Hold on a second... In your first note you said that due to time constraints you could only give the superficial reasons. In your second note you said that you don't feel particularly american, but you will become a citizen nonetheless. So I'm confused -- were you tongue-in-cheek back then, or are you puling my leg now? In any case, which of the stated reasons do you regard as solid?



No, not really. What I'm trying to say is that we can finally choose whether we are anointed citizens of such-and-such a country. We never had a saying in our initial citizenship(s), but we do now. So we can finally ask ourselves "do I really believe in the notion of a national identity?", "do I believe in the institution of the state?", "do I believe in the institutions set up by that particular state?". Moreover, as a scientist, do you believe that your time spent in civic affairs will effect a change worth your efforts? I could become prime minister tomorrow and spend 40 years in office, and I could not change the world half as much as I have done with my scientific publications.

Politics is temporary; science is for ever.

John

thing is, I don't feel french either...I certainly felt more at home in Australia than I ever was in France.
I don't 'feel' american right now, but I believe this has a lot to do with the current administration. It may be very different in a different situation.
Anyway, thing is depending on where you live, you fit or not...the lifestyle here (in the southwest) is the kind of lifestyle that fits me...so I feel that I am a citizen of this region...not sure I'd feel the same if I lived somewhere else in the US...it's a very country....it's a very planet...
I would feel perfectly at home in lots of places...New Zealand, some areas in Canada, some areas in the US...

After that, becoming a citizen of wherever I am is quite natural as long as I have decided 'this is where I want to live'.

I am also a scientist by the way. I hope my research affects positively people in this country (I work in computational models of cancers...so my guess is that it will help) but also people in other countries...

But I wouldn't be so quick at burrying politics...not sure it is that temporary...and the kind of Science that truly is forever is very rare...I am not saying you're not a good scientist, just that the Scientists that truly had a worldwide impact, with an everlasting effect are extremely rare...

That's the thing I don't understand: despite not feeling particularly american but more of a world citizen, you still intend on going ahead and pledge allegiance to a flag, a set of institutionalised rules, a number of people. That's a gap that I cannot bridge.

I'm not a world-class scientist, but you've heard the saying "standing on the shoulders of giants": the giants have to stand on the shoulders of ordinary scientists, and I'm merely one of those -- I presume the same's true for you. The thing though is that you don't have to be an extraordinary scientist to feel special: science is a cumulative effort -- we didn't get to where we are today because of ten well-known names; it took an army of little- to un-known scientists to achieve what we have. Being part of this unique tradition is the greatest reward.

Permanence of politics? What is the legacy of the Roman Empire in today's world? -- an empire that lasted, what, 800 years? Contrast this with, let's say, Euclidean Geometry -- it was true 2500 years ago, it's true today, it will be true eternally.

2000 years from now do you think anyone is going to remember the current administration? Will the US even exist then? Yet gravity is still going to be present, so we will still be referring to the equations describing it as Newton's laws.

John

P.S. I can't keep up with your posting frequency. Has it occured to you that if you posted less you might be able to publish more? :-)

ideally, I'd like no boundaries like this but it's the way the world is. This is the country where I want to live and with these rules etc. it's more practical and makes more sense.
There are lots of grants and awards you can't get without being a US citizen etc. so for me, it would be quite illogical not to apply. After that, I feel really like a world citizen, but it's not really practical...you still need a passport in airports :-)

The legacy of the Roman Empire? well, lots of policital ideas, the Senate, some other representative, Democracy is largely based on the Athenian model, examples are countless...
Euclidean geometry is not more permanent...it doesn't apply near ultra dense stars and planets, black holes, where other models of geometry apply (Riemanian geometry or Lobatchevsky geometry)...

Beisdes, Euclidean geometry isn't true, it is consistent which is different. It's not even complete, meaning there are results you can't prove or disprove based on the axioms of euclide...a consequence of Goedel's incompleteness theorem that essential states that if a theory is not too trivial then it cannot be both complete and consistent (consistent being you can't prove one fact AND it's contrary)...so if you have to choose, better have something consistent but incomplete.

Nothing guarantees that in 2000 years the laws of politics don't apply anymore. Nothing guarantees either that Newton's laws are still used either...as you know they are just an approximation...a model of our current world but do not apply in some situations (atoms for instance)...if a unified theory of physics eventually arrives, then maybe we will not use Newton's laws anymore...

Francois

PS my publication record is fine...I get 8-10 papers a year, 1-2 journals...but then I work in CS...so I am on my computer all the time pretty much...kind of helps.

I understand all the reasons you state, and I agree that they are valid; but they are practical ones, not something that I regard as deep. Maybe one day I'll think otherwise.

8 to 10 publications a year would be considered beyond excellent in physics (I've only met one person who could produce so many in a year, and he has a god-like status in the field); 2, or maximum 3 is the norm. Is this high number common in CS?

The only legacy of the Roman Empire that I'm aware of is the legal system that most western countries still use (although it has been modified extensively, especially in Germanic countries); as you note yourself, the governing system came from Athens. I would think that this is a pretty small bequest for the greatest empire that ever existed (at least for an extended period of time).

