wannabe

引用:

原帖由 chefung 於 2009-7-14 01:57 PM 發表


Different mindsets, hard to compare.
Engineers are focused on hardware/design/fabrication/products

If you argue like that, theoretical physicist are the most smart people in the world
A lot  ...

how so?
bill gates is not? warren buffett is not either?

[ 本帖最後由 wannabe 於 2009-7-14 02:31 PM 編輯 ]

futfuk

引用:

原帖由 wannabe 於 2009-7-14 02:24 PM 發表


no i can't help ... i just wanna tease you :smile_47:
you are so cute

i wanna taste you too...... i mean.. uh... tease...

chefung

引用:

原帖由 futfuk 於 2009-7-14 02:28 PM 發表


seasoned professional could be fun too... they're more practical and knowledgeable in the applications....
but usually a chinese female is a recipe for disaster.... usually....

Yeah
A bit unorganized and speak whatever in the slides...
Then I simply downloaded the slides and read myself

chefung

引用:

原帖由 wannabe 於 2009-7-14 02:29 PM 發表


how so?

First, you need to understand why FF has his argument first

futfuk

引用:

原帖由 chefung 於 2009-7-14 02:29 PM 發表

Not in physics
Infinity = good in calculation
Like
Integrate from a to b ( exp(x^2) ) dx

It's hard when a and b are finite numbers
If it's infinity, that's the beloved square root Pi with som ...

i........... have no idea. XD

chefung

引用:

原帖由 wannabe 於 2009-7-14 02:29 PM 發表


how so?
bill gates is not? warren buffett is not either?

Smart <> rich
No doubt they are smart, but not the one we are referring

In terms of IQ index, I guess math and physics average is the highest
But then, math and physics mindsets are a bit off

Physics is more like applied mathematics in physical world
Economics ( micro probably, not sure macro ) is like applied mathematics in econ world

[ 本帖最後由 chefung 於 2009-7-14 02:37 PM 編輯 ]

chefung

引用:

原帖由 futfuk 於 2009-7-14 02:31 PM 發表


i........... have no idea. XD

We always use infinity
It's a good check on physical insight on ones answer as infinity is easier to "pictured"

I guess EE students will get that easily, like tuning frequency to 0 or infinity, etc
I don't quite know Civil Eng students well though

futfuk

引用:

原帖由 wannabe 於 2009-7-14 02:29 PM 發表


how so?
bill gates is not? warren buffett is not either?

not the same kind of smart, i guess.

bill gate's smart in copying other people, warren buffett is smart in reading companies and value invest.

but those academics that we're talking about are usually so knowledgeable in their field... they know all the proofs and stuff inside out, and those brightest ones, can come up with out of the box ideas that no one ever thought of before... (like john nash for game theory)

futfuk

引用:

原帖由 chefung 於 2009-7-14 02:34 PM 發表

We always use infinity
It's a good check on physical insight on ones answer as infinity is easier to "pictured"

I guess EE students will get that easily, like tuning frequency to 0 or infinity,  ...

civil? nah. everything finite. just multiply everything to a safety factor of 1.5 or so (depends on the scenario and material), and u're good to go

chefung

引用:

原帖由 futfuk 於 2009-7-14 02:35 PM 發表


civil? nah. everything finite. just multiply everything to a safety factor of 1.5 or so (depends on the scenario and material), and u're good to go

That's for practical class
how's theory?