下載App 希平方
攻其不背
App 開放下載中
下載App 希平方
攻其不背
App 開放下載中
IE版本不足
你的 IE 瀏覽器太舊了 更新 IE 瀏覽器或點選連結下載 Google Chrome 瀏覽器 前往下載

免費註冊
! 這組帳號已經註冊過了
Email 帳號
密碼請填入 6 位數以上密碼
已經有帳號了?
忘記密碼
! 這組帳號已經註冊過了
您的 Email
請輸入您註冊時填寫的 Email,
我們將會寄送設定新密碼的連結給您。
寄信了!請到信箱打開密碼連結信
密碼信已寄至
沒有收到信嗎? 點這裡重寄一次
如果您尚未收到信,請前往垃圾郵件查看,謝謝!

恭喜您註冊成功!

查看會員功能

註冊未完成

《HOPE English 希平方》服務條款關於個人資料收集與使用之規定

隱私權政策
上次更新日期:2014-12-30

希平方 為一英文學習平台,我們每天固定上傳優質且豐富的影片內容,讓您不但能以有趣的方式學習英文,還能增加內涵,豐富知識。我們非常注重您的隱私,以下說明為當您使用我們平台時,我們如何收集、使用、揭露、轉移及儲存你的資料。請您花一些時間熟讀我們的隱私權做法,我們歡迎您的任何疑問或意見,提供我們將產品、服務、內容、廣告做得更好。

本政策涵蓋的內容包括:希平方 如何處理蒐集或收到的個人資料。
本隱私權保護政策只適用於: 希平方 平台,不適用於非 希平方 平台所有或控制的公司,也不適用於非 希平方 僱用或管理之人。

個人資料的收集與使用
當您註冊 希平方 平台時,我們會詢問您姓名、電子郵件、出生日期、職位、行業及個人興趣等資料。在您註冊完 希平方 帳號並登入我們的服務後,我們就能辨認您的身分,讓您使用更完整的服務,或參加相關宣傳、優惠及贈獎活動。希平方 也可能從商業夥伴或其他公司處取得您的個人資料,並將這些資料與 希平方 所擁有的您的個人資料相結合。

我們所收集的個人資料, 將用於通知您有關 希平方 最新產品公告、軟體更新,以及即將發生的事件,也可用以協助改進我們的服務。

我們也可能使用個人資料為內部用途。例如:稽核、資料分析、研究等,以改進 希平方公司 產品、服務及客戶溝通。

瀏覽資料的收集與使用
希平方 自動接收並記錄您電腦和瀏覽器上的資料,包括 IP 位址、希平方 cookie 中的資料、軟體和硬體屬性以及您瀏覽的網頁紀錄。

隱私權政策修訂
我們會不定時修正與變更《隱私權政策》,不會在未經您明確同意的情況下,縮減本《隱私權政策》賦予您的權利。隱私權政策變更時一律會在本頁發佈;如果屬於重大變更,我們會提供更明顯的通知 (包括某些服務會以電子郵件通知隱私權政策的變更)。我們還會將本《隱私權政策》的舊版加以封存,方便您回顧。

服務條款
歡迎您加入看 ”希平方”
上次更新日期:2013-09-09

歡迎您加入看 ”希平方”
感謝您使用我們的產品和服務(以下簡稱「本服務」),本服務是由 希平方 所提供。
本服務條款訂立的目的,是為了保護會員以及所有使用者(以下稱會員)的權益,並構成會員與本服務提供者之間的契約,在使用者完成註冊手續前,應詳細閱讀本服務條款之全部條文,一旦您按下「註冊」按鈕,即表示您已知悉、並完全同意本服務條款的所有約定。如您是法律上之無行為能力人或限制行為能力人(如未滿二十歲之未成年人),則您在加入會員前,請將本服務條款交由您的法定代理人(如父母、輔助人或監護人)閱讀,並得到其同意,您才可註冊及使用 希平方 所提供之會員服務。當您開始使用 希平方 所提供之會員服務時,則表示您的法定代理人(如父母、輔助人或監護人)已經閱讀、了解並同意本服務條款。 我們可能會修改本條款或適用於本服務之任何額外條款,以(例如)反映法律之變更或本服務之變動。您應定期查閱本條款內容。這些條款如有修訂,我們會在本網頁發佈通知。變更不會回溯適用,並將於公布變更起十四天或更長時間後方始生效。不過,針對本服務新功能的變更,或基於法律理由而為之變更,將立即生效。如果您不同意本服務之修訂條款,則請停止使用該本服務。