Hold on a second: Euclidean geometry is both consistent and complete -- isn't that the first thing Hilbert showed in his attempt to prove all mathematical systems had this property? Even Presburger arithmetic is consistent and complete; only the full Peano arithmetic is incomplete as shown by Godel.

Sure, Euclidean geometry may not apply in strong gravitational fields, but these are pretty rare; more important is that, given that the universe is flat, it applies to the entire cosmos. I just can't see it being supplanted by anything else in high-school textbooks.

Indeed, Newton's laws are approximations, but they are such an exceedingly accurate approximation of our Eartly surroundings that they are still being used today in all applications (even interplanetary missions), despite the fact that we have a more accurate theory in General Relativity. For all practical purposes, Newton's laws are going to be taught in schools forever since we live in a weak gravitational world.

John

2 to 3 is on the low side in CS but still acceptable.
8-10 is high but on the sure side for tenure :-)

Hilbert wanted mathematical systems to be complete and consistent...that was one of his 'problems' but his intuition was wrong on that... (he was also wrong on asking someone for a method to find integral roots of polynomials which is in the general case undecidable).

For instance, set theory isn't complete...the axiom of choice is an example of an undecidable proposition.

Euclidean geometry is incomplete too...otherwise, what's the point of other geometries...

Peano's arithmetic was used as an example to show incompleteness but the general result is that if the theory isn't trivial, then you can't have both...
1st order logic is both, but that's pretty much it...

Besides, as euclidean geometry and algebra are 'equivalent' and algebra isn't complete then EC can't be either...you just need to construct a self refering structure in EC to show it.

I am sure you feel as heartbreaked as others who discovered that :-)

Ah, welcome back mon ami. May I draw your attention to the front page of the main forum?

---

"How bad can it be?" - SimpleS

Greencard not citizen right?

Cant vote with GC, we did labour cert, I140, processing time after Labour cert was more than a year through NE. Whats NIW?

Even ramping up for tenureship, 8 to 10 papers per year is exceptional.

Are you using the term "complete" in the literal sense, not the mathematical one? The fact that there are non-Euclidean geometries does not render the Euclidean one incomplete; the existence of other geometries stems from the independence of the Fifth Postulate, not from some incompleteness in the theory. Euclidean geometry is not equivalent to arithmetic; it is a more restrictive theory, and therefore does not satisfy Godel's conditions.

The Polish logician Alfred Tarski was the first one to formalise the Euclidean geometry into the language of logic, and show that the theory was consistent and complete. I could not find an online reference to his paper, probably because it was written in Polish; but the proof is in his book: Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of Deductive Sciences, Oxford University Press, New York, 4th edition, 1994, and I found a summary of his method and result at http://www.math.psu.edu/...philmath/node15.html

There is nothing exceptional about the Euclidean geometry either; both spherical (Riemannian) and hyperbolic (Lobachevskian) geometries are consistent and complete. In fact, one can do one better: by completely dropping the Fifth Postulate (without replacing it with another), one obtains an absolute geometry, and Szmielew showed that this one is complete too: W. Szmielew, "Elementary hyperbolic geometry", in: Henkin, Suppes, Tarski (eds.) The Axiomatics Method, North Holland 1959, pp. 30-52.

In any case, we have veered off course here. The mere fact that Euclidean geometry is still being taught in schools today, 2500 years after it was first formulated, is proof of the power of science.

John

completeness: for any proposition p, there exists a proof of p or its contrary

however, your ref. to Tarski raised a doubt (which shows that when it's outside of your research area, you'd better think twice :-) and I should have shut up) as indeed, Tarski proved it was decidable (which is a consequence of completeness and consistency).
The reason it was a poor choice from me is that it's not constructed by recursion (something necessary to have a theory not both complete and consistent) and because EC can be phrased in logical terms, then it has to be C and C as 1st order logic is.

However, it's still an exception as most theories are built recursively and are likely not both complete and consistent following Goedel's result.

But the discussion is fun :-) I'm glad when I am wrong...forces me to read stuff I haven't read or have forgotten :-)

As for tenure, please write a letter to the administration saying it's exceptional...all they care about is: 'how much money did you bring in?' and in theoretical areas, money is hard to come by...

So you're at a research university; surely you knew before hand that grant money talks there for tenureship. I could send them a letter, but you know they won't listen to me unless I include a fat cheque too.

I presume you like the academic environment and don't want to consider industry positions where you don't have to think about grant money or politics anymore?

My research is not in logic either (I'm in elementary particle physics), but I suppose having had an advisor who publishes a book every year with a chapter on the subject has trained me quite well. And you're right, most theories satisfy the conditions of the Incompleteness Theorem.

John

yeah I knew, but even grant wise I am doing ok...however our school wants to get right up there with the very good ones (in our field we are well ranked though) and put the pressure on untenured faculty...
recently an NSF early career award got denied tenure!!!
So, no one can be sure of how well we are on track to get tenure...kind of upsets me.

thought about industry...but my area isn't ideal for that...

