On China

I’m talking to that 犹太IMO金牌 again. I first asked him if he knew the Riesz representation theorem, the statement of which I saw today. He said he used to. Then I brought up Shizuo Kakutani, who was quite a genius mathematician, who created some generalization of the aforementioned theorem or something like that. His daughter Michiko is also a distinguished writer. On that I said:

Lol I haven’t gotten to meet many Japanese
They don’t emigrate much nowadays, so patriotic
They’re so well organized and efficient
Produces lots of top mathematicians too

He responded with “china weak.” And “china deserved to get fucked by japan.”

On that, I was like:

Haha
China was super weak back then
Of course, the situation has reversed/is reversing
China is still behind Japan in many advanced areas, but it’s just a matter of time
Japan lost to America in WWII
China on the other hand could defeat America in the Korean War
Thanks to communist ideology

He said that “china did not defeat america.” I responded:

It was a stalemate whatever
But China proved it could get even with number one in the world
When she was still very behind
In any case, in the war in North Korea, America clearly lost, America had to flee
If China had better logistics and equipment probably could’ve taken over the entire Korean peninsula
Because of the Korean War, many of those top Chinese in STEM in America returned
There were negotiations as America knew if they let them return these people would serve their enemy
People contrast that to the brain drain after reforms
The younger generation of Chinese do not have the type of selfless patriotism that the older generation did
Lol you don’t like China
I think America lost its best chance to bring China down, that was during the 89 protests
That was actually kind of close
It’s quite remarkable that China recovered so well. When you’re down, it’s really hard to get back up.
In any case, by 1970s, people in China knew that the most difficult/critical period was past.
And that China had succeeded at it
It’s like earning money, the beginning is the hardest, once you’re rich and high up, it’s almost impossible to fail

He says: “fuck china. china anti human rights.” It’s funny how so many people say that, and I believe privately, or not so much, many in the world have a rather low opinion of China. Though I’m Chinese, I wouldn’t say I really care; it’s just a perception as far as I can tell, not something that can be objectively defined. When I grew up in America, I kept hearing this negative stuff about China and was wondering what was going on. Back a decade ago, China was much less developed than now, and perhaps because of that, the bashing sometimes feels to have subsided quite a bit now compared then, but maybe not, considering that even a guy like him will say that. Whether he genuinely believes it, that is another matter.

On this, I’ll give some of my thoughts. Recall that I said in my chat with him: “when you’re down, it’s really hard to get back up.” This is in general, it applies to individuals as well, with unemployment and such. In the context of the chat, I was referring to the century from 1850 to 1950, when China kept being beaten and made little progress when the rest of the world was advancing rapidly, including China’s foe from the East, Japan. Back then, many intellectuals desperate believed China to be hopeless and on that, even advocated the abolishment of Chinese characters. I believe China was very fortunate to get out of that, as it could have easily been much worse. The international situation, in particular the world’s having been exhausted after WWII destruction, gave China the opportunity to win the civil war, ending a century of violent internal strife that had severely hampered development. The Korean War did much to help Chinese regain their confidence. It proved Chinese military ability for the first time in modern history, much needed at the time, and America blundered by letting China do so. The 1950s was a golden period for China, during which with Soviet aid, China modernized essentially, developing the industrial foundation that even after the Soviet Union withdrew its support for China, though it had a significant negative effect development, China was able to do okay. In the 60s, the international situation was very unfavorable for China, but by 1970, China was high up enough in terms of capability that America had no choice but to recognize it, seeing that there was no way the old regime in Taiwan could retake the mainland. At that time, China was still extremely poor standard of living wise, but there was already a fair degree of technological sophistication. China was also very lucky not to suffer the demise that the Soviet Union did that is literally impossible to recover from. Why that did not happen, why America did not succeed in 1989 in bringing China down, is a very complex question. The Chinese elite were not as foolish as the Soviet ones. Since then, China has made tremendous progress in terms of developing economics and standard of living and also STEM, and though of course, China is still behind in certain areas, it is only a matter of time as many believe before the gap closes. Throughout the last 50 years, these “experts” have doubted the PRC, but the PRC keeps proving them wrong. Maybe these “experts” should stop deluding themselves on many matters.