第三人網站的連結 本服務或協力廠商可能會提供連結至其他網站或網路資源的連結。您可能會因此連結至其他業者經營的網站,但不表示希平方與該等業者有任何關係。其他業者經營的網站均由各該業者自行負責,不屬希平方控制及負責範圍之內。

兒童及青少年之保護 兒童及青少年上網已經成為無可避免之趨勢,使用網際網路獲取知識更可以培養子女的成熟度與競爭能力。然而網路上的確存有不適宜兒童及青少年接受的訊息,例如色情與暴力的訊息,兒童及青少年有可能因此受到心靈與肉體上的傷害。因此,為確保兒童及青少年使用網路的安全,並避免隱私權受到侵犯,家長(或監護人)應先檢閱各該網站是否有保護個人資料的「隱私權政策」,再決定是否同意提出相關的個人資料;並應持續叮嚀兒童及青少年不可洩漏自己或家人的任何資料(包括姓名、地址、電話、電子郵件信箱、照片、信用卡號等)給任何人。

為了維護 希平方 網站安全,我們需要您的協助:

您承諾絕不為任何非法目的或以任何非法方式使用本服務,並承諾遵守中華民國相關法規及一切使用網際網路之國際慣例。您若係中華民國以外之使用者,並同意遵守所屬國家或地域之法令。您同意並保證不得利用本服務從事侵害他人權益或違法之行為,包括但不限於:
A. 侵害他人名譽、隱私權、營業秘密、商標權、著作權、專利權、其他智慧財產權及其他權利;
B. 違反依法律或契約所應負之保密義務;
C. 冒用他人名義使用本服務;
D. 上載、張貼、傳輸或散佈任何含有電腦病毒或任何對電腦軟、硬體產生中斷、破壞或限制功能之程式碼之資料;
E. 干擾或中斷本服務或伺服器或連結本服務之網路,或不遵守連結至本服務之相關需求、程序、政策或規則等,包括但不限於:使用任何設備、軟體或刻意規避看 希平方 - 看 YouTube 學英文 之排除自動搜尋之標頭 (robot exclusion headers);

服務中斷或暫停
本公司將以合理之方式及技術,維護會員服務之正常運作,但有時仍會有無法預期的因素導致服務中斷或故障等現象,可能將造成您使用上的不便、資料喪失、錯誤、遭人篡改或其他經濟上損失等情形。建議您於使用本服務時宜自行採取防護措施。 希平方 對於您因使用(或無法使用)本服務而造成的損害,除故意或重大過失外,不負任何賠償責任。

版權宣告
上次更新日期:2013-09-16

希平方 內所有資料之著作權、所有權與智慧財產權,包括翻譯內容、程式與軟體均為 希平方 所有,須經希平方同意合法才得以使用。
希平方歡迎你分享網站連結、單字、片語、佳句,使用時須標明出處,並遵守下列原則:

  • 禁止用於獲取個人或團體利益,或從事未經 希平方 事前授權的商業行為
  • 禁止用於政黨或政治宣傳,或暗示有支持某位候選人
  • 禁止用於非希平方認可的產品或政策建議
  • 禁止公佈或傳送任何誹謗、侮辱、具威脅性、攻擊性、不雅、猥褻、不實、色情、暴力、違反公共秩序或善良風俗或其他不法之文字、圖片或任何形式的檔案
  • 禁止侵害或毀損希平方或他人名譽、隱私權、營業秘密、商標權、著作權、專利權、其他智慧財產權及其他權利、違反法律或契約所應付支保密義務
  • 嚴禁謊稱希平方辦公室、職員、代理人或發言人的言論背書,或作為募款的用途

網站連結
歡迎您分享 希平方 網站連結,與您的朋友一起學習英文。

抱歉傳送失敗!

