計劃進修PhD/Research討論區 (12) Every man lives by exchanging

數學廢柴 2017-4-20 00:35:55

social science 係有水份架啦
越qual 越吹越quant 就越多鳩model data cleansing
咁butthurt做乜，做好自己咪夠

:^(

astron好多濕鳩model
比個鳩conjecture之後做regression,跟手再推翻自己個爛鬼conjecture
:^(

"essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful"

:^(

FourWave 2017-4-20 00:35:58

串我出唔到aer p&p
:^(

:^(

細路仔鬧交咩
:^(

:^(

我都未出到
:^(

我0 publication
:^(

:^(

:^(

磨左兩年都冇
:^(

準備0 pub grad

:^(

:^(

:^(

真心求教
點extend法? 通常唔係engineering 搵點去apply架咩

:^(

我沒有放棄 2017-4-20 00:36:09

:^(

講緊ECON呢個學科既RESEARCH係吹水呀
無講過PhD Coursework係吹水
:^(

:^(

:^(

其實你想argue的乜
:^(

咁邊一半係吹水?
:^(

我用實證答你
https://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Mathiness.pdf

咁都出到AER

服未?
:^(

Papers and proceedings
:^(

同真aer差幾遠
咪玩啦你
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

屌唔係AER呀
:^(

你出唔出到先你D不吹水文都出唔撚到啦
:^(

:^(
出唔到唔代表Econ research係吹水架喎
你咁把炮你D吹水文又出到AER
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

你係咪腦生草
個份文就係吹水的
係咪已經證明左 ECON RESEARCH 係可以純吹水
:^(

:^(

我出唔出到都唔撚關事

:^(

你之前話"Econ research係吹水" 唔係"可以吹水" 係度偷換概念
前者係for all, 後者係there exists
Econ係social science 肯定會有所謂既"吹水"部份去set一個context出黎做research problem
但之後個result係點出黎係可以有好多approach 唔一定係吹水亦唔係多數學就一定好

忒修斯之船 2017-4-20 00:36:57

social science 係有水份架啦
越qual 越吹越quant 就越多鳩model data cleansing
咁butthurt做乜，做好自己咪夠

:^(

:^(

:^(

Cheuk 2017-4-20 00:37:10

:^(

講緊ECON呢個學科既RESEARCH係吹水呀
無講過PhD Coursework係吹水
:^(

:^(

:^(

其實你想argue的乜
:^(

咁邊一半係吹水?
:^(

我用實證答你
https://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Mathiness.pdf

咁都出到AER

服未?
:^(

Papers and proceedings
:^(

同真aer差幾遠
咪玩啦你
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

屌唔係AER呀
:^(

你出唔出到先你D不吹水文都出唔撚到啦
:^(

:^(
出唔到唔代表Econ research係吹水架喎
你咁把炮你D吹水文又出到AER
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

你係咪腦生草
個份文就係吹水的
係咪已經證明左 ECON RESEARCH 係可以純吹水
:^(

:^(

我出唔出到都唔撚關事

:^(
你之前話"Econ research係吹水" 唔係"可以吹水" 係度偷換概念
前者係for all, 後者係there exists
Econ係social science 肯定會有所謂既"吹水"部份去set一個context出黎做research problem
但之後個result係點出黎係可以有好多approach 唔一定係吹水亦唔係多數學就一定好

屌你睇返我第一句
我係話ECON係半吹水科

忒修斯之船 2017-4-20 00:37:32

social science 係有水份架啦
越qual 越吹越quant 就越多鳩model data cleansing
咁butthurt做乜，做好自己咪夠

:^(

astron好多濕鳩model
比個鳩conjecture之後做regression,跟手再推翻自己個爛鬼conjecture
:^(

"essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful"

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

Harry_傾 2017-4-20 00:38:00

social science 係有水份架啦
越qual 越吹越quant 就越多鳩model data cleansing
咁butthurt做乜，做好自己咪夠

:^(

:^(

:^(

一言筆發 2017-4-20 00:38:29

串我出唔到aer p&p
:^(

:^(

細路仔鬧交咩
:^(

:^(

其實而家嘈緊乜撚野
明明之前屌9我GET錯TOPIC跟著又LOOP返去ECON有沒有水份個度
:^(

其實有咩好嘈，neuroscience 同psychology 都係好多吹水成份

其實有少少想做computational 果範，而家報左Bernstein center of computational neuroscience 果個msc

但報左名，寫埋personal statement，睇埋佢地既papers，都唔係好明Computational neuro主要研究topics係咩…

我見過有用graph analysis去解釋structural同functional network之間既mapping。都有淨係研究一粒neuron firing既 frequency spectrum同 temopral significance。亦有整一個model出黎模擬一個cognitive system既運作（好有artificial intelligence既感覺）

