蒋玉骅

蒋玉骅
First Name	玉骅
Last Name	蒋
Wikipedia	no entry
wikidata	[[wikidata:{{{wikidata}}}|{{{wikidata}}}]]
Gender	Male
Birthday	2002-03-28
Still alive	TBD

This person's name is 玉骅 蒋.

Short Bio

TEEP 0, Xingjian College, Tsinghua University

Logic Model (认知基础2021学习规划_蒋玉骅) Template:LogicModel 10 19, 2021
Abstract Specification Context 在2021年清华大学的秋季学期，共有15周的清华大学课堂线上活动并且配有类似维基可以自己独立使用的PKC知识容器。 Goal 学习一套独立而正确的认知辩证方法，以求同存异的态度了解为各个学科所共有的认知方法，并学习使用检验与采集辩证过程数据的理论与相关工具 Success Criteria 1.阅读《The Structure of Sientific Revolution》 2.用template和hyperlink进行网页管理 3.搜集资料准备结题作业
Concrete Implementation Given Inputs When Process is executed... Then, we get Outputs 学习一套独立而正确的认知辩证方法，以求同存异的态度了解为各个学科所共有的认知方法，并学习使用检验与采集辩证过程数据的理论与相关工具 Personal Knowledge Container PKC PKC Workflow [1] Lecture Notes on Github Cognitive Foundation Trustworthy Networks[2] Reference Material 偏序集和范畴论的相关教学资料 香农的博士论文（An Algebra for Theoretical Genetics） 孟德尔、香农、沃森、克里克的相关资料 1.遗传学与课上所讲内容相联系的个人主页 2.遗传学再梳理 3.The Structrue of scientific revolution 读后感
Boundary/Safety Conditions of 认知基础2021学习规划_蒋玉骅 1.对维基使用不熟 2.对抽象代数、偏序集了解有限 3.latex语法不太熟 4.和同学们的交流有限

Basic Info

Name	蒋玉骅	Class	TEEP 0
Date of Birth	2002-03-28	Gender	Male
Institution	TEEP 0, Xingjian College, Tsinghua Univ.	E-mail	jiangyh20@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn

课程感悟

第二周：

 key-value pair 揭示了复杂网络系统工作原理的本质。用这样的方式去理解范式转换，就会发现科学革命实际就是key-value pair 的扩增与删减；不可通约性来自命名空间的不同。而这样的不可通约正是历代科学家致力于消除的，这就像科学家们企图寻找科学语言的“罗塞塔石碑”一样。以人工智能为例：微软近期就提出了深度学习框架的通用语言——repo1.0，他们希望通过构建这一深度学习框架“罗塞塔石碑”，让研究者们能够在不同框架之间轻松运用专业知识，并且实现不同开源社区之间的合作。如果这能实现，就可以创建一个跨语言对比的常用设置（Python、Julia、R），实现不同开源社区之间的合作。
 另外，我个人认为key-value pair也并非全无缺陷。尽管key-value式的查询方法有查询速度快、存放数据量大、支持高并发等等优点，但缺点也是显著的，那就是不能进行复杂的条件查询。甚至当这样的pair数量累计到了一定层次后，key本身的搜寻都极为不易，原本的key也变成了value，需要找到更高一阶的key与之对应才能解决这一问题。

第三周：

 课上的视频让我想到Paul Nurse的一句话：生命的深层结构指的是细胞或有机体这样的基本单元，它们能够自我繁殖，并允许微小的变异。繁殖与变异共同通过自然选择推动物种的演化，从而形成多样化的生物种群。它们不仅能够在变化的环境中存活，还能够利用新的机会。而那些成功适应环境的单元就能继续繁殖后代。
 类似的机制在不同的尺度上都发挥着作用，构成了众多关键生物过程的基础。一个复杂系统会有一些很小的东西组成，由这些很小的东西进行互动。胚胎从单细胞发育为成熟有机体的过程中，会经历好几个生长阶段（人类有几十个），每个都与前一个略有不同。最终，受精卵繁衍出各种不同的细胞，包括心脏、肝脏和脑部的细胞。
 这样的原理成为了冯·诺依曼一些设计的出发点。他曾精确地设计了一个被称为“通用复制器”的数学模型。它包括三个基本组成部分 ：机器A是一台可以根据指令整合资源并进行组装的机器 ；程序B能够指挥机器A ；主程序C可以指挥A来制造A+B+C。从技术上讲，它是一台元胞自动机，可以从周围随机散落的碎片中获取零件。原则上，根据他的设计，我们可以用现代技术造出一个3D打印与计算机的混合系统，它能够收集材料来制作你想要的东西或复制其自身。通过精心设计故意犯错的程序或宽松的质量控制，我们也能解锁生命的另一个秘密——变异。

