Be Healthy

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Nobel prize-winning scientist Peter Doherty has written a book “The Beginner's Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize”. Doherty won the 1996 Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine, along with Swiss colleague Rolf Zinkernagel, for discovering the nature of cellular immune defence. In this book he describes the need to stop smoking and to remain healthy for the wannabe scientist, because it may take 50 years for a discovery to be recognized by the Nobel Committee. There are other interesting suggestions in it as well.

This 50 years thing got me thinking, is it the proper to take this much time to recognize some invention or discovery? I have two thoughts both for and against.

1. There is a significant amount of money given with the prize to help the winners to carry their work further. If the award is given a little earlier when the winners have more of productive age left it would be more useful than giving at such late stage of life.

2. The committee taking time to recognize the discovery means that winners have to keep on working for decades. It ensures that only those who are devoted and passionate to their work are being recognized.

I don’t know which or any of the above reasoning is correct. I am going to be in Stockholm this 10th of December may be I can catch a glimpse of our Nobel Prize winners. *winks*

Passing thought

Let’s say a function has two solutions, one is 'best' solution and other is 'right' solution then which is preferable?

I think 'right' is the one which should be accepted, because though both 'right' and 'best' are relative terms,
'right' is relative to function hence certainity but,
'best' is relative to the solution something outside of domain of function so not much of certainity.