不明原因問題造成傳送失敗,請儘速與我們聯繫!
希平方 x ICRT

「Jim Simons:成功破解華爾街的數學家」- A Rare Interview with the Mathematician Who Cracked Wall Street


框選或點兩下字幕可以直接查字典喔!

You were something of a mathematical phenom. You had already taught at Harvard and MIT at a young age. And then the NSA came calling. What was that about?

Well, the NSA—that's the National Security Agency—they didn't exactly come calling. They had an operation at Princeton, where they hired mathematicians to attack secret codes and stuff like that. And I knew that existed. And they had a very good policy, because you could do half your time at your own mathematics, and at least half your time working on their stuff. And they paid a lot, so that was an irresistible pull. So, I went there.

So you were a code-cracker?

I was.

Until you got fired?

Well, I did get fired. Yes.

How come?

Well, how come? I got fired because...well, the Vietnam War was on, and the boss of bosses in my organization was a big fan of the war and wrote a New York Times article, a magazine section cover story about how we would win in Vietnam. And I didn't like that war. I thought it was stupid, and I wrote a letter to the Times, which they published, saying not everyone who works for Maxwell Taylor, if anyone remembers that name, agrees with his views. And I gave my own views...

Oh, OK. I can see that would—

...which were different from General Taylor's. But in the end, nobody said anything. But then, I was 29 years old at this time, and some kid came around and said he was a stringer from Newsweek magazine and he wanted to interview me and ask what I was doing about my views. And I told him, "I'm doing mostly mathematics now, and when the war is over, then I'll do mostly their stuff." Then I did the only intelligent thing I'd done that day—I told my local boss that I gave that interview. And he said, "What'd you say?" And I told him what I said. And then he said, "I've got to call Taylor." He called Taylor. That took 10 minutes; I was fired five minutes after that.

OK.

But it wasn't bad.

It wasn't bad, because you went on to Stony Brook and stepped up your mathematical career. You started working with this man here. Who is this?

Oh, Chern! Yeah, Chern was one of the great mathematicians of the century. I had known him when I was a graduate student, actually, at Berkeley. And I had some ideas, and I brought them to him and he liked them. And together, we did this work which you can easily see up there. There it is. And...

It led to you publishing a famous paper together. Can you explain at all what that work was?

No. I mean, I could explain it to somebody.

How about explaining this?

But not many. Not many people.

I think you told me it had something to do with spheres, so let's start here.

Well, it did, but I'll say about that work—it did have something to do with that, but before we get to that—that work was good mathematics. I was very happy with it; so was Chern. It even started a little sub-field that's now flourishing. But, more interestingly, it happened to apply to physics, something we knew nothing about—at least I knew nothing about physics, and I don't think Chern knew a heck of a lot. And about 10 years after the paper came out, a guy named Ed Witten in Princeton started applying it to string theory and people in Russia started applying it to what's called "condensed matter." And today, those things in there called Chern-Simons invariants have spread through a lot of physics. And it's amazing. We didn't know any physics. It never occurred to me that it would be applied to physics. But that's the thing about mathematics—you never know where it's going to go.

This is so incredible. So, we've been talking about how evolution shapes human minds that may or may not perceive the truth. Somehow, you come up with a mathematical theory, not knowing any physics, discover two decades later that it's being applied to profoundly describe the actual physical world. How can that happen?

God knows.

But there's a famous physicist named Wigner, and he wrote an essay on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. So somehow, this mathematics, which is rooted in the real world in some sense—we learn to count, measure, everyone would do that—and then it flourishes on its own. But so often it comes back to save the day. General relativity is an example. Minkowski had this geometry, and Einstein realized, "Hey! It's the very thing in which I can cast general relativity." So, you never know. And it is a mystery. It is a mystery.

So, here's a mathematical piece of ingenuity here. Come tell us about this.

