛我就设想使用模拟退火算法,当时不大懂,之后也没有在留意这个算法。这次ICM准备的时候我其实已经把模拟退火的Java和C代码下载下来读过了,可惜水平实在有限,没有读懂...然后,这次的第一问果然最好的解法就是使用模拟退火。啊,为什么我之前就没有再花点时间搞懂它呢?!.....残念......看来我的电脑编程水平还真的是..哎,不说了,等我干掉GRE和TOFEL后一定要继续屠戮ACM的题了。

最后的最后:希望这次能够获个不错的奖,嘿嘿嘿嘿。

今天休息了一天,恢复过来了,明天继续GRE...如卜浪所说:ICM虽然痛苦,不过也就这短短4天,GRE才是最恐怖的,俗话说得好——长痛不如短痛..........离机考时间不多了...

整整4天,终于忙完了,好累啊....

 

 状态不好..感觉写起来很费劲啊..

 

TOPIC: ARGUMENT20 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Balmer Island Gazette.

 

"The population of Balmer Island increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the number of mopeds rented by each of the island's six moped and bicycle rental companies from 50 per day to 30 per day during the summer season. By limiting the number of rentals, the town council is sure to attain the 50 percent reduction in moped accidents that was achieved last year in the neighboring island of Torseau, when Torseau's town council enforced similar limits on moped rentals."

WORDS: 440          TIME: 00:50:37          DATE: 2009-2-5

 

In this argument, the arguer concludes that to reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the number of mopeds rented by each of the island's six moped and bicycle rental companies during the summer season. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that a neighboring island of Torseau, which its town council enforced similar limits on moped rentals, is sure to attain the 50 percent reduction in moped accidents. Yet, the argument contains several critical flaws. I will discuss each of these questionable facets in turn.

In the first place, the argument rests on the assumption that Balmer Island is similar to the Torseau Island in all respects. This assumption is weak, since although there are points of comparison between Blamer Island and Torseau Island, there is still much dissimilarity as well. It is possible that the neighboring island of Torseau is a mountainous island and has a bad traffic environment, and the possibility to the traffic accident is high. Blamer Island, differ from the Torseau Island, has a totally different traffic environment. If the above assumptions come into existence, the limitation to the number of mopeds rented may not have the same effect. In addition, the argument fails to indicate what the population of Torseau is. If the Torseau Island has a small amount of population, the number of moped accidents occurred in each year may present highly randomicity and cannot be used as evidence.

In the second place, even if I were conceded that the population and the traffic environment have no difference between these two islands. The result of the island of Torseau still cannot be taken into account. Because of the argument provide a yearly record of Torseau Island, not a record for the summer season. Perhaps during the summer season, the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians in Torseau Island does not reduce at all. Therefore, it is impossible to reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians by limiting the number of rentals during the summer season.

In the third place, even if I were conceded that the reduction in moped accidents is highly depends on the limitation to the number of mopeds. There is an uncertainty reduce proportion due to this argument. In other words, six moped and bicycle rental companies have a different rental amount. If the limit proportion distribute in no reason, it may not make effect.

In summary, the conclusion reached is invalid and misleading. To make this argument more convincing, the arguer would have provided more evidence and precise data due to the above analysis.

 终于可以凑出近500字了..可喜可贺

 

 

TOPIC: ARGUMENT186 - The following is a recommendation from the director of personnel to the president of Professional Printing Company.

 

"In a recent telephone survey of automobile factory workers, older employees were less likely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity. Among workers aged 18 to 29, 27 percent said that they are more productive in the presence of their immediate supervisor, compared to 12 percent for those aged 30 or over, and only 8 percent for those aged 50 or over. Clearly, if our printing company hires mainly older employees, we will increase productivity and save money because of the reduced need for supervisors."

WORDS: 473          TIME: 0:25:39          DATE: 2009-2-4

 

In this argument, the arguer concludes that if printing company hires mainly older employees, the company will increase productivity and save money because of the reduced need for supervisors. To support the conclusion, the arguer point out that due to a recent telephone survey of automobile factory workers, older employees were less likely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity. In addition, the arguer reasons that the more the age, the less the percent said that they are more productive in the presence of their immediate supervisor. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the argument rests on the assumption that automobile factory is similar to printing company in all respects. This assumption is weak, since although there are points of comparison between automobile factory and printing company, there is still much dissimilarity as well. It is possible that automobile factory may need the works have more skills than printing company and that is why the automobile factory needs older and skillful employees for higher productivity according to the survey. Printing company, however, may not need such high skillful workers, and it may be easy to training the newcomers. Thus, there give no reason for the printing company to hire older people.

Secondly, even if I were conceded that the automobile factory is similar to the printing company; I cannot conclude the above result. In fact, the arguer fails to indicate whether the older workers are more productive than the younger group. It has the possibility that younger workers may be more productive than the older ones when there is no supervisor. According to the above assumption, hiring younger people may increase productivity and save money.

Thirdly, the validity of the survey is also doubtful. The arguer fails to point out that how the survey was conducted, and the telephone survey, which differs from the regular ones, gives less reliability. Another problem that undermines the survey is that the reliability of the study rests on its statistical integrity.  The argument fails to indicate what the portion of the workers surveyed actually responded; the smaller this portion the less reliable the results. Nor does the argument indicate how many people were surveyed. Again, the smaller the sample the less reliable the results. In addition, the argument fails to indicate how many people in each age had taken part in the survey.

Finally, the arguer gives no interrelated data to show that if a supervisor present the productivity of workers is actually increase. Because the argument offers no evidence that would rule out these interpretation, the results of the survey are insufficient to support the conclusion.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence and interrelated data due to the above.