Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

portefeuille (99.44)

Ellipsis

Recs

3

June 05, 2009 – Comments (14)

have a look at comments #9,10 here.

if you want to classify your skills, go ahead.

14 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 05, 2009 at 9:11 PM, portefeuille (99.44) wrote:

mathematics/physics: 6-7

economics: 8-9

Report this comment
#2) On June 05, 2009 at 9:17 PM, portefeuille (99.44) wrote:

Class 0.5 was given only to Einstein. Put into class 1 were Bohr, Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, de Broglie, Feynman. I have undoubtedly forgotten several names, but, of course, I will not supplement this list in the way I see it. I remember Pauli being put to class 1.5. Landau himself was placed in his own classification, as far as I remember, at first to class 2.5 and then to class 2. Once E. Lifshits told me that Landau had upgraded himself to class 1.5.

(from here

The classification continued to the rank of 5 for mundane physicists.

(from here (pdf))

change "mundane" to "pathetic" (maybe russiangambit can find that quotation and translate it for us)

Report this comment
#3) On June 05, 2009 at 10:54 PM, russiangambit (29.45) wrote:

> change "mundane" to "pathetic"

The word is "pathological". I am not sure what he meant. Someone who is compeltely useless but has a pathological need to study physics? lol. Yes, that would be pathological.

Apparently, Landau classified everything. He has a classification of women, which is far more popular -  strikingly beautiful, pretty, endearing, average, and the ones that might scare a horse. Report this comment
#4) On June 05, 2009 at 11:06 PM, portefeuille (99.44) wrote:

> change "mundane" to "pathetic"

The word is "pathological". I am not sure what he meant. Someone who is compeltely useless but has a pathological need to study physics? lol. Yes, that would be pathological.

Apparently, Landau classified everything. He has a classification of women, which is far more popular -  strikingly beautiful, pretty, endearing, average, and the ones that might scare a horse.

yes to all of the above. thank you for translating. Now that I see it I remember that it is "pathologisch" in the German translation.

I enjoyed reading those last 10 or so pages of the "mechanics" volume that describe him and his life.

I think it is in the German edition but not in the English one.

Would you like to rate yourself?

Report this comment
#5) On June 05, 2009 at 11:21 PM, ChrisGraley (30.30) wrote:

Surely someone with your intelligence can see the flaws in subjectively assigning such a ranking.

Why does this classification seem interesting to me? First, it refutes the legends about Landau's immodesty and conceit. Secondly, it is important that he put an emphasis on the record of accomplishments, achievements.

I would think it reinforces his immodesty and conceit. Not just the fact that he felt he could objectively rate himself against his peers, but the fact that he upgraded his own ranking at least once and maybe twice.

You can't objectively rate a person's accomplishments. For instance, Einstein worked on developing nuclear weapons. Is this a good thing for the world or a bad thing?

Report this comment
#6) On June 05, 2009 at 11:34 PM, portefeuille (99.44) wrote:

For instance, Einstein worked on developing nuclear weapons. Is this a good thing for the world or a bad thing?

----------------------

Concerned scientists, many of them refugees from European anti-Semitism in the U.S., recognized the danger of German scientists developing an atomic bomb based on the newly discovered phenomena of nuclear fission. In 1939, the Hungarian émigré Leó Szilárd, having failed to arouse U.S. government interest on his own, worked with Einstein to write a letter to U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which Einstein signed, urging U.S. development of such a weapon. In August 1939, Roosevelt received the Einstein-Szilárd letter and authorized secret research into the harnessing of nuclear fission for military purposes.

By 1942 this effort had become the Manhattan Project, the largest secret scientific endeavor undertaken up to that time. By late 1945, the U.S. had developed operational nuclear weapons, and used them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Einstein himself did not play a role in the development of the atomic bomb other than signing the letter. He did help the United States Navy with some unrelated theoretical questions it was working on during the war.

----------------------

(from wikipedia, see here)

Report this comment
#7) On June 05, 2009 at 11:45 PM, portefeuille (99.44) wrote:

I would think it reinforces his immodesty and conceit. Not just the fact that he felt he could objectively rate himself against his peers, but the fact that he upgraded his own ranking at least once and maybe twice.

He writes that "it refutes the legends about Landau's immodesty and conceit" because most physicists who knew him would have probably given him a (much) higher rating than he did. He is probably one of the "top10" theoretical physicists of the last century. Whatever that means ...

Report this comment
#8) On June 06, 2009 at 12:45 AM, russiangambit (29.45) wrote:

> Would you like to rate yourself?

Well, I am certainly not 5 since I don't have an obcession with physics. Even though my first profession was math (applied to physics) and I went to the Moscow State University where all these famious russian physists and mathematicians worked at one time or another and I used their textbooks and some of my professors were half-crazy genuises, now I remember hardly anything. After the USSR collapsed (I was working on the phd at the time) I realized that I would probably expire from hunger before I finish the said phd, since nobody wanted to hire mathematicians. So, I quit the post-grad and went to work in IT, and never  used physics ever since. Therefore , my score is probably negative ten.  -))

Since then I also got business and finance degrees in the US. But strangely enough I don't feel any wiser for having them. For all the decisions I simply use common sense, and there are a few things in modern economics and finance were common sense doesn't apply.  The only thing that these degrees are really useful is that when something doesn't make sense when it comes to investing or economics, I don't write it off on my luck of knowledge , but I confidently assume that it really doesn't make sense.

Report this comment
#9) On June 06, 2009 at 12:53 AM, portefeuille (99.44) wrote:

okay. sounds good. see, I knew there was intelligence out there somewhere ...

Report this comment
#10) On June 06, 2009 at 3:08 AM, portefeuille (99.44) wrote:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24

Report this comment
#11) On June 06, 2009 at 3:09 AM, portefeuille (99.44) wrote:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24

Report this comment
#12) On June 06, 2009 at 1:13 PM, foolsMeThrice (99.61) wrote:

how can you forget gellman?  The classifier of classifiers.

Report this comment
#13) On June 06, 2009 at 3:41 PM, portefeuille (99.44) wrote:

how can you forget gellman?  The classifier of classifiers.

first: it is gell-man (joke!). then: I do copy&paste usually with little added value. you just added value. thank you.

Report this comment
#14) On June 06, 2009 at 3:46 PM, portefeuille (99.44) wrote:

The #11,#12 error is due to the google/youtube vs. "music industry" battle.

I was forced to pretend to be not "outside the U.S." (via "hotspot shield") and after hitting the "post your comment" button some hotspot shield page followed. this induced some confusion on my part and it was early morning here (by my standards at least. it was 9:08/9:09 a.m. over here), so please forgive me ...

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement