Michigan State University students had an unconventional math class this week after professor John McCarthy, 57, reportedly stripped naked in Calculus 1 class and began screaming that “there is no f—ing God” and “It’s all an act and none of it’s real.” In the age of laptop computers, the most surprising thing is that the students noticed and looked up from their computers. Presumably one student asked the standard question of “will this be on the test?”
Witnesses said that McCarthy was going through a routine derivative equation when he started to talk about his colleagues and how “they’re all actors.” He added that “It’s all an act and none of it’s real.”
McCarthy was arrested but not actually charged with a crime. He can certainly be charged with indecent exposure but I hope that he is not and that the police show a modicum of discretion. He obviously had a psychological meltdown. Brilliance sometimes comes with such mental issues as vividly shown in movies like “A Beautiful Mind.”
I would also hope that the faculty treats this matter as a mental illness and allows McCarthy to seek treatment rather than simply fire him. I realize it will be difficult for him to return to the classroom, but we need to treat mental illness like other forms of illness. Thus far the school has merely reassigned his classes. I expect that he is unlikely to return to teaching but in my view the school should treat this matter as an illness rather than misconduct. What do you think?
Source: NY Daily News
@sonofthunderboanerges: The device I heard of in the late 70’s was a real (like CIA) spy camera, but the lens was tiny and had been scratched. Pictures taken with the damaged lens were recovered using this technology. It is not adaptive optics, where the lens changes. This was a lens of hard glass and was returned to a lab. By shining a laser through it, you can find for each point on the surface of the lens where the light striking that point will land on the film. If the lens is damaged, then light can be scattered on the film, or show up in the wrong place on the film. But by going point by point, at a resolution smaller than the grain of the film, one can “unravel” the damage computationally so the already-taken photograph can be digitized and then “corrected.”
We can do a similar thing with satellite lenses; basically create a synthetically perfect lens by laser mapping the lens before the satellite is launched.
In all fairness Tony, Slarti hasn’t finished making his case yet by his own admission.
Your call of “ass missed” is premature.
When both cases are fully made, then we can get around to awarding the ass kickings or missings.
@Tony C – Did you know that “Ducky in NCIS” is Illya Kuryakin (David McCallum) from The Man from U.N.C.L.E. a TV spy series in the 1960’s?
BTW the real NCIS does not do espionage nor spy-hunter investigations for the US Navy. That is the job of their ONI. Hollywood screwed up on that one. The C in NCIS stands for “Criminal”. Same goes for the TV show NCIS: Los Angeles. Chris O’Donnell’s character (G. Callen) makes no sense as to his character’s past employment. That would be a career move in the WRONG direction.
@Mike: Kevin was not kicking my ass, he was trying to kick my ass and he missed.
I have been in several businesses as an active investor (meaning I was involved in management), I have run a national business, I have a run a division of a public company.
I use calculus routinely; I took Calculus I,II,III and differential equations as an undergrad, and aced them all (I know, because I also finished with a 4.0 GPA.) I would wager I know enough about calculus to know whether it is used in business problems, and it just is not. I have known about two dozen successful CEOs, the two that were still competent in calculus were one architect and one electrical engineer. The rest would struggle with high school algebra.
That is because business is primarily about people and some basic arithmetic that can be solved with a spreadsheet, the vast majority of managers in businesses (and I have known probably over a hundred managers) get confused by high school algebra.
Of course, I do NOT consider solving an engineering problem or physics problem to be solving a “business” problem, maybe Slart does. But then “business calculus” would just be regular “calculus,” wouldn’t it?
@Tony C – My favorite magic in those things is the magic of infinite camera resolution; zooming down to what would be a single pixel in an image (a reflection of a reflection) and getting a full moving video. That, plus “infinite video enhancement” that somehow invents information and takes a blur and produces a photograph of a face, or a fingerprint.
Yes you are right. But in all fairness to Hollywood I have used a website to correct blur in a photo. It uses the same deconvolution technology principle of the ESA astronomy software to despeckle and correct blur. It’s called http://www.focusmagic.com/ How about that “MAGIC” – (LOL)
BTW – it’s free to try…
@Tony C – Although, for real science, there is a cool spy technology of mapping a a camera lens by shining a microthin laser through it, the results of which can be used to transform a picture taken with that lens into one taken with a ‘perfect’ lens. That really can undo blurs, but it requires the original lens, and unlike the suspense building 20 minutes it takes on TV, applying the sharpening transformation takes about half a second.)
This sounds like AO (adaptive-optics) speculated back in 1953 by Horace W. Babcock. Then in 1970-80’s was prototyped due to availability of lasers and smaller more powerful computers. It was used to augment our spy satellites photos on the Russians in Cold War period. When it was declassified in the 1990’s the astronomy community took hold of it to help resolve telescope resolution and photos. Now I guess any number of defense contractors and quasi-Q-Branches (govt) are playing around with it too.
Do you have any more background on the device you mentioned?