I’ll give my personal opinion. I believe that every individual, every nation, should develop in a way that’s most suitable for them. Copying someone very high up blindly usually leads to disaster, because that high up person is genuinely well equipped enough to do what you are realistically unable to presently do. Instead, try to find something that hasn’t been tried before without large risks that you have an argument might be successful for you. This was exactly what China did and is still doing, so far to great success. China was lucky to switch its system at about the right time compatible with its circumstances. In the 1950, China was emerging from a century of war and stagnation, and the odds seemed so against her. Many could not believe that the communists would win the civil war, as ill equipped as they war. They did so, according to many, by developing a unique way of combat. It shocked the world that with it, China, avoiding its weaknesses, was able to succeed against the most powerful country in the world at war. China had no air force or navy at that time, with the exception of what of that had just been provided to China by the Soviet Union. China also made the right choice of using the Stalinist style economy that had already been proven to be successful in the Soviet Union, which enabled her to modernized very rapidly in a decade. China, as far as I can tell, had no intention to go to war with America and no expectation that it would. If not for MacArthur’s foolish and miscalculated decision to invade North Korea, China probably would have established normalized relations sooner or later and would not have leaned so one-sidedly towards the Soviet Union, and would not have taken such extreme measures at home subsequently. Another major success was that China was able to establish relations with America before Mao’s death on relatively good terms, owing to the capability China possessed at that time in addition to that threat posed to China by the USSR brought about common interest between the two. China did not stick to the old planned economy, instead embarking on a mixed economy with gradual proliferation of private enterprise, seeing perhaps that it was past the stage when the Stalinist style economy was needed. At the same time, China did not fall for the market fundamentalism that America has, and simultaneously, China kept its faith in developing a political-economic system suitable for the stage that it was at amidst enormous pressure, especially after the death of the USSR brought about a tide of “the end of history” in international political thought. Now China seems to be doing quite well, with rapid development economically and also in science and technology, and about to become competitive at the forefront in arenas at which she had been seen as backward. As this happens, Chinese, with a deeply engrained inferiority complex, becoming more confident in themselves and in their system, which with political bias aside has many advantages, such as long term planning.

It is interesting how many very intelligent people in the West, including the person I mentioned in this very post, believes some rather peculiar notions on China related matters. It still puzzles me where they’re coming from with all that. They can not like China or see China as a threatening competitor (and I won’t be offended by that, as people are entitled to their own view), but they should still try to be objective, as unpleasant as the facts may be for them to bear. Penalizing someone or downgrading someone’s ability or accomplishment out of an antipathy for that person’s background or political/religious beliefs is the act of a little person, an insecure person. Also, when you discriminate against someone and they still beat you, it’ll only make them more formidable and yourself more insecure.

Last but not least, I’ll reiterate again that Anglo culture is still dominant across the globe, as a legacy of British colonialism as well as subsequent American supremacy. With that said, international discourse will necessarily be biased towards the interests of that group, an obvious fact that apparently still needs to be noted, and a rationalist would apply some correction to account for the bias. On the other hand, Chinese language and culture is still alien to most of the world, and a derivative of that is that there is much vital information accessed little outside of China of much more validity than what the Anglo media chooses to promulgate. I know that there are ones keen on using such means to alter political opinion and whatnot, so as to bring down a regime they don’t like, as was done in Ukraine in 2014, but these are rogue tactics that will eventually reflect badly on its instigators. Plus, time and time again, Chinese have proved not foolish enough to fall for these tricks.

Math sunday

I had a chill day thinking about math today without any pressure whatsoever. First I figured out, calculating inductively, that the order of GL_n(\mathbb{F}_p) is (p^n - 1)(p^n - p)(p^n - p^2)\cdots (p^n - p^{n-1}). You calculate the number of k-tuples of column vectors linear independent and from there derive p^k as the number of vectors that cannot be appended if linear independence is to be preserved. A Sylow p-group of that is the group of upper triangular matrices with ones on the diagonal, which has the order p^{n(n-1)/2} that we want.

I also find the proof of the first Sylow theorem much easier to understand now, the inspiration of it. I had always remembered that the Sylow p-group we are looking for can be the stabilizer subgroup of some set of p^k elements of the group where p^k divides the order of the group. By the pigeonhole principle, there can be no more than p^k elements in it. The part to prove that kept boggling my mind was the reverse inequality via orbits. It turns out that that can be viewed in a way that makes its logic feel much more natural than it did before, when like many a proof not understood, seems to spring out of the blue.

