tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105279.post109677635181761643..comments2023-09-20T08:05:59.423-05:00Comments on Pseudo-random Thoughts: Selecting a Research AreaNitishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07554352128342702471noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105279.post-1098784421394740412004-10-26T04:53:00.000-05:002004-10-26T04:53:00.000-05:00And the Arun-posting-comments deluge continues...
...And the Arun-posting-comments deluge continues...<br /><br />I think the professors shouldn't be trying to "attract" students to their field so hard...if the desitre to work in that field comes to the person naturally, it's worth a *lot* more. But some amount of "nudeging" does help every once in a while.<br /><br />And congratulations...you've been nominated for the Be-Pestered-By-Arun-For-Admission-Related-Info second time in 2 years. This time for the Applications-To-The-US category. :DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105279.post-1098302603161243012004-10-20T15:03:00.000-05:002004-10-20T15:03:00.000-05:00David, I don't know how I forgot to respond to you...David, I don't know how I forgot to respond to your comment. You're right about an exciting confluence of beauty and impact in areas like theoretical cryptography. One of my friends, Sambit Nayak, (currently at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore) is interested in this area because he loves complexity theory <I>and</I> number theory. (Incidentally, I think he reads aporetic fairly often.)<br /><br />I had heard that Americans weren't particularly interested in theory, too, though I don't know how true this is. The UIUC theory students that I've met are <I>all</I> American. Anecdotal evidence, but I wonder...Nitishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07554352128342702471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105279.post-1098301450683335222004-10-20T14:44:00.000-05:002004-10-20T14:44:00.000-05:00Since you bring it up, the presentation didn't hap...Since you bring it up, the presentation didn't happen. For whatever reason, the faculty member who was meant to give the presentation couldn't make it. Prof. Harandi (our graduate programs director for off-campus readers) said that he would try to arrange another theory presenation, but it was <I>very</I> unlikely. Sad, but it can't be helped. I didn't particularly want to mention it, so I was hoping no-one would ask.<br /><br />As a personal statement, <I>I</I> think theoretical CS is beautiful, which is why I would love to spend my life studying it. A lack of fashion, relevance, impact, practicality, fame, fortune, and/or the ability to pay the rent doesn't alter that, though I'm constantly being criticised for impracticality when I say things like this. God bless my parents, though, who've never once said anything reproachful on the subject.<br /><br />Perhaps I'm being unrealistic, but I wish more people were motivated by similar reasons. I guess that's a little presumptuous of me, though; who am I to comment on other people's motivations?<br /><br />I'm intrigued by your last statement, Prof. Erickson. Do you mean that most good research has only a short term impact, if any? It's always possible that in a few years, someone will design a better algorithm or an improved system, and relegate the original work to musty archives. Still, perhaps the original work inspired others to take up the problem, or suggested the new approach the improved version took. It <I>was</I> of value, then, if only for a while. Or am I misunderstanding that comment?<br /><br />NitishNitishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07554352128342702471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105279.post-1097553412458568142004-10-11T22:56:00.001-05:002004-10-11T22:56:00.001-05:00forgot to sign last comment... -David Molnarforgot to sign last comment... -David MolnarAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105279.post-1097553384331501412004-10-11T22:56:00.000-05:002004-10-11T22:56:00.000-05:00Sometimes beauty and "impact" coincide. One of the...Sometimes beauty and "impact" coincide. One of the reasons I like theoretical cryptography is that it addresses fundamental practical questions (e.g. "what is a secure cryptosystem, really?") with the tools of complexity theory. The answers it comes up with are non-obvious and actually beautiful in their audacity and simplicity. Then there's the unexpected applications, like secure multiparty computation, which sound absolutely impossible when you first hear of them. So the two aren't mutually exclusive.<br /><br />As to why the faculty are using the "impact" and "relevance" to sell their research areas -- maybe they believe that's what it takes to get students. I remember talking to a theorist a long time ago and mentioning I was interested in the theory of cryptography. "That's funny," he said, "most Americans aren't interested in theory." I bet if you go talk to some of these people independently, they'll give you the other side of the story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105279.post-1096983707980900322004-10-05T08:41:00.000-05:002004-10-05T08:41:00.000-05:00Nitish agree on all the issues you had with those ...Nitish agree on all the issues you had with those seminars. I get the feeling though that you maybe making too much out of what they say. I think the professors are justified in quoting the validity of their work because most fields are not necessarily "pure" research. Somehow research has taken a whole new meaning now-a-days and I guess being at an American University gives you a better picture of that. Funding has a lot to do with it. There is a professor of mine who doesn't go around looking for money because he says almost all the donors expect him the compromise on his research. He gave us a simple statement:<br /><br />Money=Research.