So far the coolest spy-gadget I have heard about is the microwave device which can aim at a human target and reflect audio back from your larynx, skull, or teeth. It can be done from behind walls, etc. Quite noisy though as it picks up all bodily function noises. See http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/mil/inter/index.html This guy is into this stuff and probably used to work for u-know-who… (Joe Loritz ham sign N9ZIA)
Hey, Jill, You can add any topic here and be on-topic! A thread made especially for us but I’m too tired to appreciate it fully.
@Slarti: The deconstruction of fiction (and science fiction in particular) is kind of a hobby of mine; to the point that I have an entire shelf of books on the gritty mechanics of scripts, books, characters, etc.
So I wouldn’t say Seldon was a wizard, per se. Science fiction is about possible science, and (in my view) applied science is pretty much all about making accurate predictions, wouldn’t you say? Chemistry is knowing what will happen when A oxidizes B, physics is similar, neurology is similar, sociology is similar, mechanical engineering and genetics are trying to figure out the ramifications of various things and relationships. If you are involved in protein folding, then you are doing the same, trying to make an accurate prediction.
So fictionally speaking and in my opinion, Seldon is not presented as a wizard, but as an extreme scientist that made a breakthrough leap in the science of sociology, comparable to leaping from pre-Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics.
That is not true of all so-called science fiction, most of that is just magic hiding behind a facade of “geek speak.” If you look at the old series “Heroes”, or the new incarnation “Alphas,” both pretend that the magical powers of their characters depend upon some mysterious “genetics.” That might be okay for a few of the powers; a genetic change might imbue somebody with orangutan strength, a bloodhound’s sense of smell, a hawk’s eyesight, or even the infrared vision of many animals. But it isn’t going to let you defy gravity, perform telekineses, or control electronics with your mind, most of those powers are just plain magic (at least genetically speaking).
I think we could say the same thing about the majority of “forensics” on TV or movies these days, in story terms they are just the wise wizards that divine important truths for the physical action heroes in just the nick of time. (See Angela in Bones, Abby or Ducky in NCIS). But divination is no longer an acceptable shtick, you need the facade of scientific excuse. Nevertheless, they are just the same old plot device of the wise old man in the cave, telling our hero the monster’s weakness or the critical fact that lets them be victorious.
My favorite magic in those things is the magic of infinite camera resolution; zooming down to what would be a single pixel in an image (a reflection of a reflection) and getting a full moving video. That, plus “infinite video enhancement” that somehow invents information and takes a blur and produces a photograph of a face, or a fingerprint.
(Although, for real science, there is a cool spy technology of mapping a a camera lens by shining a microthin laser through it, the results of which can be used to transform a picture taken with that lens into one taken with a ‘perfect’ lens. That really can undo blurs, but it requires the original lens, and unlike the suspense building 20 minutes it takes on TV, applying the sharpening transformation takes about half a second.)
Among many of his books, I also have “Six Easy Pieces”, Feynman’s introductory lectures on physics on CD. He wasn’t just a brilliant physicist. He was a brilliant teacher.
Feynman was the MAN!
Re: Slarti’s allusion to R.P. Feynma but addressed to ALL
I think this YouTube video about the late Dr. Richard P. Feyman (a physics & math magician) will intrigue many of you. It’s 54 minutes long so sit back with a cup of coffee and enjoy this man explaining stuff to laymen on PBS’ TV show NOVA. Very interesting:
@Matt Johnson – Your link to http://adventofdeception.com/denver-international-airport-new-world-order baffles me. Was it an attempt to show how “tin-hats” don’t really work to block those guberment’ microwaves coming from underground alien bases Denver Int’l Airport (just kiddin’!)? Really dude I didn’t “get it”. (I’m not big on poorly researched consp theories, NWO, UFO’s, and E.T. aliens ya’ know. Why? Probably ’cause “I kinda’ know where the bodies are buried” – just an common American expression now…)
@Mike Spindell – OK I know you don’t have a PhD and Otteray Scribe and others here do (I got that!) But allow me my personal delusions. With all of your bona-fides you must realize that I’m enamored with your accomplishments as I am with others here. I know we don’t agree 100% on things but we come damn close. I think we would make great drinkin’ buddies at the local pub. Same goes for a bunch of ya’ here. Said in a Foster Brooks inebriated voice: “Mikey ol’ boy… yer’ all raght’ buddy… (belch)” (LOL)
BTW – Men Staring at Goats was again LOOSELY based on the life and times of Major General Albert “Bert” N. Stubblebine III. He was big at physic warriors and super soldiers that could go “invisible”*. He was at NSA for a while where they were/are entertaining this garbage (probably in the basement of the puzzle palace?). He actually thought he could walk through walls.
*If only he waited for the advent of optical metamaterials and active camouflage (perfected at UNC recently) he would have seen “science’s” method of optical invisibility. Except the US Army tank commanders can’t walk through walls with it. Here’s a clip of one in action: http://tinyurl.com/8jlhz2g
And you’ll really get a kick out of this one:
Tony,
What you said about layman is well taken and I want to be clear that although I disagree with your opinion I think it is an honest one and you are certainly entitled to it (and I’m entitled to voice my disagreement with it). Matt, on the hand, called me a liar and then behaved like an ass. There’s a semantic problem with our definition of “model” that I think accounts for much of the rest—I’ll post a comment a little later and see if I can explain (and clarify what I disagree with you on and what I don’t).