If I'm not mistaken, you're in New Mexico, right? Las Cruces (NMSU)?

I was always under the impression that unless you did something really dumb at the last minute, all these decisions (like tenureship, dissertation approval, etc.) were predetermined. How long have you been there (i.e. are you in tune with the rest of the faculty)?

Rejecting an NSF-award recipient sounds pretty extreme. Was that based on merit, or merely politics? The latter was one of the reasons I got out of academia -- it was an unexpected shock to realise how much pettiness, maliciousness, and back-stabbing existed among the, supposedly, brightest minds.

It sounds like your research has practical applications, so grants from private companies should be available. For truly miserable conditions, pi-in-the-sky (pun intended) fields like astronomy and, erm, elementary particle physics, cannot be matched... well, maybe by mathematics.

John

UT El Paso. next door. they are going for Carnegie top tier stuff (level at which our dept already is...with excellent funding and publications...but we still get the pressure.)

the whole thing is ALL about politics. Right now, i have excellent evaluations (score 5 every year, out of 5) and have made no (official) enemies :-) Actually, I have the reputation of being very friendly, helpful etc... (to the point that in 3 years, I have taught 14 different courses because I always say
'yes sure I can teach that')

the pettiness etc...is something I discover a bit more every year...and even if I am quite confident for my tenure, I am not sure I want to deal with this BS post tenure...

as for maths...this was my area before...set valued analysis, differential inclusions and a bit of algebraic topology...funding isn't great there ;-)

A few things I learned over the years (most of them the hard way):

1. Anyone who is not your sworn friend should be regarded as your enemy
2. Don't ever correct another faculty member, particularly on technical matters, and especially if their mistake is glaring
3. Pay close attention to the quiet and mediocre people: they're the ones that resent you the most
4. Be very modest on your outward appearance: no flashy cars, no flashy wives, no flashy bodies, etc.
5. Keep a very, very, low profile on your extra-curricular activities

I came very close to getting burned from the last one, so try to make your training and racing activity invisible in the department.

In short, everyone should feel like you're nothing special as far as your personal life goes; the goal is to let them believe that they're superior than you are.

If you came this far (three years as an assistant professor?), then you should definitely go for it. Once you get the tenureship you won't have to put up with their twisted minds anymore.

John

yes, I kind of figured out many of this...besides I wanted to go up early for tenure but the admin. has made it clear...anyone who goes early will be denied tenure....

Man, I would not want to work in that kind of environment. At my institution we evaluate tenure candidates based on performance. We have no interest whatsoever in most of the things you mention because we are all too busy to care. Politics plays a minor role but it is maiinly about output. If you deliver, you stay. If not, we ask you to leave. We also do everything we can to help candidates make it through the system.

hmmmm....I know 0 research institutions where politics doesn't play a role. It's as simple as this.

When you start writing grant proposals etc, there is a lot of money involved and therefore the whole process becomes very political...
giving tenure to someone, because that person is in the right group, denying tenure to someone else to prevent an other group being too strong etc...

If you're at ASU, I can guarantee you that in several depts (at least all those I know) there is a lot of Politics involved...specially considering that for instance they are now expecting every CS faculty to get about $300,000 of external funding a year...lot of money, lot of conflict, lot of politics.

Maybe departments that are not so driven on external funding wouldn't see that but otherwise, politics is there big time, wherever you are...Stanford, MIT, Yale UPenn, UW etc...

However, our school has some very good people that truly help untenured faculty to go through the process and that shelter us from the political BS...but it's rough at times...

as John said, not stepping on anyone's toes is very important.

You're absolutely right Andrew, I wouldn't want to work in such an environment either, and that was one of the reasons (although not the main one) for leaving academia.

I have friends in six different universities, and the problem exists in all of them to various degrees; the best ones are the teaching universities where faculty are not under pressure to bring grants to the department; the more money at stake though, and the greater the fame of the institution, the closer you have to watch your back -- but it also depends a lot on the individuals. If you cannot see any of this where you are, then you're a very fortunate man! -- don't ever leave that place.

I always had this idyllic view of universities as the pinnacles of scientific thought and discovery, where intellectual stimulation oozed off the walls, and where one could meet the greatest minds on Earth. As I slowly discovered (the hard way most of the times) what the reality was, my dream came slowly crashing down, until there was nothing left but the shell of its former self. Industry may not be as intellectually exciting as an academic environment, but the relative absence of politics is refreshing and soothing.

John

I guess I remain fundamentally optimistic and just enjoy working with some of my colleagues while ignoring all the political crap...
no need to stress for things I can't control.

I work in a business school so external grants are not a huge issue. Also, I did not say politics was non-existent. It is definitely here. Although, the tenure environment is relatively non-politicized, politics plays a much bigger role in the overall administration process, especially in areas such as teaching and course allocations, exec ed teaching opportunities, etc. As C.P. Snow once wrote (I paraphrase), politics in universities is a big deal because the stakes are so small.