3 ms·

I get annoyed reading fluff like this. I used to work as a researcher and noticed a lemming like tendency for scientists to flock to the same stuff. It usuall

by raffi 17y ago

I get annoyed reading fluff like this. I used to work as a researcher and noticed a lemming like tendency for scientists to flock to the same stuff. It usually isn't until someone discovers something potentially disruptive (or the people who have money latch onto new buzz words) that the flocking changes. I can agree that each field has problems of interest. I'm a computer scientist but I have no interest in trying to solve P=NP. Sure the prominent problems of interest would have useful results to society if solved. However, who is to say that new problems of interest or mental shifts aren't out there. Beckoning to be found. Stretching the field (or individual researcher) is valuable.

grandalf 17y ago
Are you working on anything to enhance the field of computer science itself? Or using your comp-sci knowledge to work in some applied area?
- raffi 17y ago
  Yes.
hhm 17y ago
I think you need to read the full article, which is really good: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/%7Erobins/YouAndYourResearch.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/%7Erobins/YouAndYourResearch.html He talks about Nobel Prize-level research, and justifies what he says with a lot of examples of researchers he worked with, who won Nobel Prizes or similar awards. The original article is really not fluff.
raganwald 17y ago
I don't get annoyed reading responses like yours, nor am I nettled my the thought that my post was fluff. Of course it is fluff. Possibly even chaff or lint. That being said, I am not clear on what you are saying about trying to solve P=NP. While this is important, there are a lot of important things to solve and nowhere in my post or in Hamming's original discussion is there the suggestion that importance is judged by popularity. I think it is entirely possible for a lone researcher to work on something that does not interest anyone else, and should you ask why she has chosen that work, she answers that it is an important open problem in the field. So I am suggesting that a dedication to working on important open problems is not necessarily equivalent to following everyone else. People who lie to follow, follow. People who like solitude and adventure strike out in new directions. Either way, the questions retain their importance, IMO.
- raffi 17y ago
  I read the post as "what are the important problems? Go solve them!" for some value of important problems. I further read this as the value of important problems is defined by others. I filled in my own blanks there (most likely). Although I think I saw something about "problems of my field" that helped me reach this conclusion. I'm just making sure those who strike out in new directions are represented.
  - raganwald 17y ago
    * I'm just making sure those who strike out in new directions are represented.* Strongly agree. Miles Davis revolutionalized Jazz five times. Four of those times, he walked away from what he himself had popularized to strike out in a new direction.
beza1e1 17y ago
Well some people think P=NP is important, some don't. That's why i asked around some time ago. http://focs.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/the-most-important-problem-in-computer-science/ http://focs.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/the-most-important-prob...

by raffi 17y ago

grandalf 17y ago

Are you working on anything to enhance the field of computer science itself? Or using your comp-sci knowledge to work in some applied area?

raffi 17y ago
Yes.

hhm 17y ago

I think you need to read the full article, which is really good: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/%7Erobins/YouAndYourResearch.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/%7Erobins/YouAndYourResearch.html He talks about Nobel Prize-level research, and justifies what he says with a lot of examples of researchers he worked with, who won Nobel Prizes or similar awards. The original article is really not fluff.

raganwald 17y ago

I don't get annoyed reading responses like yours, nor am I nettled my the thought that my post was fluff. Of course it is fluff. Possibly even chaff or lint. That being said, I am not clear on what you are saying about trying to solve P=NP. While this is important, there are a lot of important things to solve and nowhere in my post or in Hamming's original discussion is there the suggestion that importance is judged by popularity. I think it is entirely possible for a lone researcher to work on something that does not interest anyone else, and should you ask why she has chosen that work, she answers that it is an important open problem in the field. So I am suggesting that a dedication to working on important open problems is not necessarily equivalent to following everyone else. People who lie to follow, follow. People who like solitude and adventure strike out in new directions. Either way, the questions retain their importance, IMO.

raffi 17y ago
I read the post as "what are the important problems? Go solve them!" for some value of important problems. I further read this as the value of important problems is defined by others. I filled in my own blanks there (most likely). Although I think I saw something about "problems of my field" that helped me reach this conclusion. I'm just making sure those who strike out in new directions are represented.
- raganwald 17y ago
  * I'm just making sure those who strike out in new directions are represented.* Strongly agree. Miles Davis revolutionalized Jazz five times. Four of those times, he walked away from what he himself had popularized to strike out in a new direction.

beza1e1 17y ago

Well some people think P=NP is important, some don't. That's why i asked around some time ago. http://focs.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/the-most-important-problem-in-computer-science/ http://focs.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/the-most-important-prob...