Software·43,883 discussions

I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Locked

http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2007/05/i_just_want_to_program_dont_ma.html

Now, I have just read this article on the Orielly web site. And I have to say, I disagree. And for several reasons.

As my post to the article states, in the business world Math is a requirement. Everything from knowing various accounting principles(its math) to being able to understand the equations of some statistical requirement(insurance). Continuing this further, when working for a workers compensation state agency. We calculated the amount we would pay on any medical procedures based on a percentage of Medicare with this figure being worked off the last years percentage if I remember correctly.

In my experience, if you could not understand various equations. You could not fulfill the requirements of the task. This does not take into account where a person may come out of school and go into various other programming backgrounds(science, graphical).

I don’t understand how math should not be a requirement. A schools job is to broadly prepare you for as many possible work environment as possible. If they do not provide a math background to your education, they severely limit your possibilities in what backgrounds you may want to choose.

[i]Edited to add:[/i] If you read any of georges columns, you will notice he does statistics constantly on the various hardware/software that he tests. I don’t know how reliant it is anymore, but I use to read application dumps when being on call at 3am. Not being able to convert hex to decimal and vice versa would have been an issue. I have also seen db admins use math to find the position of a record within a database when their was integrity problems. How can a Computer science major not have a math background>

Dan

Topic

OK, how little math do you want to learn?

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

How much programming do you want to be able to do?

Thanks to the “astronomical” number of clock cycles, and resulting abstraction layers, there are some “development” environments that allow math un-enthusiasts to do about as much as “programmers” as they want to.

The opening post implies, and several of the comments after it imply more strongly, that “the problem” with the classes in which they struggle is the pedagogy. Those of you who have read some of my other posts can guess how much sympathy I have for that stance.

But I’m feeling grouchy, so I’m going to say it anyway. What a pathetic, transparent cop-out! If you’re really worthy of the subject you claim you “want” to understand, you’ll get over the pedagogy and figure out how to figure it out. If you can’t learn the subject without changing the teacher, you aren’t cut out for ______. It’s that simple.

“How can a Computer science major not have a math background?”

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Well, I guess that depends on the school.

If they’re just training people to use an IDE & prepackaged function libraries, then little to none. Of course, I don’t call those with such limited skills “programmers,” & I certainly won’t trust their work unless someone with math skills verified the results of [u]any[/u] calculations performed by their works.

As for the real Comp. Sci. major, I don’t see how he could even pass many of the required courses without a good handle on various math skills.

but even with an ide????

In reply to “How can a Computer science major not have a math background?”

Ok, I’ll use insurance as an example. Oi, your job as a programmer is to take historical loss and premium information over a 20 year period(I’ve seen this requested), crunch the numbers to come up with the growth that has occurred in specific demographic area’s(large cities versus rural), and to project the loss’s for the next 10 years. This information will be used to calculate the amount of reserve that you wish to maintain. And if the loss’s are high enough, wither you wish to continue offering coverage in specific area’s. I mean, this is the type of information that is asked for ALL THE TIME. Hell, they may use this information to modify their rate teirs.

And thats only in my small area of expertise where mathematical formula’s are a must. Hell, that’s not even touching the medical arena of statistics. I work in a publishing company right now. They still are going to crunch numbers of the cost factor of the raw materials to create phone books along with the cost’s for their artist’s and sales to determine rates they will charge based on the population of a specific area.

What kind of programming do these people do????

Dan

Which is why I stipulated independent validation be required.

In reply to but even with an ide????

I’m no stranger to the mathematics involved in the insurance industry; although it’s been a while, and I’m no longer as quick at the task as I once was, I can still do the really esoteric stuff, like actuarial calculations.

I’ve seen “real” programmers choke when tasked with developing an application which included a requirement that net present values of life policies be calculated. This despite that fact that such calculations are not unique to such contracts, but have general application in a myriad financial contracts or transactions.