定係computational neuroscience只係一個approach，而唔係一個研究範疇？
:^(
咁既話computational咪好transferable
:^(
:^(

係呀，只係其中一個範疇
我唔係做呢範，我答唔到你咁多
但我隔離條team 就係 ml 做 parcellation of functional brain

Michaelzaki 2017-4-20 00:39:06

篇野係2015 AEA Boston meeting一個session 上面Romer作為一個well-established既economist發表佢對macro發展的view
AER P&R通常係pick meeting入面細野唔通過peer review而pub
篇野係"吹水"in the sense佢唔係rigorous research
但係不能代表篇野的view係冇用過J圖

:^(

P&p 有時係大粒佬pub做research一開始寫個d toy model
雖然簡單但其實係有insight

數學廢柴 2017-4-20 00:39:38

social science 係有水份架啦
越qual 越吹越quant 就越多鳩model data cleansing
咁butthurt做乜，做好自己咪夠

:^(

astron好多濕鳩model
比個鳩conjecture之後做regression,跟手再推翻自己個爛鬼conjecture
:^(

"essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful"

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

一言筆發 2017-4-20 00:40:10

串我出唔到aer p&p
:^(

:^(

細路仔鬧交咩
:^(

:^(

好重火藥味, 未聽過做學術咁串人

其實好多學術界人係好串的
:^(

:^(

:^(

串唔係咁串啦
:^(

學術討論尖銳d可以
:^(
但話人出唔到就......

扮乜撚野君子
:^(

:^(

忒修斯之船 2017-4-20 00:41:16

social science 係有水份架啦
越qual 越吹越quant 就越多鳩model data cleansing
咁butthurt做乜，做好自己咪夠

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

忒修斯之船 2017-4-20 00:41:43

social science 係有水份架啦
越qual 越吹越quant 就越多鳩model data cleansing
咁butthurt做乜，做好自己咪夠

:^(

astron好多濕鳩model
比個鳩conjecture之後做regression,跟手再推翻自己個爛鬼conjecture
:^(

"essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful"

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

Adam_Smith 2017-4-20 00:42:12

串我出唔到aer p&p
:^(

:^(

細路仔鬧交咩
:^(

:^(

好重火藥味, 未聽過做學術咁串人

其實好多學術界人係好串的
:^(

:^(

:^(

串唔係咁串啦
:^(

學術討論尖銳d可以
:^(
但話人出唔到就......

扮乜撚野君子
:^(

:^(

可能我跟過既老細人品都好好

:^(

Adam_Smith 2017-4-20 00:43:11

篇野係2015 AEA Boston meeting一個session 上面Romer作為一個well-established既economist發表佢對macro發展的view
AER P&R通常係pick meeting入面細野唔通過peer review而pub
篇野係"吹水"in the sense佢唔係rigorous research
但係不能代表篇野的view係冇用過J圖

:^(

:^(

P&p 有時係大粒佬pub做research一開始寫個d toy model
雖然簡單但其實係有insight

佢既toy=我地正式要做好多literature review

:^(

我沒有放棄 2017-4-20 00:43:19

:^(

講緊ECON呢個學科既RESEARCH係吹水呀
無講過PhD Coursework係吹水
:^(

:^(

:^(

其實你想argue的乜
:^(

咁邊一半係吹水?
:^(

我用實證答你
https://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Mathiness.pdf

咁都出到AER

服未?
:^(

Papers and proceedings
:^(

同真aer差幾遠
咪玩啦你
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

屌唔係AER呀
:^(

你出唔出到先你D不吹水文都出唔撚到啦
:^(

:^(
出唔到唔代表Econ research係吹水架喎
你咁把炮你D吹水文又出到AER
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

你係咪腦生草
個份文就係吹水的
係咪已經證明左 ECON RESEARCH 係可以純吹水
:^(

:^(

我出唔出到都唔撚關事

:^(
你之前話"Econ research係吹水" 唔係"可以吹水" 係度偷換概念
前者係for all, 後者係there exists
Econ係social science 肯定會有所謂既"吹水"部份去set一個context出黎做research problem
但之後個result係點出黎係可以有好多approach 唔一定係吹水亦唔係多數學就一定好

屌你睇返我第一句
我係話ECON係半吹水科

:^(

哦屌你咁洗撚你講咩我話Econ係0.25吹水科呀OK?

:^(

大膠神 2017-4-20 00:44:29

串我出唔到aer p&p
:^(

:^(

細路仔鬧交咩
:^(

:^(

好重火藥味, 未聽過做學術咁串人

其實好多學術界人係好串的
:^(

:^(

:^(

串唔係咁串啦
:^(

學術討論尖銳d可以
:^(
但話人出唔到就......