<br /><br />If you have the money you must be doing research. Why else would you have the money? And more the money you have better the research.<br />:)<br />I am sure there exist a few professors who do it for the love of the subject and nothing else. This professor at NC State is a good example. <br /><br />I think the thing is the people giving those seminars didn't put in half as much thought into what they were saying as you did. I guess they didn't know Nitish John Korula was there :). Maybe I should let them know.The Tobacconisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10912183908493366214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105279.post-1096869390402883182004-10-04T00:56:00.000-05:002004-10-04T00:56:00.000-05:00Faraz, you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, we ...Faraz, you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, we live in the real world where funding is a requirement for research (though theoretical Computer Scientists are luckier than most in not needing huge equipment budgets). On the other hand, this could be a good thing because it discourages pointless abstract work. To be funded, your work must either provide short-term benefits or be fundamental enough to generate new insights which will be useful in the long term. Of course, far more industries and organisations are willing to fund the former kind of research than the latter. Sad, but true.<br /><br />Another thing I have to agree with is that as long as there aren't good jobs available in India for students of math, physics and other sciences, talented people won't enter these fields. I hope that the situation is rectified soon.<br /><br />While we're on the subject, here's something else I was considering quoting: John von Neumann wrote, in the first paper of his collected works, "As a mathematical discipline travels far from its empirical source, or still more, if it is a second and third generation only indirectly inspired by ideas coming from reality', it is beset with very grave dangers. It becomes more and more purely aestheticising, more and more purely l'art pour l'art. This need not be bad, if the field is surrounded by correlated subjects, which still have closer empirical connections, or if the discipline is under the influence of men with an exceptionally well-developed taste. But there is grave danger that the subject will develop along the line of least resistance, that the stream, so far from its source, will separate into a multitude of insignificant branches, and that the discipline will become a disorganised mass of details and complexities. In other words, at a great distance from its empirical source, or after much `abstract' inbreeding, a mathematical subject is in danger of degeneration."Nitishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07554352128342702471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105279.post-1096868578358344052004-10-04T00:42:00.000-05:002004-10-04T00:42:00.000-05:00Yeah, that's a popular and interesting area. An od...Yeah, that's a popular and interesting area. An odd coincidence; I very recently re-read <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zyvex.com%2Fnanotech%2Ffeynman.html">this classic talk</A> by Richard Feynman: There's Plenty of Room at the BottomNitishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07554352128342702471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105279.post-1096867879792908742004-10-04T00:31:00.000-05:002004-10-04T00:31:00.000-05:00Hey, asking that "what good research does not have...Hey, asking that "what good research does not have an impact?" question really got me thinking. I'm guessing the slow move to Neural Networks and somesort of Nano tech is the direction to go.Davhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05107296278955345744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105279.post-1096867168239639762004-10-04T00:19:00.000-05:002004-10-04T00:19:00.000-05:00One major issue would obviously be funding. When y...One major issue would obviously be funding. When you work on something which eventually enters the industry, you end up creating wealth and jobs, which in turn, (is the only way besides state sponsorship) helps you mobilise funds and resources for your research. So naturally you should expect that the source of these funds would determine the direction of future research to some extent. <br /><br />I couldn't agree with you more, actually. Unfortunately, industry demand has a huge impact on research, just as it does on students' choice of majors. I remember when I was in my XII, I came across a few books by Russian authors (I think Mir publishers) including "General Methods for Solving Physics Problems" (B.S. Belikov, if I remember correctly). It made me fall in love with physics and I was sure I could spend my whole life reading and appreciating the subject. Something similar happened after I read (parts of) calculus books by I.A. Maron and Piskunov. They were all theory, with very few problems, but you could appreciate the sheer beauty of mathematics. <br /><br />But then, you know, how many would opt to do a BSc. in Physics and Maths. ? I certainly don't see it happening in India, where there are few prospects for such scientists, besides a handful of CSIR labs and Govt. funded research institutes(DRDO, ISRO, etc).<br /><br />Of course there are exceptions, and we know a few of them were there in Pilani, but then such people are hard to come by. Hats off to them, anyway.<br /><br />FH.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com