第四周：

 Composition作为单子的反差，描述的是故事的结构，是复杂系统的总体。水波先分后合的这种形状的变化能够启发一个5岁的小孩（Ted Nelson），并促成他在数十年后创造改变世界的网络系统。所有语言只有4种领域：algebra, boolen,key-value,composition.这4种领域支撑起了复杂结构的所有信息。 用隐喻来明确如何进行超越学科的认知，这样不同学科之间也可以对比。通过命名可以加强人物地名的功能性设定。函数的对象是单个对象，函子对象是系统，自然转换则是比较比较的方法。在函数映射中一个单一的箭头可以分化成若干个压缩前的千丝万缕的箭头。在函子映射中，一个箭头包含了对元素的映射和对元素关系的映射。修订这样映射规则的过程，就是产生更新的范式。
 课程上我们讨论了这些问题：
 （1）函数：A是阿斗，B是刘备。那么A到B，阿斗和刘备的关系是什么。答:刘备是阿斗的爸爸，刘备把位置让给了阿斗。
 （2）函子：S为孙吴，T为曹营。比较S和T之间的关系：答: 孙吴系统犯下了曹魏系统犯过的错
 （3）自然转换：S为创业，T为统一大业，S到T的不同路径进行一下比较。答:从创业到统一或者把所有竞争者都干掉，或者是使用吞并的方法，把所有的敌人都变成自己的人。相互比较后发现，第二种方法更加的和谐。如：曹操使用挟天子以令诸侯的方法来实现统一大业，而其他的政治集团有的使用强行征战的方法，曹操的方法显得更加的阴险，而其他的政治集团的方法显得更加的光明正大。  
 范畴论：水平垂直两种截然不同的复合方式，horizental composition vertical composition。然后讲到了一个图，左边的图和右边图将保持相似的结构，自我感觉范畴论其实就是函数的相互映射，以及映射的映射。越到上层压缩性会变得越高，于是变得更加的抽象，可以使用越来越复杂的矩阵来将之进行运算。对于一个无限复杂的工程问题可以通过范畴论进行相应的化简。
 范畴论之中最为关键的思路是幺元，把所有的东西都放在矩阵之中进行运算，范畴论会被计算科学界用来作为一个编程的工具，范畴论将会被计算科学界用来简化计算的流程，如何才可以将一个复杂的系统进行简化，当所有的名词在人脑之中放不下的时候，我们可以使用范畴论，将他按照一定的方式进行排列整理，使用维基词典进行整理。

第五周：

 文字、会计法则、对称性、与认知能力的演进彼此相关。文字的发明来自记账的需求，知识的传承建立在可表达性上。文字、账目明细、可比对的结构或数据: 创造可重复表达现象的条件。数据的验证方法: 数据内容的差异性，内容的不可篡改性。最“小”的信息（可表达差异性的符号）单位是量子(Quantum)。命名空间的计量方式是枚举系统结构的方法。复式记账、会计平衡公式、逻辑结构的复合与拆解与近代数学与科学方法相关。这样的表达需要具备可靠性（soundness）和完备性（Completeness）。

科学革命的结构的读后感

Chapter 2

 Paradigms are theories created by one of the pre-paradigm schools. Though the author gives description rather than explanation of the arduous process of acquiring paradigms, we can conclude that when some theories are universally accepted, and can attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity, paradigms that prove able to guide the whole group’s research emerge all of a sudden.
 The emergence of a paradigm contributes to scientific inquiry in seven aspects. First, it makes both fact collection and theory articulation highly directed activities, so scientists no longer explore nature casually or at random. Second, it suggests which experiments will be worth performing so scientists are confident what they are studying is highly relevant. Third, the end of interschool debate ends the constant reiteration of fundamentals. The confidence that they are on the right track encouraged scientists to undertake more precise, esoteric, and consuming sorts of work. Fourth, it transforms a group previously interested merely in the study of nature into a profession or a discipline. Fifth, it marks the beginning of specific classification. Sixth, it creates advanced systems that improve effectiveness and efficiency, in particular, for esoteric work. Above all, it produces scientific community whose members push on to more concrete and recondite problems, and increasingly they report their results in articles addressed to other electricians.
 Ultimately, the emergence of a paradigm is invariably followed by a truth boom, as truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion.