Well, that's a ball—it's a sphere, and it has a lattice around it—you know, those squares sort of things. And what I'm going to show here was originally observed by Euler, the great mathematician, in the 1700s. And it gradually grew to be a very important field in mathematics: algebraic topology, geometry. And that paper up there had its roots in this. So, here's this thing: it has eight vertices and 12 edges and six faces. And if you look at the difference—vertices minus edges plus faces—you get two. OK, well, two, that's a good number. Here's a different way of doing it—these are triangles covering—this has 12 vertices and 30 edges and 20 faces, 20 tiles. And vertices minus edges plus faces still equals two. And in fact, you could do this any which way—cover this thing with all kinds of polygons and triangles and mix them up. And you take vertices minus edges plus faces—you'll get two. Now, here's a different shape. This is a torus, or the surface of a doughnut: 16 vertices covered by these rectangles, 32 edges, 16 faces. This comes out zero—vertices minus edges. It'll always come out zero. Every time you cover a torus with squares or triangles or anything like that, you're going to get zero when you take that thing. So, this is called the Euler characteristic. And it's what's called a topological invariant. That's pretty amazing. No matter how you do it, you're always get the same answer. So that was the first sort of thrust, from the mid-1700s, into a subject which is now called algebraic topology.

And your own work took an idea like this and moved it into higher-dimensional theory, higher-dimensional objects, and found new invariances?

Yes. Well, there were already higher-dimensional invariants: Pontryagin classes—actually, there were Chern classes. There were a bunch of these types of invariants. I was struggling to work on one of them and model it sort of combinatorially, instead of the way it was typically done, and that led to this work and we uncovered some new things. But if it wasn't for Mr. Euler—who wrote almost 70 volumes of mathematics and had 13 children, who he apparently would dandle on his knee while he was writing—if it wasn't for Mr. Euler, there wouldn't perhaps be these invariants.

OK, so that's at least given us a flavor of that amazing mind in there. Let's talk about Renaissance. Because you took that amazing mind and having been a code-cracker at the NSA, you started to become a code-cracker in the financial industry. I think you probably didn't buy efficient market theory. And somehow you found a way of creating these astonishing returns over two decades. I think, the way it's been explained to me, what's remarkable about what you did—it wasn't just the size of the returns, it was that you took them with surprisingly low volatility and risk, compared with other hedge funds. So how on earth did you do this, Jim?

I did it by assembling a wonderful group of people. When I started doing trading, I had gotten a little tired of mathematics. I was in my late 30s. I had a little money; I started trading and it went very well. I made quite a lot of money with pure luck. I mean, I think it was pure luck. It certainly wasn't mathematical modeling. But in looking at the data, after a while I realized, Hey, it looks like there's some structure here. And I hired a few mathematicians, and we started making some models—just the kind of thing we did back at IDA. You design an algorithm, you test it out on a computer. Does it work? Doesn't it work? And so on.

Can we take a look at this? Because here's a typical graph of some commodity or whatever. I mean, I look at that and I say, "That's just a random, up-and-down walk—maybe a slight upward trend over that whole period of time." How on earth could you trade looking at that, and see something that wasn't just random?

It turns out in the old days—this is kind of a graph from the old days, commodities or currencies had a tendency to trend. Not necessarily the very light trend you see here, but trending in periods. And if you decided, OK, I'm going to predict today, by the average move in the past 20 days—maybe that would be a good prediction, and I'd make some money. And in fact, years ago, such a system would work—not beautifully, but it would work. So you'd make money, you'd lose money, you'd make money. But this is a year's worth of days, and you'd make a little money during that period. It's a very vestigial system.

So you would test a bunch of lengths of trends in time and see whether, for example, a 10-day trend or a 15-day trend was predictive of what happened next.

Sure, you would try all those things and see what worked best. But the trend-following would have been great in the '60s, and it was sort of OK in the '70s. By the '80s, it wasn't.

Because everyone could see that. So, how did you stay ahead of the pack?

