A bit of snow

And the world grinds to a halt. More on this later.

The axiom of choice

The axiom of choice is incompatible with the axiom of determinacy.

The axiom of determinacy allows proof that ZF set theory is consistent.

The axiom of choice allows the creation of unmeasurable sets. There is no intuitive example of such a set, which is bad.

The axiom of choice allows the Banach–Tarski_paradox which is ridicululous until you remember that unmeasurable sets were ridiculous anyway.

The axiom of determinacy can be proved with infinite logic, which is cool.

So my vote would be against the axiom of choice. Sorry if that destroys your field but is there anything with a real application that requires the axiom of choice? Fourier analysis doesn't.

The joys of Wikipedia.

On H we shall stand or fall

Few professional groups in society have the privilege of self-assessment, but scientists in the UK have complained that the penta-yearly Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is too onerous. So it looks as if in future we shall be judged mainly on our H-index.

Better get publishing then.

The devil is in the detail

I've just taken a step back to write a brief summary of what I've done in the first year of this PhD thing, and what I hope to do before the end.

This exercise was all in the name of administrivia, so I decided to embrace it and had fun littering it with management buzzwords: "timewriting", "milestones", "progress review", "timescales", "project phases" and I even included a "gantt chart".

But actually it has left me reinvigorated (well perhaps that is a little strong) with what I'm trying to do. Amazingly I even felt inspired to start writing some thesis - it seems much more exciting than the devilish details which I have been fighting recently. These details have to be overcome, by nature of a PhD, but taking a step back helped me to remember that they are in the name of something bigger. I guess such details are what cause the second year blues.

I'm not quite sure why everyone in my department seems so vehemently disparaging of such management style stuff. In particular everyone hate progress reviews, transferable skills, professional development and free extra-disciplinary training courses. Whilst of course we all hate being forced to do extra things, some of them do serve a useful purpose, at least for me.

Lochearnhead

Went to Scotland at the weekend
Nice to get out again
and be reminded
that I do enjoy it
But the Munros aren't going anywhere
still a few left
no rush

The Sky Falls

That aint workin thats the way you do it;
Get your money for nothin get your chicks for free.


All that glisters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgment old,
Your answer had not been inscroll'd:
Fare you well; your suit is cold.
Cold, indeed; and labour lost:
Then, farewell, heat, and welcome, frost!
Portia, adieu. I have too grieved a heart
To take a tedious leave: thus losers part.

No, my PhD has nothing to with CERN

Actually it's more akin to the Met office.  But, like CERN, we do use lots of computers and magnets and make pretty pictures:

Dad told me yesterday that I need to develop the ability to explain my work to non specialists.  Since I think I have already learnt that, the problem must be that you have to catch me at the right time. Clearly the appropriate level is different for each individual.  This attempt starts at the scientific non specialist and progresses gradually upwards.  I have plans for a Fusion for the (interested) layman version which may be roughly based on some cartoons I drew for uncle Eddy a few weeks ago.

I'm still not sure how I feel about CERN.  As a fusion scientist it does seem like a lot of money for something with no foreseeable application.  Historically though the unforeseen applications have been some of the most interesting (like the silicon chip for quantum theory).  And as a Physicist is hard not to be interested to see what they will find.  Plus the BBC's excitement goes some way to negate the funding rivalry.  I don't resent the money they have - I just think we should have more. The space station on the other hand is another story.

Scientific megaprojects in today's money:

• CERN LHC: $5 Billion 
  
• ITER: $10 Billion
  
• Manhattan: $24 Billion
  
• Apollo: $135 Billion
  
• ISS: $157 Billion
  

I used to be a big fan of Human spaceflight, but looking at the figures it just seems like pure vanity - the science they do is minimal.  You could try to justify the cost from an exploration point of view, but then LEO is not exactly extending the frontier.  But of course I shall be watching when they do land a man on Mars.