Chapter 3

 Although paradigms have shown to be particularly revealing of the nature, the match between facts and theories is still imperfect, and scientists have to avoid approximations and obtain satisfactory agreements.
 To do this, they need to answer the following questions. First, how to conduct empirical works to articulate the paradigm? Second, what further explorations relative to theoretical works can they make to classify theoretical problems of normal science? Third, how to use existing theories to predict factual information of intrinsic value?
 All their efforts serve for the reformulation of a paradigm: to articulate the paradigm elegantly and logically in mathematics, which is both theoretical and experimental. The desire for acknowledgement and the ambition for fame ensure scientists to pursue the same goal. Driven by anthropic ultimate curiosity about the nature, they are committed to solve the problems after the acquisition of the paradigm. 
 The problems always exist, as a successful paradigm is not, however, to be either completely successful with a single problem or notably successful with any large number.

Chapter 4

  What are characteristics of normal science?
  Normal science shares paralleled characteristics with puzzle-solving. First, it offers challenging problems as puzzles that can test ingenuity or skill in solution and thus drive scientists on. Second, the criterion of these problems is the assured existence of a solution, but on the contrary, has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of their outcome. Third, these puzzles are invariably so attractive that scientists attack them with remarkable passion and devotion, holding the conviction that, if only they are skillful enough, they will succeed in solving a puzzle that no one before has solved or solved so well. It is very much the same thing as a child is immersed in solving crossword puzzles that may not give him any benefit.
  Above all, like puzzle-solving, normal science has rules. In the same way as all the pieces must be used before you solve a jigsaw puzzle, until certain conditions have been satisfied, no problem can be solved. Rules play the role of established viewpoint or preconception that bound the admissible solutions to theoretical problems. Under the influence of rules, scientists adopt the attitude that the results of their researches must fall into a narrow range that the paradigm restricts. As a child must obey rules in his games without fail, all these rules have undoubtedly held for scientists at all times.

Chapter 5

  We can account for the priority of paradigms in four aspects. First, rules are abstracted from their more global paradigms and deployed. However, the existence of a paradigm is independent on the existence of rules and need not even imply that any full set of rules exists.
  Second，paradigms can be determined easily, and they can determine normal science directly without the intervention of discoverable rules or assumptions. They are more binding and more complete when it comes to the definitions of basic concepts. Thanks to paradigms, we can understand what makes a particular problem or solution legitimate almost intuitively.
  Third, in the absence of rules, normal science can still proceed under the guidance of paradigms that direct research. As long as paradigms remain secure, however, they can function without agreement over rationalization or without any attempted rationalization at all.
  Fourth, Explicit rules, when they exist, are usually common to a very broad scientific group, but paradigms need not be. They are quite irrelevant and related to each other to a very limited extent, so they need not stand or fall tegother.
  In a nutshell, rules cannot exhaust all functions of paradigms and it is flexible and subject to change. While paradigms might be intangible and artificial, they have absolute dominance over rules.

Chapter 6

 I want to give my account of crisis at the close of a paradigm.
 The close of a paradigm is noncumulative as the threat it face is abruptly posed by a problem that the paradigm fails to solve. After all efforts to reconcile this problem with the paradigm are in vain, this novelty will be claimed incompatible with the basic assumptions of the paradigm. Crisis then occurs with destructive changes in beliefs about nature. Scientists pronounce their failure in saving the paradigm from breakdown, and feel obliged to desert it. A crisis is an occasion for retooling because the tools supplied by the original paradigm prove uncapable of solving all problems. 
 In my opinion, the use of “crisis” is reasonable in a second way. Scientists run the risk of being wrong when they persuade themselves to make the tough decision to convert their beliefs. Together with science, scientists themselves are passing through a grave crisis.

Chapter 7

 In this chapter, Kuhn discusses response to crisis.
 Kuhn first lists two reasons for doubting that scientists reject paradigms because confronted with anomalies. First is that scientists do not renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis while they consider alternatives and second is that they can actually devise numerous articulations to eliminate any apparent conflict.
 So why do scientists reject paradigms? He notes that to reject one paradigm goes hand in hand with substituting another. Scientists see puzzles as a source of crisis only when from another viewpoint. To make this possible, an anomaly must usually be more than just an anomaly. Kuhn applies a few examples to illustrate how the transition to crisis and to extraordinary science is evoked. 
 Kuhn claims two effects of crisis are universal and crisis are noncumulative. In the end, a transition from normal to extraordinary research results in scientific revolution, which, from my perspective, is the ultimate response to crisis.