May 10, 2012 said that; “why nice people are so cold. because there is some ice in being nice.” It also said a Feynman Joke. Its a made-up joke. Incidentally, the day it was said, was one-day before Feynman’s Birth Day. May 11, (1918). “What day is today? Thursday. Na, its D-day. Richard Feynman (Dick) joke. One day Richard Feynman was sitting by a table in a burger King. There was another group of people sitting by the table nearby. Feynman takes a tennis ball and rolls it slowly to the other table. A lady picks that ball and returns it to Feynman saying “Sir, is this your ball?”. Feynman says “it could be but not that big”.
Feynman
The Feynman’s maths for rating cuisine.
Feynman and his beautiful mind was just an amazement of brilliance.
My Understanding of this marvelous insight.
you don’t have to grasp the maths behind something to see what people are calling to be brilliant. (of-course maths can be wrong and that’s where many can focus)
Check this out; D = √2(M+1) – 1
Feynman and Ralph calculated this, they used to go to a restaurant (in Pasadena?) together. They found that if you are to go to a restaurant lets say 10 times (in a month lets say) then how many times you can take an un-rated meal before you try only the best-rated of the meals to be able to claim after the 10 meals “I have always had the meals in a way I have the best-average rating of meals”
( if such rating are available, but you don’t know the rating, and there is only a maximum number of meals available in the eatery, then let that number be N, N numbers of meals you can ever try, each, one time)
you can call that a mathematical arrogance, (N = 10 in this example) Feynman and Ralph say you can take at best D = sqrt (2x(10+1)) – 1 = about 4 un-rated meals and rest of the meals you have to chose with caution, to keep your meal ratings average highest. Since there are 10 meals you can only go to restaurant at most 10 times.
Of-course you can make number of meals 100, then the number of time you can try un-rated or unknown rated meals is correspondingly larger still giving you a biggest possible average of “best rated” foods.
Such a statistical principle is also applicable to seeking brides/grroms. LOL, that’s my idea. How many times you can chose to try the next un-rated bride/groom?
On 2nd thoughts, one can also apply such a formula to any kind of candidate selection as long as the same set of candidate shows up for each evaluation. Its a rating method. eg one can use this to rate the best rating for a pool of politicians also.
Mandela, Feynman, Statistics, Science and Religion.
Mandela and Feynman were born the same year. 1918. But while Feynman passed away in 1988, Mandela this year, it gives Mandela 25 more years to live (about 95 years old, Mandela). Thats a nearly 25% difference. What makes such wide disparity in how long people live?
On afterthoughts, (from this) statistics is a way of hiding our ignorance by allowing more and more attributes into a particular question, to the level our ignorance is no more useless. Thats the difference between science and religion: statistics. Statistics is the difference between science and religion. Religion brushes everything with one broom. Science needs various sizes for various tasks. In the end there is a difference even if its not so visible.
read more Mandela, Feynman, Statistics, Science and Religion.
L. Susskind on Feynman. (vs Gellman on Feynman)
Rather than the venom Murray Gellman was spewing on Feynman, this talk by L. Susskind is very balanced. It does not heap a load of self-created baloney about the personality of someone else because you don’t like them or you want to exhibit your pretension that you don’t. So much for being a scientist, luminaries can be utterly dishonest, as in the case of Gellman. Gellman was actually trying to promote himself by badmouthing on the popularity of Feynman, a trait to be found till date among those who can’t even grasp what Feynman was.
But Susskind’s video here shows in much more acceptable and honest way what Feynman was really a scientist like. He (Susskind) describes a fellow scientist in much more vivid, sentimental, sensitive, befitting of honor, humorous way, his own experiences of Feynman, rather than the venomous and resentment-struck self-wishful description given by Gellman with whom (Gellman) Feynman was professionally and personally close. Gellman’s video can be googled.
Wolfram and Feynman, Why Feynman was meticulous ?
Stephen Wolfram on Feynman; (Dr. Wolfram is in in my FB friend list, I am not tagging him, lets see if he finds us talking through him, about Feynman) (Wolfram) You’re a great speaker; what are you worrying about?” He (Feynman) said, “Yes, everyone thinks I’m a great speaker. So that means they expect more from me.” And in fact, sometimes it was those throwaway conference talks that have ended up being some of Feynman’s most popular pieces. On nanotechnology. Or foundations of quantum theory. Or other things.