We stayed ahead of the pack by finding other approaches—shorter-term approaches to some extent. But the real thing was to gather a tremendous amount of data—and we had to get it by hand in the early days. We went down to the Federal Reserve and copied interest rate histories and stuff like that, because it didn't exist on computers. We got a lot of data. And very smart people—that was the key. I didn't really know how to hire people to do fundamental trading. I had hired a few—some made money, some didn't make money. I couldn't make a business out of that. But I did know how to hire scientists, because I have some taste in that department. And...so, that's what we did. And gradually these models got better and better, and better and better.

You're credited with doing something remarkable at Renaissance, which is building this culture, this group of people, who weren't just hired guns who could be lured away by money. Their motivation was doing exciting mathematics and science.

Well, I'd hoped that might be true. But some of it was money.

They made a lot of money.

I can't say that no one came because of the money. I think a lot of them came because of the money. But they also came because it would be fun.

What role did machine learning play in all this?

Well, in a certain sense, what we did was machine learning. You look at a lot of data, and you try to simulate different predictive schemes until you get better and better at it. It doesn't necessarily feed back on itself the way we did things. But it worked.

So these different predictive schemes can be really quite wild and unexpected. I mean, you looked at everything, right? You looked at the weather, length of dresses, political opinion.

Yes, length of dresses we didn't try.

What sort of things?

Well, everything. Everything is grist for the mill—except hem lengths. Weather, annual reports, quarterly reports, historic data itself, volumes, you name it. Whatever there is. We take in terabytes of data a day, and store it away and massage it and get it ready for analysis. You're looking for anomalies. You're looking for—like you said, the efficient market hypothesis is not correct.

But any one anomaly might be just a random thing. So, is the secret here to just look at multiple strange anomalies, and see when they align?

Well, any one anomaly might be a random thing; however, if you have enough data, you can tell that it's not. So you can see an anomaly that's persistent for a sufficiently long time—the probability of it being random is not high. But these things fade after a while; anomalies can get washed out. So you have to keep on top of the business.

A lot of people look at the hedge fund industry now and are sort of...shocked by it, by how much wealth is created there, and how much talent is going into it. Do you have any worries about that industry, and perhaps the financial industry in general? Kind of being on a runaway train that's—I don't know—helping increase inequality? How would you champion what's happening in the hedge fund industry?

Well, actually I think in the last three or four years, hedge funds have not done especially well. We've done dandy, but the hedge fund industry as a whole has not done so wonderfully. The stock market has been on a roll, going up as everybody knows, and price-earnings ratios have grown. So an awful lot of the wealth that's been created in the last—let's say, five or six years—has not been created by hedge funds. So people would ask me, "What's a hedge fund?" And I'd say, "One and 20." Which means—now it's two and 20—it's two percent fixed fee and 20 percent of profits. Hedge funds are all different kinds of creatures.

Rumor has it you charge slightly higher fees than that.

We had charged the highest fees in the world at one time. Five and 44, that's what we charge.

Five and 44. So five percent flat, 44 percent of upside. You still made your investors spectacular amounts of money.

We made good returns, yes. People got very mad: "How can you charge such high fees?" I said, "OK, you can withdraw." But "How can I get more?" was what people were... But at a certain point, as I think I told you, we bought out all the investors because there's a capacity to the fund.

But should we worry about the hedge fund industry attracting too much of the world's great mathematical and other talent to work on that, as opposed to the many other problems in the world?

Well, it's not just mathematical. We hire astronomers and physicists and things like that. I don't think we should worry about it too much. It's still a pretty small industry. And in fact, bringing science into the investing world has improved that world. It's reduced volatility. It's increased liquidity. Spreads are narrower because people are trading that kind of stuff. So I'm not too worried about Einstein going off and starting a hedge fund.

Now, you're at a phase in your life now where you're actually investing, though, at the other end of the supply chain—you're actually boosting mathematics across America. This is your wife, Marilyn. And you're working on philanthropic issues together. Tell me about that.

Well, Marilyn started—there she is up there, my beautiful wife—she started the foundation about 20 years ago. I think '94. I claim it was '93, she says it was '94, but it was one of those two years. We started the foundation, just as a convenient way to give charity. She kept the books, and so on. We did not have a vision at that time, but gradually a vision emerged—which was to focus on math and science, to focus on basic research. And that's what we've done. And six years ago or so, I left Renaissance and went to work at the foundation. So that's what we do.