扮乜撚野君子
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

可能我跟過既老細人品都好好
:^(

:^(

chisinlo 2017-4-20 00:44:58

我用實證答你
https://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Mathiness.pdf

咁都出到AER

服未?
:^(

Papers and proceedings
:^(

同真aer差幾遠
咪玩啦你
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

屌唔係AER呀
:^(

你出唔出到先你D不吹水文都出唔撚到啦
:^(

:^(
出唔到唔代表Econ research係吹水架喎
你咁把炮你D吹水文又出到AER
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

你係咪腦生草
個份文就係吹水的
係咪已經證明左 ECON RESEARCH 係可以純吹水
:^(

:^(

我出唔出到都唔撚關事

:^(
你之前話"Econ research係吹水" 唔係"可以吹水" 係度偷換概念
前者係for all, 後者係there exists
Econ係social science 肯定會有所謂既"吹水"部份去set一個context出黎做research problem
但之後個result係點出黎係可以有好多approach 唔一定係吹水亦唔係多數學就一定好

屌你睇返我第一句
我係話ECON係半吹水科

其實點叫吹水，點叫唔吹水？有theory or math support？

利申:Engine

:^(

繼續沈醉(Franco) 2017-4-20 00:45:10 有咩好嘈
你地鍾意點諗咪點諗

:^(

Adam_Smith 2017-4-20 00:45:16

Papers and proceedings
:^(

同真aer差幾遠
咪玩啦你
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

屌唔係AER呀
:^(

你出唔出到先你D不吹水文都出唔撚到啦
:^(

:^(
出唔到唔代表Econ research係吹水架喎
你咁把炮你D吹水文又出到AER
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

你係咪腦生草
個份文就係吹水的
係咪已經證明左 ECON RESEARCH 係可以純吹水
:^(

:^(

我出唔出到都唔撚關事

:^(
你之前話"Econ research係吹水" 唔係"可以吹水" 係度偷換概念
前者係for all, 後者係there exists
Econ係social science 肯定會有所謂既"吹水"部份去set一個context出黎做research problem
但之後個result係點出黎係可以有好多approach 唔一定係吹水亦唔係多數學就一定好

屌你睇返我第一句
我係話ECON係半吹水科

:^(
哦屌你咁洗撚你講咩我話Econ係0.25吹水科呀OK?
:^(

:^(

:^(

Social psycho 0.314吹水

Michaelzaki 2017-4-20 00:45:51

篇野係2015 AEA Boston meeting一個session 上面Romer作為一個well-established既economist發表佢對macro發展的view
AER P&R通常係pick meeting入面細野唔通過peer review而pub
篇野係"吹水"in the sense佢唔係rigorous research
但係不能代表篇野的view係冇用過J圖

:^(

:^(

P&p 有時係大粒佬pub做research一開始寫個d toy model
雖然簡單但其實係有insight

佢既toy=我地正式要做好多literature review
:^(

做research最重要都係大局觀
我地呢d後生小薯有排學

:^(

Adam_Smith 2017-4-20 00:45:59

有咩好嘈
你地鍾意點諗咪點諗
:^(

唔知點解我唔係好接受到話人出唔到

:^(

J痕叔叔 2017-4-20 00:47:28

篇野係2015 AEA Boston meeting一個session 上面Romer作為一個well-established既economist發表佢對macro發展的view
AER P&R通常係pick meeting入面細野唔通過peer review而pub
篇野係"吹水"in the sense佢唔係rigorous research
但係不能代表篇野的view係冇用過J圖

:^(

:^(

P&p 有時係大粒佬pub做research一開始寫個d toy model
雖然簡單但其實係有insight

佢既toy=我地正式要做好多literature review
:^(

做research最重要都係大局觀
我地呢d後生小薯有排學
:^(

:^(

我沒有放棄 2017-4-20 00:47:39

有咩好嘈
你地鍾意點諗咪點諗
:^(

決定唔嘈傾返research野

:^(

忒修斯之船 2017-4-20 00:48:15

我用實證答你
https://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Mathiness.pdf

咁都出到AER

服未?
:^(

Papers and proceedings
:^(

同真aer差幾遠
咪玩啦你
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

屌唔係AER呀
:^(

你出唔出到先你D不吹水文都出唔撚到啦
:^(

:^(
出唔到唔代表Econ research係吹水架喎
你咁把炮你D吹水文又出到AER
:^(

:^(

:^(

:^(

你係咪腦生草
個份文就係吹水的
係咪已經證明左 ECON RESEARCH 係可以純吹水
:^(

:^(

我出唔出到都唔撚關事

:^(
你之前話"Econ research係吹水" 唔係"可以吹水" 係度偷換概念
前者係for all, 後者係there exists
Econ係social science 肯定會有所謂既"吹水"部份去set一個context出黎做research problem
但之後個result係點出黎係可以有好多approach 唔一定係吹水亦唔係多數學就一定好

屌你睇返我第一句
我係話ECON係半吹水科

其實點叫吹水，點叫唔吹水？有theory or math support？

利申:Engine
:^(

:^(