We wish to show that the number of times, letting p^r be the largest pth power dividing n, that the order of some orbit is divided by p is no more than r-k. To do that it suffices to show that the sum of the orders of the orbits, \binom{n}{p^k} is divided by p no more than that many times. To show that is very mechanical. Write out as m\displaystyle\prod_{j = 1}^{p^k-1} \frac{p^k m - j}{p^k - j} and divide out each element of the product on both the numerator and denominator by p to the number of times j divides it. With this, the denominator of the product is not a multiple of p, which means the number of times p divides the sum of the orders of the orbits is the number of times it divides m, which is r-k.

Following this, Brian Bi told me about this problem, starred in Artin, which means it was considered by the author to be difficult, that he was stuck on. To my great surprise, I managed to solve it under half an hour. The problem is:

Let H be a proper subgroup of a finite group G. Prove that the conjugate subgroups of H don’t cover G.

For this, I remembered the relation |G| = |N(H)||Cl(H)|, where Cl(H) denotes the number of conjugate subgroups of H, which is a special case of the orbit-stabilizer theorem, as conjugation is a group action after all. With this, given that |N(H)| \geq |H| and that conjugate subgroups share the identity, the union of them has less than |G| elements.

I remember Jonah Sinick’s once saying that finite group theory is one of the most g-loaded parts of math. I’m not sure what his rationale is for that exactly. I’ll say that I have a taste for finite group theory though I can’t say I’m a freak at it, unlike Aschbacher, but I guess I’m not bad at it either. Sure, it requires some form of pattern recognition and abstraction visualization that is not so loaded on the prior knowledge front. Brian Bi keeps telling me about how hard finite group theory is, relative to the continuous version of group theory, the Lie groups, which I know next to nothing about at present.

Oleg Olegovich, who told me today that he had proved “some generalization of something to semi-simple groups,” but needs a bit more to earn the label of Permanent Head Damage, suggested upon my asking him what he considers as good mathematics that I look into Arnold’s classic on classical mechanics, which was first to come to mind on his response of “stuff that is geometric and springs out of classical mechanics.” I found a PDF of it online and browsed through it but did not feel it was that tasteful, perhaps because I’m been a bit immersed lately in the number theoretic and abstract algebraic side of math that intersects not with physics, though I had before an inclination towards more physicsy math. I thought of possibly learning PDEs and some physics as a byproduct of it, but I’m also worried about lack of focus. Maybe eventually I can do that casually without having to try too hard as I have done lately for number theory. At least, I have not the right combination of brainpower and interest sufficient for that in my current state of mind.

一说起偏微分方程,想到此行有不少杰出的浙江裔学者,最典型的可以说是谷超豪。想起,华盛顿大学一位做非交换代数几何的教授,浙江裔也,的儿子,曾经说起他们回国时谷超豪,复旦的,如他父亲一样,逝世了,又半开玩笑言:“据说谷超豪被选为院士,是因为他曾经当过地下党。”记得看到杨振宁对谷超豪有极高的评价,大大出于谷超豪在杨七十年代访问复旦的促动下解决了一系列有关于杨-米尔斯理论的数学问题。之外,还有林芳华,陈贵强,都是非常有名气的这套数学的教授,也都是浙江人。我们都知道浙江人是中国的犹太人,昨天Brian Bi还在说”there are four times more Zhejiangnese than Jews.” 可惜我不是浙江人,所以成为数学家可能希望不大了。:(

两首诗

昨天,我学会背了两首中文诗,一首是杜甫的《闻官军收河南河北》,另一首是毛泽东的《沁园春·长沙》

聞官軍收河南河北

劍外忽傳收薊北,初聞涕淚滿衣裳。
卻看妻子愁何在,漫卷詩書喜欲狂。
白日放歌須縱酒,青春作伴好還鄉。
即從巴峽穿巫峽,便下襄陽向洛陽。

杜甫这首诗具体哪一点感动了我,此我难以解释,缺乏文学描述所需要的词汇,同时也还未形成任何诗人的口味。加上,我对当时的中国的历史和文化也几乎一无所知。这还是我学会的第一首杜甫的诗。相反,他的对偶李白的诗我会好几首,如《蜀道难》和《将进酒》。

与杜甫的不同,我对毛泽东的《沁园春·长沙》的能容可有更深刻的理解,由于自己对二十年代的中国的政治形势有过一定的阅读。

沁園春‧長沙
獨立寒秋,湘江北去,橘子洲頭。看萬山紅遍,層林盡染;漫江碧透,百舸爭流。鷹擊長空,魚翔淺底,萬類霜天競自由。悵寥廓,問蒼茫大地,誰主沉浮?
攜來百侶曾游,憶往昔崢嶸歲月稠。恰同學少年,風華正茂;書生意氣,揮斥方遒。指點江山,激揚文字,糞土當年萬戶侯。曾記否,到中流擊水,浪遏飛舟!

