Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Army applying new areas of math

johndcook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 154 posts

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#61

Post by stevenjohns »

geoka9 wrote: post #45
noobermin wrote: post #44

To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings. The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endle…

> I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something. Personally, I don't understand this, but I'm from an ex-Eastern Bloc country which I was all too happy to escape. I'd rather the US (and the rest of the Western world) made bombs than only Russia and China did. Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force i…

> Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force is a much nicer alternative to a Russian one.

In this case you're only speaking for yourself.

Most Asians, from the Middle East through to the South East, would kindly disagree.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#62

Post by jlarocco »

austincheney wrote: post #58
noobermin wrote: post #44

To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings. The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endle…

Your post is very puzzling. You, on one hand, sound exceptionally well educated but on the other hand describe a social circle that seems exceedingly ignorant or uninformed. Knowing the profound disconnect why would that make you embarrassed?

That's not a very charitable response. Obviously the OP's social circle will know better than that because they know him (or her) and what they actually work on.

Among the general public there's a real stereotype about DOD work. When I mention to strangers that I work for a defense contractor, they more often than not assume I'm working on bombs or something like that. Not every time, but often enough that I'm used to explaining that I only work on mapping software.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#63

Post by asdffdsa »

bshipp wrote: post #47
geoka9 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something. Personally, I don't understand this, but I'm from an ex-Eastern Bloc country which I was all too happy to escape. I'd rather the US (and the rest of the Western world) made bombs than only Russia and China did. Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force i…

Having a military is kind of like having house insurance. you wish you didn't have to spend the money on it, you hope you never have to actually use it, but it would be very irresponsible not to have it.

ie we spend a third of all our tax revenue on housing insurance

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#64

Post by chadcmulligan »

wenc wrote: post #3

I wonder if there's anyone here working on Homotopy Type Theory that can explain what it is, and how it is used in modeling? I skimmed the PDF of the book but am drawing blank as to its connection to an application. Perhaps it's used for verification of concepts, similar to how formal methods in CS (e.g. TLA+) are used to conceptually check algorithms?

This is interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9RiR9AcXeE a bit of the history and why it was needed.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#65

Post by salty_biscuits »

ska wrote: post #48
salty_biscuits wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how worried you are about rigorous proofs. You can happily hand wave your way to some approximation in Applied Maths land (because you need the result, not that you are trying to prove that it is true). Then you can spend the next bit of time relaxing various assumptions about your approximation and see where it takes you. A lot of new tools come from thinking deeply about roadblocks to applied problems, that sor…

You still need rigorous proofs at the end, if you are trying anything new. I think I would look at it more as you might try an ugly/practical approximation, or add a term, or whatever just to see if it will improve things. And maybe it gets you "close enough" for the application. But if you have a deep think about where you are stuck and come up with a new tool, then you have to be careful.

We call them "physicists" :)

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#66

Post by throwaaaway1231 »

geoka9 wrote: post #45
noobermin wrote: post #44

To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings. The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endle…

> I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something. Personally, I don't understand this, but I'm from an ex-Eastern Bloc country which I was all too happy to escape. I'd rather the US (and the rest of the Western world) made bombs than only Russia and China did. Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force i…

As someone who also is a military researcher, I may be able to help. I have worked on things that if the USA went to war, I know that I have directly contributed to that war.

I truly hate that my research will contribute to killing. I wish that it wasn't necessary. But as events like Crimea annexation and the South China Sea shows, if the USA is not there, then other nations are very happy to use their might to boss others around. I truly do think the USA is a force for good, and I want that to be there for my following generations.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#67

Post by reificator »

jlarocco wrote: post #62
austincheney wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post is very puzzling. You, on one hand, sound exceptionally well educated but on the other hand describe a social circle that seems exceedingly ignorant or uninformed. Knowing the profound disconnect why would that make you embarrassed?

That's not a very charitable response. Obviously the OP's social circle will know better than that because they know him (or her) and what they actually work on. Among the general public there's a real stereotype about DOD work. When I mention to strangers that I work for a defense contractor, they more often than not assume I'm working on bombs or something like that. Not every time, but often enough that I'm used t…

> they more often than not assume I'm working on bombs

> I only work on mapping software

In fairness, those maps are likely used to ensure the bombs go where they should.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#68

Post by throwaaaway1231 »

austincheney wrote: post #58
noobermin wrote: post #44

To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings. The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endle…

Your post is very puzzling. You, on one hand, sound exceptionally well educated but on the other hand describe a social circle that seems exceedingly ignorant or uninformed. Knowing the profound disconnect why would that make you embarrassed?

I spent two years of my life working on a technology I really hope is never used.

I think it's very hard to think about making a technology you know is to killing someone. But at the same time, you know it is necessary. You really wish the world you live in would mean there's no reason to. But that isn't the world you live in.

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#69

Post by AnimalMuppet »

reificator wrote: post #67
jlarocco wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a very charitable response. Obviously the OP's social circle will know better than that because they know him (or her) and what they actually work on. Among the general public there's a real stereotype about DOD work. When I mention to strangers that I work for a defense contractor, they more often than not assume I'm working on bombs or something like that. Not every time, but often enough that I'm used t…

> they more often than not assume I'm working on bombs > I only work on mapping software In fairness, those maps are likely used to ensure the bombs go where they should.

Better that they go where they should, than that they go where they shouldn't. The more accurate the mapping, the smaller the bomb can be, and the less collateral damage (presuming that the targeting information is correct).

Re: US Army applying new areas of math

#70

Post by throwaaaway1231 »

acct1771 wrote: post #51
bshipp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a military is kind of like having house insurance. you wish you didn't have to spend the money on it, you hope you never have to actually use it, but it would be very irresponsible not to have it.

As long as you realize everyone feels that exact way.

Everyone does, we know.
Post reply on HN