Hence my stipulation re. independent validation of a programmer’s work.

Unfortunately, this situation has been further complicated by the position of systems analyst having been in great part replaced by the programmer/analyst. Duh. Talk about the blind leading the blind!

‘I wish I was special …’

In reply to Which is why I stipulated independent validation be required.

‘… but I’m a freak.’

Wonderful point on the passing away of the ‘true’ systems analysts.

Couldn’t agree more.

Having someone who just performs testing and analysis of function / interface / etc. without attempting to consider the code can make a huge difference to the quality of the finished product.

Yet another example of ‘efficiency’ (low cost) being the prime driver with quality work being seen as an unsustainable ‘cost’ instead of an investment.

Funny how we never have time or funds to do things right from the ‘get go’ but we (almost) always find the greater amount of time and money to fix the mistakes later.

Bring back technical writers to build help files, FAQs etc.

Bring back ‘real’ system analysts.

Bring back respect for specialists and what they bring to the table.

Team work where the goal keeper isn’t expected to also wear the ‘striker’ hat just works so much better (most of the time).

I know I’m dreaming and that time has past. I just think that, just maybe, if enough heretics chant this maybe it will get tried again and let’s see what the real cost/benefit outcome is.

While it may be a dream, it’s still one worthy of fulfillment.

In reply to ‘I wish I was special …’

And, you are quite right to mention the tech. writer, who’s always seemed to be an afterthought, one worthy of little consideration.

The lack of adequate, if any, documentation today manifests itself in every instance of conceivable need.

Today’s creed seems to be “Just get it in the customers’ hands; we’ll worry about whether or not it works, or if the customer can use it, latter.”

Where’s Mr. Peabody & his Way-Back Machine?

Programming Does Not Require Higher Level Mathematics

In reply to “How can a Computer science major not have a math background?”

The vast majority of programming involves data entry and state transitions. I am sure there are specific problem domains that require the implementation of mathematical equations, but even here it is rare that the equation will be derived by the programmer. Equations of any business significance will have typically been derived by others and validated through manual use. It is the role of the programmer, in this area, to be able to recognize the symbols and translate them into computer code.

In many ways, computers bypass the need for mathematics by allowing people to apply brute force approaches to determine an answer rather than deriving an equation to model the situation.

There is plenty of knowledge to be learned about computer programming. There is no need to envy mathematics and hope it will convey some sense of higher purpose on programming.

You need it all

In reply to Programming Does Not Require Higher Level Mathematics

Who are you programming for and who do you expect to program for over the course of your career? You may be surprised by the hats you have to wear. Over my 30+ year career I moved people from section to section, from project to project as they were needed. Those who could adapt survived. Thos who couldn’t didn’t.

I have yet to terminate anyone for lack of core competence in their chosen discipline, but I have terminated more than a few for inability to work and communicate with their internal and external clients. Those without strong competencies in math, english, a smattering of other disciplines, and STRONG PEOPLE SKILLS were usually the ones I had to let go.

Sorry, no shortcuts to a successful career.

Agree on Communications Skills, But Not On Math

In reply to You need it all

I thoroughly agree on communications skills and I have seen how a lack in this area limits the effectiveness of the programmer and the quality of his work. I have also observed, however, that higher mathematics skills (anything beyond basic arithmetic) do not contribute to general industry programming.

The most common mathematical concept in programming is equivalence; we are constantly comparing values. The necessary understanding of this concept for programmers, however, occurs when learning basic addition and subtraction.

The next most common concept is incrementing or the counting of integers.

Next we might find operations such as counting the rows in a table or summing the values in a column.

Less frequently, a programmer may have an arithmetic computation. Do not confuse applying values to an equation with algebra where we learn the ways to manipulate equations.

In more specialized applications, complex equations are used. These equations may be difficult or even impossible to solve mathematically, so the computer is used to find an answer by repeatedly plugging in values (Monte Carlo simulations, etc.).

