|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Aug 1, 2008 08:35
>>> InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from the
>>> solver’s expertise, the
>>> : more likely they were to solve it,” often by applying specialized
>>> knowledge or
>>> : instruments developed for another purpose.
Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning the breakthrough the
more dissimilar the fields.
It's kind of like splicing fruit or cross breeding species. There
comes a point when it ain't gonna happen.
The number of advances probably increases as the fields become more
similar, at least to a point. The only problem is that the advances
aren't as great.
Fast nickel v slow dime optimization problem.
The N. A. of Sciences needs to develop some kind of units of
"distance" between two fields, say chemistry to physics is one "ID",
to generate all kinds of statistical data, plots of breakthroughs v ID
etc.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
|
| | 34 Comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Aug 1, 2008 11:38
Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote
>>>>> InnoCentive found that
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Brian WhatcottBrian Whatcott Date: Aug 1, 2008 17:43
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 04:38:21 +1000, "Rod Speed"
gmail.com> wrote:
///>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
>
>Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning breakthrus
>of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity, evolution, working out
>what DNA is about, the invention of the transistor, or the integrated circuit,
>or radio, or TV or photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
Not so sure - James Watt was an instrument maker at Glasgow University
before coming to Birmingham to work with Bolton on the stunning
condenser steam engine.
Faraday was a bookbinder's apprentice, before moving to the Royal
Institution - but way before that, I think it was a physician who came
up with the sulphur ball on a spindle method of powering an electric
telegraph.. Wasn't evolutionary genetics worked out by a monk?
Photography - that was a bitumen on glass method initially, if I
recall....
|
| Show full article (1.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Aug 1, 2008 19:34
Brian Whatcott sbcglobal.net> wrote> Rod Speed gmail.com> wrote>>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
>> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning
>> breakthrus of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity,
>> evolution, working out what DNA is about, the invention of
>> the transistor, or the integrated circuit, or radio, or TV or
>> photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
> Not so sure - James Watt was an instrument maker
> at Glasgow University before coming to Birmingham
> to work with Bolton on the stunning condenser steam engine.
Doesnt qualify as 'the more dissimilar the fields' and toy steam engines
had been around for a hell of a long time before they were ever used
for something practical like pumping in a mine, and its hardly surprising
that an instrument maker would have been aware of toy steam engines.
Tho I guess you could claim that that particular one does involve rather
different fields since instrument making and mining are quite different fields.
> Faraday was a bookbinder's apprentice, before moving to the Royal Institution
|
| Show full article (2.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Aug 1, 2008 19:58
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:34:17 +1000, "Rod Speed" gmail.com> wrote:
>Brian Whatcott sbcglobal.net> wrote>> Rod Speed gmail.com> wrote>
>>>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>>>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields...
|
| Show full article (2.56Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John LarkinJohn Larkin Date: Aug 1, 2008 20:15
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:35:49 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:
>>>> InnoCentive found that the further the problem was from the
>>>> solvers expertise, the
>>>> : more likely they were to solve it, often by applying specialized
>>>> knowledge or
>>>>...
|
| Show full article (1.12Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Aug 1, 2008 21:23
Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote> Rod Speed gmail.com> wrote>> Brian Whatcott sbcglobal.net> wrote>>> Rod Speed gmail.com> wrote>>>>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>>>>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
>>>> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning
>>>> breakthrus of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity,
>>>> evolution, working out what DNA is about, the invention of
>>>> the transistor, or the integrated circuit, or radio, or TV or
>>>> photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
>>> Not so sure - James Watt was an instrument maker
>>> at Glasgow University before coming to Birmingham
>>> to work with Bolton on the stunning condenser steam engine.
>> Doesnt qualify as 'the more dissimilar the fields' and toy steam engines
>> had been around for a hell of a long time before they were ever used
>> for something practical like pumping in a mine, and its hardly surprising
>> that an instrument maker would have been aware of toy steam engines.
|
| Show full article (2.75Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Aug 1, 2008 21:26
John Larkin highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:35:49 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
> aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> InnoCentive found that "the further the problem was from the
>>>>> solver's expertise, the
>>>>>> more likely they were to solve it," often by applying
>>>>>> specialized knowledge or instruments developed for another
>>>>>> purpose.
>>
>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning the breakthrough
>> the more dissimilar the fields.
>>
>> It's kind of like splicing fruit or cross breeding species. There
>> comes a point when it ain't gonna happen.
>>
>> The number of advances probably increases as the fields become more
>> similar, at least to a point. The only problem is that the advances
>> aren't as great.
>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.55Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Aug 1, 2008 23:11
>>>>>> InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from the solver’s
>>>>>> expertise, the more likely they were to solve it,” often by applying
>>>>>> specialized knowledge or instruments developed for another purpose.
>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning breakthrus
> of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity, evolution, working out
> what DNA is about, the invention of the transistor, or the integrated circuit,
> or radio, or TV or photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
We need the backgrounds of them inventors.
Bret Cahil
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Aug 1, 2008 23:15
Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> InnoCentive found that
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