这首诗的形势明显跟《沁园春·雪》相同,前段绘画祖国的美丽江山,后段启发式的鼓励壮怀激情的爱国主义革命家,开辟新天地,粉碎军阀混乱之黑暗。也可以说,《念奴娇·昆仑》也有接近或类似的形状。同时也发觉到,原来孔庆东出版的那本描述及讽刺韩国的书的名字却引用的这首诗。

这几月,我在学习俄语,网上找到了毛泽东十八首诗的俄文翻译, 此中有《长沙》的。

Чанша

В день осенний, холодный
Я стою над рекой многоводной,
Над текущим на север Сянцзяном.
Вижу горы и рощи в наряде багряном,
Изумрудные воды прозрачной реки,
По которой рыбачьи снуют челноки.
Вижу: сокол взмывает стрелой к небосводу,
Рыба в мелкой воде промелькнула, как тень.
Всё живое стремится сейчас на свободу
В этот ясный, подёрнутый инеем день.
Увидав многоцветный простор пред собою,
Что теряется где-то во мгле,
Задаёшься вопросом: кто правит судьбою
Всех живых на бескрайной земле?
Мне припомнились дни отдалённой весны,
Те друзья, с кем учился я в школе…
Все мы были в то время бодры и сильны
И мечтали о будущей воле.
По-студенчески, с жаром мы споры вели
О вселенной, о судьбах родимой земли
И стихами во время досуга
Вдохновляли на подвиг друг друга.
В откровенных беседах своих молодёжь
Не щадила тогдашних надменных вельмож.
Наши лодки неслись всем ветрам вопреки,
Но в пути задержали нас волны реки…

阅此非太陌生,令余稍欣慰,表示己有进步,语言能力还不差,当然自己在这方面绝对没什么不得了。此俄语翻译,我还传给了我的几位苏联同志看了看。说起翻译,我昨天还把一段中文翻译成了俄文,至之至大学时给了我,在一个风气腐朽,无知无趣,在我另一位朋友形容为“如家具”的本科生漫天遍野的校园上,不少思想丰富及精神隐蔽的一位绝顶聪明又非昏迷于垃圾美国文化的童年来美的俄罗斯同学。我选择自学俄文大大出于本人本性对此语言及其文化发生的兴趣,但同时,他的鼓励及具体帮助也一直有了一定启发性的作用,有人可分享自己心灵所产生的美感,绝对有一定浪推飞舟的作用。

华罗庚

我很佩服华罗庚。他是个传奇。贫苦出生,无金续学,迫而辍,惟有初中文凭。那时中国社会黑暗,洪水没村,瘟神染民,罗庚金坛乡遭于此,其为患儿之一。华佗暂离,疗不到,则华腿永残。在这种艰难的情况下,他并非绝望,反而发愤图强,独学并发表,神使他看中于当时中国数学之要机构人,从而他登上专业数学。

他是一位有勇气的人,气贯长虹,敢于独特。他忘名舍利,纯粹做学,剑桥学位放弃,因为他能力太强了,不需要那张人为纸,也瞧不起那些学术界,尤其是现在,诸多的玩小人技的微人。同时,他的人民意识动人,抗战时,可以留外避暴的他,却回国与庶民同难。后来,在美国学界舒适绝蜚声,忽报人间曾伏虎,再次归祖。

当时的他,是绝有威望的人。想起,我三年级夏天回国,中文全忘,就读小学一二年级课文而补,其中有讲华罗庚的,那也是我第一次有意识的知道这个人的存在。后来,看到他回国时写至在国外中国留学生及工作人公开信,劝大家回国投入刚解放的,百废待兴的祖国的建设。

百度文库有,链接为:https://wenku.baidu.com/view/8167d0d7b9f3f90f76c61b6c.html。链接非永恒,则我再复制,也免读者再载一页:

朋友们:

不一一道别,我先诸位而回去了。我有千言万语,但愧无生花之笔来一一地表达出来。但我敢说,这信中充满着真挚的感情,一字一句都是由衷心吐出来的。

坦白地说,这信中所说的是我这一年来思想战斗的结果。讲到决心归国的理由,有些是独自冷静思索的果实,有些是和朋友们谈话和通信所得的结论。朋友们,如果你们有同样的苦闷,这封信可以做你们决策的参考;如果你们还没有这种感觉,也请细读一遍,由此可以知道这种苦闷的发生,不是偶然的。