I respect mathematics and I respect computer programming, however, beyond a few very specialized applications, computer programmers do not require any mathematical skills beyond basic arithmetic.

Writing code vs. programming

In reply to Agree on Communications Skills, But Not On Math

I disagree. While a number of routine coding tasks require no more knowledge of mathematics than a 10 year old has, programming is more than just writing lines of code.

I think a lot of people are confusing writing code that does mathematical calculations with the need to use mathematical reasoning in order to write effective code of any kind. When they make you study logic, graph theory, set theory and other topics in discrete maths, the intention is to shape the way you think about programming problems and how to construct solutions.

Nowadays this is probably not as obvious as it used to be, since current fads center on different approaches to modelling complex systems of pre-built components. But if you ever have to do something a bit more complicated than RAD (say, invent an algorithm), those mathematical tools become invaluable. And even if you do not, the kind of analytical thinking fostered by such mathematical instruction will probably make you a better coder.

math and code and programming

In reply to Writing code vs. programming

My “code” days go back to something called a IBM 2500, patch boards, 16 “drives”, slave printers and such.. early 1970’s. I since then have kept current but do not cut code of program, etc..Let others do that in various programs I ran.. NOTE “Programs” as in HW and such as I had the budgets and schedules.
I am still mildly amused at when the SW folks come in and brag.. “We got it to run”… before during or after crashes, start up, etc as that is what they were paid to do,.. as they are not on a journey of discovery.. which they sometimes forgot.’
But way back dealt with data that had actual VALUES of ZERO.. and the more math we had, them less things crashed when “ZERO plus say plus five added and result was 2.5 not zero plus any nr is zero.. and such things.
Same today.. the better program types have a good math understanding..and background. I have seen time after time.. “well we just imported that routine and we finally found the issue was a fault in sub-routines, etc. I have a friend in IT in money area and he shudders at what he hears from non-math types as they can only speak IT, not math or stat or such. Given druthers I will take the well “mathed” type every time, as I feel the others simply dodged the hard stuff.. there are code cutters and there are programmers…and there are very good IT types…I simply worry when I find no strong math….and I do not mean to insult..but no math and do not want any is kind of doing but not really knowing.. an assembly of routines..not a knowledge of functions..

Analysis in Software Development

In reply to Writing code vs. programming

There are multiple paths towards developing analysis skills and I am not convinced that mathematics provides the best alternative.

Requirements analysis lives in the world of human ambiguities, contradictions, rules and exceptions. These things are not handled well in mathematics, outside of specialized areas such as probability and fuzzy logic. These analysis skills are better honed through language such as doing analysis in a good literature course.

Set theory is an interesting proposal, because the set-like objects in programming do not map particularly well in mathematical sets. An inner join is a straight-forward concept easily understood by developers working with databases. It is quite complex to represent this based upon sets. The inner join provides an intersection based upon keys, a union based upon columns, and a relationship (1 to 1, 1 to N, M to N) among elements. I can’t see how understanding sets provides enlightenment concerning database operations.

Concerning algorithm development, software is the act of automating manual activities. Software developers implement algorithms; this allows the implementation to be validated. Are there algorithms created by programmers? An algorithm to generate user recommended pages might be an example. Is the result of the algorithm valid? That is simply unknowable.

I am assuming that the reference to “RAD” actually is in regard to the practice of iterative development. Iterative development is actually based upon the engineering concept of feedback and successive approximation. Feedback loops are difficult to handle mathematics and usually avoided. The ability to track and reproduce a highly unpredictable input stream is a wonderful model for software development, but one that is not going to come out of the study of mathematics.

Is the study of mathematics a good thing in general? Yes, though I would put statistics at the top of the list. Mathematics, however, is not fundamental to software development, nor does it provide any unique insights.

Math and Programming

In reply to Analysis in Software Development

Relational databases came out of the work of Edgar Codd, who laid down the mathematical framework upon which they are built. ANSI SQL is a set-oriented language, among other things. SQL has solid mathematical underpinnings and could not have been developed without math.