And so Math for America here is basically investing in math teachers around the country, giving them some extra income, giving them support and coaching, and really trying to make that more effective and make that a calling to which teachers can aspire.

Yeah—instead of beating up the bad teachers, which has created morale problems all through the educational community, in particular in math and science, we focus on celebrating the good ones and giving them status. Yeah, we give them extra money, 15,000 dollars a year. We have 800 math and science teachers in New York City in public schools today, as part of a core. There's a great morale among them. They're staying in the field. Next year, it'll be 1,000 and that'll be 10 percent of the math and science teachers in New York public schools.

Jim, here's another project that you've supported philanthropically: Research into origins of life, I guess. What are we looking at here?

Well, I'll save that for a second. And then I'll tell you what you're looking at. So, origins of life is a fascinating question. How did we get here? Well, there are two questions: One is, what is the route from geology to biology—how did we get here? And the other question is, what did we start with? What material, if any, did we have to work with on this route? Those are two very, very interesting questions. The first question is a tortuous path from geology up to RNA or something like that—how did that all work? And the other, what do we have to work with? Well, more than we think. So what's pictured there is a star in formation. Now, every year in our Milky Way, which has 100 billion stars, about two new stars are created. Don't ask me how, but they're created. And it takes them about a million years to settle out. So, in steady state, there are about two million stars in formation at any time. That one is somewhere along this settling-down period. And there's all this crap sort of circling around it, dust and stuff. And it'll form probably a solar system, or whatever it forms. But here's the thing—in this dust that surrounds a forming star have been found, now, significant organic molecules. Molecules not just like methane, but formaldehyde and cyanide—things that are the building blocks—the seeds, if you will—of life. So, that may be typical. And it may be typical that planets around the universe start off with some of these basic building blocks. Now does that mean there's going to be life all around? Maybe. But it's a question of how tortuous this path is from those frail beginnings, those seeds, all the way to life. And most of those seeds will fall on fallow planets.

So for you, personally, finding an answer to this question of where we came from, of how did this thing happen, that is something you would love to see.

I would love to see, and like to know—if that path is tortuous enough, and so improbable, that no matter what you start with, we could be a singularity. But on the other hand, given all this organic dust that's floating around, we could have lots of friends out there. It'd be great to know.

Jim, a couple of years ago, I got the chance to speak with Elon Musk, and I asked him the secret of his success, and he said taking physics seriously was it. Listening to you, what I hear you saying is taking math seriously, that has infused your whole life. It's made you an absolute fortune, and now it's allowing you to invest in the futures of thousands and thousands of kids across America and elsewhere. Could it be that science actually works? That math actually works?

Well, math certainly works. Math certainly works. But this has been fun. Working with Marilyn and giving it away has been very enjoyable.

I just find it—it's an inspirational thought to me that by taking knowledge seriously, so much more can come from it. So thank you for your amazing life, and for coming here to TED. Thank you. Jim Simons!

播放本句

登入使用學習功能

使用Email登入

HOPE English 播放器使用小提示

  • 功能簡介

    單句重覆、上一句、下一句:顧名思義,以句子為單位重覆播放,單句重覆鍵顯示橘色時為重覆播放狀態;顯示灰色時為正常播放狀態。按上一句鍵、下一句鍵時就會自動重覆播放該句。
    收錄佳句:點擊可增減想收藏的句子。

    中、英文字幕開關:中、英文字幕按鍵為綠色為開啟,灰色為關閉。鼓勵大家搞懂每一句的內容以後,關上字幕聽聽看,會發現自己好像在聽中文說故事一樣,會很有成就感喔!
    收錄單字:用滑鼠框選英文單字可以收藏不會的單字。
  • 分享
    如果您覺得本篇短片很有趣或很喜歡,在短片結束時有分享連結,可以分享給朋友一同欣賞,一起看YouTube學英文!

    或是您有收錄很優秀的句子時,也可以分享佳句給大家,一同看佳句學英文!