让我先从大处说起。现在的世界很明显地分为两个营垒:一个是为大众谋福利的,另一个是专为少数的统治阶级打算利益的,前者是站在正义方面,有真理根据的;后者是充满着矛盾的。一面是与被压迫民族为朋友的,另一面是把所谓“文明”建筑在不幸者身上的。所以凡是世界上的公民都应当有所抉择:为人类的幸福,应当抉择在真理的光明的一面,应当选择在为多数人利益的一面。

朋友们如果细细地想一想,我们身受过移民律的限制,肤色的歧视,哪一件不是替我们规定了一个圈子。当然,有些所谓“杰出”的个人,已经跳出了这圈子,已经得到特别“恩典”,“准许”“归化”了的,但如果扪心一想,我们的同胞们都在被人欺凌,被人歧视,如因个人的被“赏识”,便沾沾沾自喜,这是何种心肝!同时,很老实的说吧,现在他们正想利用这些“人杰”。

也许有人要说,他们的社会有“民主”和“自由”,这是我们所应当爱好的。但我说诸位,不要被“字面”迷惑了,当然被字面迷惑也不是从今日开始。

我们细细想想资本家握有一切的工具——无线电、报纸、杂志、电影,他说一句话的力量当然不是我们一句话所可以比拟的;等于在人家锣鼓喧天的场合下,我们在古琴独奏。固然我们都有“自由”,但我敢断言,在手酸弦断之下,人家再也不会听到你古琴的妙音。在经济不平等的情况下,谈“民主”是自欺欺人;谈“自由” 是自找枷锁。人类的真自由、真民主,仅可能在真平等中得之;没有平等的社会的所谓“自由”、“民主”,仅仅是统治阶级的工具。

我们再来细心分析一下:我们怎样出国的?也许以为当然靠了自己的聪明和努力,才能考试获选出国的,靠了自己的本领和技能,才可能在这儿立足的。因之,也许可以得到一结论:我们在这儿的享受,是我们自己的本领,我们这儿的地位,是我们自己的努力。但据我看来,这是并不尽然的,何以故?谁给我们的特殊学习机会,而使得我们大学毕业?谁给我们所必需的外汇,因之可以出国学习。还不是我们胼手胝足的同胞吗?还不是我们千辛万苦的父母吗?受了同胞们的血汗栽培,成为人材之后,不为他们服务,这如何可以谓之公平?如何可以谓之合理?朋友们,我们不能过河拆桥,我们应当认清:我们既然得到了优越的权利,我们就应当尽我们应尽的义务,尤其是聪明能干的朋友们,我们应当负担起中华人民共和国空前巨大的人民的任务!

现在再让我们看看新生的祖国,怎样在伟大胜利基础上继续迈进!今年元旦新华社的《新年献词》告诉我们说:一九四九年,是中国人民解放战争获得伟大胜利和中华人民共和国宣告诞生的一年。这一年,我们击破了中外反动派 的和平攻势,扫清了中国大陆上的国民党匪帮……,解放了全国百分之九十以上的人口,赢得了战争的基本胜利。这一年,全国民主力量的代表人物举行了人民政治协商会议,通过了国家根本大法共同纲领,成立了中央人民政府。

这个政府不但受到全国人民的普遍拥护,而且受到了全世界反帝国主义阵营的普遍欢迎。苏联和各人民民主国家都迅速和我国建立平等友好的邦交。这一年,我们解放了和管理了全国的大城市和广大乡村,在这些地方迅速地建立了初步的革命秩序,镇压了反革命活动,并初步地发动和组织了劳动群众。在许多城市中已经召集了各界人民代表会议。在许多乡村中,已经肃清了土匪,推行了合理负担政策,展开了减租减息和反恶霸运动。这一年,我们克服了敌人的破坏封锁和严重的旱灾、水灾所加给我们的困难。在财政收支不平衡的条件下,尽可能地进行了恢复生产和交通的工作,并已得到了相当成绩……

中国是在迅速的进步着,一九四九年的胜利,比一年前人们所预料的要大得多,快得多。在一九五〇年,我们有了比一九四九年好得多的条件,因此我们所将要得到的成绩,也会比我们现在所预料的更大些、更快些。当武装的敌人在全中国的土地上被肃清以后,当全中国人民的觉悟性和组织性普遍地提高起来以后,我们的国家就将逐步地脱离长期战争所造成的严重困难,并逐步走上幸福的境地了。

朋友们!“梁园虽好,非久居之乡”,归去来兮!