A software module can be represented as a strongly connected directed graph. The number of basis paths, and therefore the number of test cases required to exercise all the logic in a module, is defined with mathematical precision by its cyclomatic complexity metric. This is a direct application of graph theory to testing software.

I have both created and implemented algorithms. Inductive logic can be used to prove the validity of algorithms. Inductive proofs are taught in discrete math courses.

It is not possible to write device drivers without knowing math. It is not possible to understand UNIX permissions without understanding bit fields and binary arithmetic. It is not possible to use the bit operators that are part of almost every programminglanguage without knowing math. It is not possible to write hardware abstraction layers without knowing math. It is not possible to model systems such as weather or routing without math. It is not possible to write control software for machinery without math. It is not possible to write operating systems without math.

Without math there would be no computers and no programming languages. To say mathematics is not fundamental to software development and provides no unique insights borders on absurd.

Setting a Very Low Bar for “Mathematics”

In reply to Analysis in Software Development

There is a difference in saying programmers use concepts that have also been described mathematically and saying that a mathematical course of study is fundamental to programming.

I have great respect for database programmers, but few have the need nor skills to define the mathematics behind something like a database. The “set theory” required is no more detailed than is typically covered in the first two years of grade school. Given the difficulty inherent in describing a basic concept like an inner join using a Venn diagram, I would find it hard to conclude that detailed knowledge of set theory is fundamental to database development.

Thomas McCabe developed Cyclomatic Complexity Metric and a description can be downloaded from http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/sqg/pubs/publications.htm listed under the title, “Structured Testing: A Testing Methodology Using the Cyclomatic Complexity Metric”. The mathematics that validate McCabe’s rules are complex, but applying the rules requires counting, addition, and subtraction – basic arithmetic.

The keys to writing device drivers is understanding critical areas and response times. The mathematics needed is limited to counting, addition, and perhaps multiplication.

The knowledge needed to understand Unix permissions is that of Yes and No, concepts most children have mastered by the time they reach grade school. George Boole was a mathematician and study of his mathematics is a very advanced topic. To say that this makes mathematics fundamental to programming is the same as saying mathematics are fundamental to an electrician because he can wire a three-way light switch.

Mathematics are a mechanism with which to describe the physical world. The concepts described by mathematics are not unique to mathematics; they can be learned by other means. If the concepts of computer programming can (and usually are) learned by means other than the study of mathematics, it is not possible to say that this is fundamental to programming / software development.

To Mike H

In reply to Analysis in Software Development

For most people in programing the level of abstraction is great enough to isolate them from the underlying mathematics.
I never had to work out how to ramp up a motor, I just popped a rate into the controller that was bolted on the side of it.

Mathematics alone would not have helped me work out how to ramp the motor up either. A sizable dollop of electrical and mechanical engineering would also be a pre-requisite.

If you wanted to rotate an image 30 degrees at most you might have to remember pi = 180 and then discover you really wanted -30.

I enjoy maths, I use it quite often, but I do/did a lot of ‘low level’ stuff.

Then there are other problems. Do you say the customers are in customer number order or start looking for predicate calculus symbols with charmap?

Do you implement a recursive algorithm for finding the nth sentence in a document or do you count full stops like a sensible person?

If it was like you say learning maths = learning programing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A test of view all

In reply to To Mike H

fghj

Mathematics is more than just learning formulas

In reply to Analysis in Software Development

Logical reasoning is an important aspect of mathematics. There does not need to be a one to one correlation for mathematics to be useful to programming. I would say that the mathematics that has proved most useful to me in programming has been Euclid Geometry. I do not know how it is taught currently, but when I was in school over 20 years ago, we had to write proofs for various theorems. I have yet had to code those proofs, but the concepts I learned from doing the proofs help me immensely in coding.

