A physicist’s anxiety nightmare.
From a dream-sequence in Coen Bros. 2009, A Serious Man. The only movie where Schroedinger’s Cat is knowledgeably introduced into a meditation on a man’s Job-like moral and existential quandaries. Really.
I have started a thread/query on what is shown on this image.
I’m not seeing the proper cartoon. I get a cartoon about a big ass-car.
Yes, and you don’t have to be really proficient – I can do it and I’m only a halfway decent pianist. I can play any unfamiliar piece you put in front of me with minimal errors provided it’s within my skill level (although I can’t play with the proper emotional feeling until I’ve heard or played it through a few times). To be honest, I’m surprised when people who can read music can’t do this. I did learn to read music around the same time I learned to read text (age 4), so maybe that’s why it comes easily to me.
Sorry if I sound like I’m bragging, but this is one of my few talents so… 
And this is a thread about long ass-equations. (assquations?)
They make your head assplode.
This. To you, the equation looks like 50 symbols, which is are impossible to take in all at once. But to the mathematician/physicist, they look at it and after a second or two can recognize this group of 20 symbols as the Plknoff function, and they know all about how the Plknoff function works, and those 12 symbols are just describing a six-dimensional sphere, and those 14 symbols are expressing a phase-change, and then there are four symbols tieing things together. So they’re seeing really three objects and how they relate, which is easy to take in and understand.
Which is just like any other expert in a field: the engineering looking at a complex blueprint and recognizing chunks of things that she can think about as one object, or a programmer seeing a chunk of code and recognizing a loop, etc.
According to Wiki, Arthur Rubinstein “held much of the repertoire, not simply that of the piano, in his formidable memory.[10] According to his memoirs, he learned César Franck’s Symphonic Variations while on a train en route to the concert, without the benefit of a piano, practicing passages in his lap”.
Which is exactly how an alphabet based written language works. To someone who can’t read English, your post is 812 symbols (characters). To someone who understands a little bit, it’s 146 symbols (words). To a fluent reader, it’s…oh, I don’t have a calculator for that, but phrases like “to you” are one symbol, and “after a second or two” is one symbol, and “how they relate” is one symbol, so the actual number of symbols we’re decoding is well under 100.
No, you got a cartoon about X-ass Y. See thread subject.
I’m no scientist, but I can easily fill whiteboards full of equations when we’re talking about how to analyze utility operations and energy trading. I have cell phone pics of a lot of these, because they definitely make sense just glancing at them.
Oh, now I get the gist. I thought I was going to see a cartoon about a long ass equation on a chalkboard.
How does one “nail” a piece of music (does that mean perform without error?) without having heard OR read it? Do you mean sight reading with no preparation? If so, the answer is yes. That’s what sight reading is.
Of the form (Gigantic mathematical expression for left buttcheek) = (Gigantic mathematical expression for right buttcheek) ?
It’s a problem-solving technique sometimes called “chunking”. You can’t hold the whole thing in your head at once because there’s just too many individual parts, so you group some related bits into larger chunks. You definitely can think about how five different chunks fit together, and that’s how the professor does it. It’s like a mechanic thinking about a car engine; she can’t visualize the whole engine, with every screw, nut, bolt, and thingamahoochie all at the same time; there are just too many parts. But by “chunking” a lot of those pieces together into larger parts like “clutch” and “cylinder” and “fuel pump”, she can visualize all of those parts together. Or consider how you read-- you probably don’t think about every individual letter of every word. That would take forever to puzzle out, and by the time you finish a sentence, you’d probably have to go back to the beginning and reread the sentence to figure what it said. But you don’t read that way; you divide those letters into word groupings, even whole phrases, and that way you can go much faster.
Brings to mind the story in Richard Feynman’s memoirs. He was sent to Tennessee during the Manhattan Project to verify their safety procedures for processing enriched uramium. Not equations, but someone shows him the piping diagram for the plant, one of those giant diagrams with symbols for all sorts of flow control parts.
They showed him the diagram and said “every part has a redundant counterpart so no single failure will cause the system to stop working”. He had no idea what he was looking at, so he decided to fake it. He wrote that he pointed to one symbol and said “Tell me how this is redundant”. He expected them to to say ‘oh, that’s the such-and-such valve’ or something, thus cluing him in that symbol was a valve or a pump or something.
A couple of the engineers started tracing and said, “Oh my God, it looks like that valve has no redundancy! How did you figure out the flaw in our configuration in less than a minute??” He went back to Los Alamos with the reputation “Wow, this guy could look at a massive diagram and spot the flaw instantly!”
And the transit cops bought that?
Thank you. that’s exactly what I was talking about.
You’ve never heard of ‘nailed it’ used in that context before?
And then . . . Sometimes this happens.
I’ve a hunch that Feynman might have been showing a bit of modesty in that story. No, he wasn’t entirely sure what he was looking at, but I doubt that the part he pointed at was entirely random. More likely, he saw something that vaguely resembled a singly-connected graph there (though a graph of what, he didn’t know), and instinctively picked it.