但也许有朋友说:“我年纪还轻,不妨在此稍待。”但我说:“这也不必。”朋友们,我们都在有为之年,如果我们迟早要回去,何不早回去,把我们的精力都用之于有用之所呢?

总之,为了抉择真理,我们应当回去;为了国家民族,我们应当回去;为了为人民服务,我们也应当回去;就是为了个人出路,也应当早日回去,建立我们工作的基础,为我们伟大祖国的建设和发展而奋斗!

朋友们!语重心长,今年在我们首都北京见面吧!

1950年2月归国途中

最近,在读Erdos的传记时,闻五十年代初,他被美国政府逼问,源于曾跟这位华共匪有通信。华罗庚在中国是家喻户晓,但在美国是鲜为人知的,好多学数学的人也并不知道他。我想这肯定不是偶然的,因为华罗庚成了美国敌对的红色中国的一个象征性人物。

回国后,华好像做了一些多元复变的工作,丘成桐称之为不得了,领先西方至少十年,吾初学者当然无资格评。在他的领导,培养下,出了一批杰出的新一代的数学家,如陈景润,还有什么陆启铿,龚升,等等。文革时,他如诸多中国的知识分子,科学家,遭迫害,受不公正对待,在这种情况下,他转入统筹法,将数学与生产相结合,使祖国实业大大提升,成为了人民的数学家。

大多数那一代的中国科学精英,如他的数学对偶陈省身都出生于富贵书香门第,而他是平民背景,使得更加得以老百姓的认同。加上,他据说人品特好,一点都不是个asshole,这是很难得的。他也不是个纯粹读书的人,对人类社会进步有关心,抗战时就连到一些进步组织。

同时,他文采丰盛,看到他的几首诗,很明显他有丰富的词汇量,更加明示他的超人的脑子。这,当然,是一点不出于预料的。

华罗庚的名字,在数学史,在中国史,永垂不朽!

论文革

在网上胡扫碰到此,看了看,想起几年前在某地方看到文革时期,后重庆唱红打黑之熙来同志,反而提倡血统论,老子英雄儿好汉,老子反动儿混蛋那一套,与当时的高干子弟红卫兵联动组织之元一致。不过,看完后,其文将来源写为大纪元,使我对此之可信度有了怀疑。

想起我是八年级左右首次得知文革,那时的我中文不明,毕竟小学就一直在美国上的,所以看的都是英文的那些反共的扯淡。过一年,历史课有讲中国那时,美国老师不用说是讲的完全不符合事实,有夸张,有偏见,以“将农民当rocket scientist“以及类似之之非正当之语形容。反正给的印象就是文革彻底毁灭了中国,是共产党最大的罪之一,是破坏中国文化的。

当时的我,却漏掉了关键,那就是文革是针对当时的当权派,因为毛主席怕他们走资,怕他们欺压百姓,打了江山后建立新的皇朝,以在次循环中国的朝代,至少很多人认为是这样的,当时的毛主席到底在想什么,这很难完全搞清楚。当然,一般人都是会以文革想为灾难,这是默认的看法,我当时也一样,都想得如此简单。

让我惊奇的是,在中国却看到诸多骂邓小平的,甚至说毛泽东错误的没有把他彻底整掉,把邓小平述为中国腐败之父。我没有在中国工作过,也只在那儿上了一点小学,对中国的认识都是从夏天回去,加上网上的阅读,和与在美国的华人的接触。大家都说中国很腐败,但是我对此不知道任何具体,他们的腐败是以什么样的技巧那?我想这,随着自己的不断成熟和社会经验,会慢慢得知的。有人说,因为文化大革命,把那些干部整了一顿,他们才不敢做的太过度,不然中国很可能也会像苏联一样被内部流氓毁灭掉。因为文革,中国没有再次成为人之奴,对自己的制度保留了一定的信心,在国际舆论掌握于美国的情况下,因为我们都知道,你想超越别人,必须开辟自己独特的路,让别人跟随,被动随人,必不为一。科学是这样,政治也是这样。在中国,得知一个用以形容小平同志丧国之具例为运十大飞机的撤销,其由于此已得不少进展的项目是与已否定的四人帮有紧密联系的。要不是这样,中国可能早就造出自己的飞机了,可能九十年代就有了,而非去年,这是晚了二十年啊。有人说,老邓的那批小人为了他们的孩子能够出国,谋取与外企相连的要职,放弃了不少自己研制的项目,觉得也许造船不如买船,买船不如租船,这是多么没有远见的,汉奸式的做法啊!同时,我也看了,祖国伟大的钢琴家殷承宗,绝对的音乐超人,却因为是四人帮的音乐家,文革后与新政府不和,才迫使他跑到美国去。这些给了我一个新的观点。他绝对是有一定的道理。