Can’t agree Wayne

In reply to Programming Does Not Require Higher Level Mathematics

as far as Im concerned that’s advocating an invisible listBox control because of an inability to generate a basic list class.

That’s a brute force approch as well.

I don’t see any of the math 99.999% of us do as developers as difficult at all, most of it is application of a technique, an algorithm, should be able to manage that shouldn’t we?

My nearly 50 years of experience tell me otherwise.

In reply to Programming Does Not Require Higher Level Mathematics

Without a sufficient understanding of the underlying mathematical concepts involved in a particular task, one cannot be assured of selecting either the correct, or best, formula(e) and/or data, let alone validate the results.

It’s the sliderule vs the calculator mindset. With the former, one needed a thorough understanding of the problem in order, for example, to determine the numeric magnitude of the computed result; with a calculator, one can mis-key by orders of magnitude and be oblivious to the fact that the result is erroneous.

I had forgotten about that :D

In reply to My nearly 50 years of experience tell me otherwise.

Wonderfully put.

I had been thinking about awareness of sine waves as useful in thinking of things like selecting the tape channel number in 3 tape sorts: The old trick of making a switch / oscilator with “s = 3 – s” where “s” starts out as 1 or 2.

Sure, anyone who had been told about that would probably remember the trick, but not the reason for it.

I had forgotten the lessons learned from using a sliderule; and they are significant! Not just magnitude (as you point out), but an understanding of precision as well. I have seen too many times when people (especially in financial areas) will try to get numbers beyond 7 digits of precision when several of the values in the equation are “floats”.

Remembering that you really can’t go beyond 3 digits with a sliderule drives that home every day, even without remembering that the sliderule is why I remember it! 🙂

The number of people

In reply to I had forgotten about that :D

who don’t know the difference between precision and accuracy is a constant cause of dismay 🙁 and lucrative contracts making things add up. 😀

Well, for a shooter, that’s easy to remember.

In reply to The number of people

A tight group of shots = high precision; having that group close to the intended target is high accuracy. If you don’t know the difference, and how to control both, trying to sight a weapon is a waste of time.

Those who are unable to do the math are seduced by digital displays, …

In reply to I had forgotten about that :D

be they those of a calculator, a spreadsheet, or any computer printed output. For them, the mere presence of more numbers following a decimal point connotes great accuracy.

And then, when they see a column of numbers whose values should, for example, total 100%, they’re baffled to see the total showing as 99.99%.

Slightly off topic but close…

In reply to Those who are unable to do the math are seduced by digital displays, …

This reminds me of when my son (4th grader) was doing some math assignment and was trying to fill in a table for a pie chart. The numbers needed to add up to 100% and I was whining about him making sure to “show his work.”

It all came home when he added everything up and it came to something around .95. I got him to review his “shown work” and he started finding mistakes and eventually got it to add up to 1.00.

I felt vindicated and he was happy to have the asignment complete.

I will be happy to say that he learned his lesson and ALWAYS shows his work now…

if he had actually learned his lesson and always [i]did[/i] show his work.. 🙁

Imagine if everyone had to “show their work!”

In reply to Slightly off topic but close…

We would, no doubt, be staring into a myriad gaping jaws.

Mathematical concepts are important to programming

In reply to My nearly 50 years of experience tell me otherwise.

That is why I think they should ban the calculator from most mathematical courses. When you are forced to figure the problem out in your head instead of just punching keys, you start to see the value and beauty of mathematics. The problem I see with most mathematic and programming courses nowdays is that they teach you how to solve a problem by using a set formula. They fail to teach you how to derive the formula in the first place. Its the abstract concepts that are going to help you the most not the various formulas.

Which ones ?

In reply to Mathematical concepts are important to programming

Several branches of maths are useful models which can be programmed, ie applied.

I don’t think anyone was arguing that maths isn’t useful or that it doesn’t have it’s own Symmetry.