My comments about magic and math were, to me, an interesting perspective on the discussion you and Mike were having and the Tolkien paraphrase was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, not arrogant.
So, in that context, while you’re waiting for my comment, I have a question for you (and everyone else): Was Hari Seldon (inventor of psychohistory in Asimov’s Foundation series) a wizard? Asimov certainly used him in a lot of wizardly tropes. He was able to use his mysterious knowledge of the universe to do amazing things that no one but a handful of acolytes could understand. Few wizards have even attempted something on the scale of shaping the evolution of a galactic empire. Just sayin’… 😉
raff,
Sorry, but Tony came back with a good argument and I’ve got to show why I don’t think it’s correct (except where I think it is). That’s gonna require some math… or at least talking about math. remember your happy thought 😉
[[[Gene, put me down for the “under” on how long it takes for raff to go up in flames. 😛 ]]]
SoTB,
I think we would enjoy each other’s company accompanied by some alcohol and there are more than a few others here who would create an interesting dynamic of perception as well. A symposium of eclectic thought.
Slarti,
To continue this OT debacle in which I share equal guilt, with the cows already disappeared through the proverbial barn door, I’ve never been a fan of The Foundation series. Hari Selden indeed was of the wizard trope and so his role required what was too much a suspension of belief for me. Great mind that he was Asimov could also be quite pompous and self satisfied. I think he saw himself in Selden and invested him with a seer’s insight. I heard Asimov once on an all- night talk show in NYC in the late 50’s. He was on a panel with Fred Pohl and Lester Del Rey who were also brilliant men. While giving him deference that he apparently needed, they were far more interesting and less pontifical than Asimov. That being said I’ve read and enjoyed a good percetage of his work.
Personally I just enjoy watching you two go at it. I’m on the phone with Vegas to see the odds on who makes raff catch on fire first.
@Mike: And pray tell, what makes you think you can TELL if I am outdrawn if you do not even understand the conversation? I am not outdrawn at all, you just do not like me because I too often disagree with your magical thinking.
Tony,
Sometimes making a point via playfulness, is lost on you. I may not know calculus but I can understand the parameters of a discussion. Besides I was the Budget Director for a multi-billion dollar sub-agency in NYC and can handle myself around numbers. I also was on the cutting edge in the revolution that occurred with Baseball statistics twenty years before “Moneyball”. Kevin was kicking your ass and he has the smarts and credentials to do it. I think it is wise not to challenge someone in their area of expertise, unless you can similar expertise and I don’t think you can. Now in truth the point I was making was in line with Henmam’s observations on the off topic trend on this thread, but since I like and respect you three I was trying to have a light touch, which apparently got lost in mis-translation.
@Slart: Robustness is defined as “the ability of a [system] to resist change without adapting its initial stable configuration”
Where? I have used Rousseeuw’s work, and although I do not have his books at hand (I am at home) his definition is much closer to “an insensitivity to outliers and a high breakdown point.”
Here is a quote from the Wiki page on Robust Statistics, which comports well with Rousseeuw’s own descriptions:
Robust statistics seeks to provide methods that emulate popular statistical methods, but which are not unduly affected by outliers or other small departures from model assumptions. In statistics, classical estimation methods rely heavily on assumptions which are often not met in practice. In particular, it is often assumed that the data errors are normally distributed, at least approximately, or that the central limit theorem can be relied on to produce normally distributed estimates. Unfortunately, when there are outliers in the data, classical estimators often have very poor performance, when judged using the breakdown point and the influence function, described below.
Here is more on the Backward Error (and backward stability) as applied to linear algebra.
From your description, I would guess this is what you are working on; algorithms that have some degree of parametric stability (or equivalently, insensitivity to parametric perturbation). Ultimately that means it has a low backward error.
Mike,
At a certain level you’ll get no argument from me on math. I love it conceptually, but I always found working it a tedious exercise.
bettykath-
You are correct about the meandering nature of this comment section, and, by the way, you left out “science fiction” and “who’s the best James Bond?”. What I take away from all of this is that I will never again feel the slightest twinge of conscience when I go off-topic.
With all due respect to Kevin, Gene and Tony who doesn’t quit even when outdrawn. MATH…….LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa.
However, I did get through to trigonometry in HS, Business Statistics in College and Social Work Statistics in Grad School. With the latter my 38 on the final earned me a B+ on the curve.
Oh yeah, here comes a story.
Time is about 1985 and my kid is about 7, 8 years old and we have a little get-together and one of the invited guests is a young man about 30 who recently returned to college and my son is a friend of his and admires him. The young man reports that his classes are going well but he is struggling mightily with Algebra. I quote Fran Lebowitz with attribution from her “Advice to High School Students” routine, and tell him, “Don’t worry. In the REAL world there IS nothing called Algebra.” He looks at me deadpan and says, “Yes there is; I have a whole BOOK on it.” My son pipes up, “Hey Steve, I have a whole book on unicorns!”