美国怕毛泽东,毛泽东思想武装的军队,在朝鲜战场上让美国人提心吊胆,美国人不服,封锁中国,七零年,中国两弹一星有了,美国越南无路,不得不投降。在艰难的情况下,有了严峻的,但被外国人极度夸张,误描的饥荒,有了一个接一个的政治动乱,中国的科学技术工作者以他们的天分加刻苦加上一定的”信仰“却把一个一穷二白,百年受列国欺凌的灿烂古文化转至为有了一定工业和科技能力的国家。落后于先进国家,如美国,如苏联,如英法德日,不用说,毕竟起点太低,加上环境也较差。

现在,大部分在美国的人觉得是老邓解开了共产主义的铁链子,拯救了中国,使得中国富强起来。这些大多都是一些不懂科学的人,都是一些弱智,很多走是在我所在的软件的没有真正科学的行业里,他们好多以为自己挣钱多,不得了,典型的Dunning-Kruger。因为我们懂科学的人都知道软件,尤其是business方面的软件是没有技术含量的,与氢弹没法比。但他们对小平还不满,觉得他六四表现太差,最好的时机他们没有抓住,现在中国越来越强大,无可阻止,令一些脑构失常的,阴谋诡计的白宫人及其服从之人无可奈何。他们愿意相信什么,就让他们相信什么吧。

我真的觉得美国的主流文化没有什么好,是低级趣味的文化。上学一直处于此环境中,孩子的我也受了他们一定的影响,此难以避免。不过,随着自己的成熟,我通过网上所获取的信息不断地得知另一个世界的存在,越大越能够找到素质能力高一些的人,从大学到工作,能够接触更多非凡的有趣的人。学习科学,学习中文,学习俄文我越长越孜孜不倦,同时英文和写代码也有大的提高,因为这些毫无疑问是有相连的,相同的一部分。这些给了我一定的精神力量,其愈来愈来超越于某些环境带来的精神压制的力量,让我兴奋不已,让我所有的心上事,精神故障,纸船明烛照天烧!

一位哈弗毕业的,发表超弦的,科学通才的,也是无出于意料,犹裔的(现已归以),在脸书上有过几次闲聊。此中,他有提到他的在文化上科学与马克思相连的观点。当然,这不是绝对的且远之。好多伟大的科学家,如Edward Teller,都是坚决反共的。他也说过美国在二战前没有什么科学,加上美国文化好的一面都是从欧洲带来的。他也在网上多次提到过西方物理学家剽窃苏联的行为,尤其在七十年代,此例子众多,这我没法评价,鄙人莫谙物理,基本此盲也,可是我相信是这样的,凭受制于某某利益集团之美国媒体及教育的极其偏见及歪曲现实。我个人也有类似的感觉,虽然马克思的著作我从未认真读过,目前难以解之,仅感觉而已,也许因为我对于美国教育及体制及文化某些地方的叛逆,也许因为在美国的好多科学家工程师,包括拔尖的,都非美美国人。此人也说过,美国是建立于使对方失地,白人优越主义的新国家,未有不已之外入,则一切良素成烟。有一定道理,这样的国家,何可文化不稍偏夷焉!

话多余了!何终之?以自近有之观察,此为倾向于马克思之“思人”,根据自己接触到的有限的,文采期望值高于他人的。孔庆东比袁腾飞,毛泽东比邓小平,列宁比赫鲁晓夫,等等。还有鲁迅那。这是不是隐示马克思真的是代表人类社会下一步进化,或更准确,人,作为智力生物,的下一步进化?我相信未来会给以明确的答案!

 

好搞笑的比喻

刚才看了一个李敖的视频,关于台湾的军费。在此,李敖提到台湾的从美而来的武器装备,非免费提供,而是购买的。评论里,有人将此形容为:美国摆明了“让狗看门,不但让狗自己买狗粮,还要拔狗毛抽狗血”。一看到我就哈哈大笑,描述的太好了!

这让我回想起我上小学中学,好几次有美国同学争论is Taiwan part of China,一般最终得到结论都是不是。不用说,他们所想的,无论如何,都不会改变事实,所以这种争论是毫无意义的,尤其在他们和当时的我对与历史客观具体事实的无知的情况下。基本在那儿,小学中学的历史课都是垃圾,尤其是在美国,因为老师水平一般不会太高,经常还会很差,比如在美国,好多历史老师会自以为是地将自己的主观偏见施加在学生上。孩子们都想得很简单,什么东西都用好与坏衡量,我也是。现在长大了,就知道好坏正邪非客观存在,但赢者输者是有的,无庸隐讳,败到台湾的蒋介石国民党就是极度的输者。

哪儿都有被洗脑的,洗脑定义为相信客观错误的过于某度,人。我自己小时候,如大多孩子一样,也是处于很洗脑的状态,毕竟小学老师讲的好多都是扯淡,加上父母也会讲圣诞老人之类的。理想的是,一个人随着智力成熟会多看,高质量的,文献,独立思考,客观严谨判断,从而将脑子里的洗脑物清洗掉,排泄掉,同时也克制控制自己的情绪,不允其干涉人的理性思维。在这一点,本人是有了大的进步,而且我相信它的导数,随着时间或年龄,现在还是正的。当然,我一定是有目前必未知的可改进的地方,未知前加必道理同Dunning-Kruger。高智商的人洗脑率及度当然是更低,可是有不少,说明智商不足于防御洗脑。谈一个很典型的例子,就是自由与民主,或资本主义或共产主义,这类词。任何科学人都应该知道一个人是否是某某主义者,非二进制变量,其甚为复杂,但我是看到好多有科学能力的人却说起我相信我们的民主和自由这种从科学角度空白的话,直接一点还不如说我拥护西方民主主义制度罢了。我也看到很多高智商的人未调查而出论,批评自己不理解的,而看上去还是相信自己所言的。这都是缺乏克制力的表现,因为有克制力的人是会把事情搞透了在张嘴。我看到过数学学得很好的香港人将中共称为独裁,将毛泽东视为杀人猛兽,并且坚定此未有根据的观点。我看到过台湾人指责简体字及其它宏观上微不足道之事为表示对异岸之心逆。我看到过俄罗斯人排斥一切苏联的,似乎认为九十年代的预期寿命下降,人口负增长,难得积累的工业制造业毁于寡头流氓的自由的俄罗斯好于往年的岁月。在这方面,据我所看到了,大陆人还真的不错,由于对于外来的信息相对比较开放,不像好多港台同胞或美国人会将任意来自中国政府的信息拒绝为洗脑或政治宣传。

对于台湾人的政治心态,我真的不想说的太负面。我对台湾其实知道的很少,从来没去过。我认识一些台湾人,他们都很有能力,品德也很好。不过,台湾会让我想到他们曾经禁的一位作家的代表性故事之一的主要人物。我所看到的许多台湾人,及香港人,的心态近于那个人物象征的心态。

老代中国科学家与诗词

读关于中国老一代科学家的资料,很难不观察到他们都有很好的语文修养,将写诗作为他们的业余爱好。几个月前,我看到了杨振宁吹捧陈省身的一首诗,为:

天衣岂无缝
匠心剪接成
浑然归一体
广邃妙绝伦
造化爱几何
四力纤维能
千古寸心事
欧高黎嘉陈

这被我翻译成英文为:

How not woven the fabric of the universe
Spliced with craft
Comes together as one
Wide and broad with unparalleled mystery
Nature loves geometry
Fiber bundles describe four forces
Long unsolved problems
Euclid Gauss Riemann Cartan Chern

今天我又看到,来自这里,关于彭桓武与陈能宽长达十年的诗缘。此中,对我印象较深的是:

亭亭铁塔矗秋空,
六亿人民愿望同。
不是工农兵协力,
焉能数理化成功。

第一句代表的当然是中国第一颗,在秋天,放在铁塔上实验的,原子弹,此为当时中国所有人的共同愿望。后两句又,符合共产党对于无产阶级之重视,强调了工农兵的重要性。这首诗很符合当时的国情,强调知识分子为人民服务,而非摆着架子,瞧不起底层人民。六亿人民与工农兵又让我想起在毛泽东的《送瘟神》“六亿人民尽舜尧”那一句,所表达的观念相似。

如何解释之?我想是大科学家,按照在Steve Hsu的博客上在关于g的讨论中用的语言,V都很高与中国老的科举的那一套结合所产生的自然结果。