There are no axioms of programming.
There is no system of proof.
There is no one economic solution.

Using math to teach that lesson would be far more valuable, than attempts to treat programming as though the above myths were true.

I barely covered proofs in advanced math, (what I did I enjoyed).

Arithmetic well that’s in another thread and you have my wholehearted agreement.

You miss the point of proofs

In reply to Which ones ?

The point of proofs (at least when I was in school which is over 20 years ago) is to help a person learn how a solution is derived. Its actually a test of logic. Programming requires that I take a spec a break into smaller procedural blocks. Even if I am doing object-oriented programming, I still have to program procedurally aka methods/functions/subs.
When I prove a mathematical theorem, I have to show the steps I used to solve the problem and why each step is valid. Those are the principles that are important to learn. Its the logic behind the formulas and not the formulas themselves. That is the problem with many math classes today; people learn the formulas, but never see the basis for those formulas.

[Sorry I missed read your post about proofs. I concur that many of the math programs fail to teach sufficiently proofs. That is one of reasons I don’t like having calculators used in a math class since teachers and students tend to focus more on using specific formulas to solve problems instead of showing how to derive those formulas.]

I’m well aware of the point of proofs

In reply to You miss the point of proofs

Rigour is the point of proofs, there is no rigour in software development.

If there was, we would be out of a job, or be up for a massive salary increase.

Mathematics as system of logic is based (15 ?) axioms.

There is only one axiom in software development

If you are right now, you’ll be wrong soon.

Based on Experience I Agree With Wayne

In reply to Programming Does Not Require Higher Level Mathematics

Having programmed for over 25 years, I have found that basic algebra is all that is really required in most situations. I am a former Physics major and have Lots of math classes under my belt. Calculus up to differential equations and linear algebra.

I only had to use calculus once. CMM4 had no sine or cosine functions, so I used a MacLarien series to make my own.

There are areas of programming where math is heavily used: graphics and DSP come to mind.

I worked in DSP for 4 years as a contractor for the Navy. In every case a DSP engineer would come up with the algorithm. My job was to render it into code.

Math is more than calculations!

In reply to Programming Does Not Require Higher Level Mathematics

The study of mathematics is much more than add/subtract/multiply/divide. I would suggest that the appreciation of the correlation between the study of mathematics and application programming is one of the characteristics defining the difference between an average programmer and an exceptional programmer.

Higher level math makes you a better analyst

In reply to Programming Does Not Require Higher Level Mathematics

I disagree that programmers do not need higher level math. Calculus may not be used in a business application, but learning Calculus teaches you how to analyze problems. Programming requires that one fully analyze a problem. Personally, I think they need to make students learn the math without having the aid of a calculator. The math principles are more important than memorizing how to solve the equations.

That’s an interesting superstition !

In reply to Higher level math makes you a better analyst

Programming requires that one fully analyse a problem ?

Not in practice it doesn’t!

We can’t even fully define the problem, how in Beelezebub’s name are we meant to analyse it?

Programming != Mathematics

Analysis is required

In reply to That’s an interesting superstition !

If you are going to define the problem, you will have to analyze it. You need to know what questions to ask to define the problem. How are you going to know the right questions? You may not explicitely analyze everything, but you better be able to implicitely do it.
I should retract “fully analyze” since in most cases it is impractical. What I actually meant is that you need to analyze to a practical degree the problem. Although, I frequently see code that hasn’t been analyzed very well. A good example is not taking into account nulls or division by zero.

Semantics

In reply to Analysis is required

You cannot mathematically analyse an undefined problem.
You can attempt to state the problem mathematically, potentially prove it, definitely disprove it.
Whether this math has anything to do with the real problem, which has not been defined is anybody’s guess.

That’s where you analogy of mathematical reasoning versus requirements analysis breaks down.

Both Null and div by zero are failures of representation, both can be dealt with by a richer definition of a ‘number’. They aren’t because it’s impractical.

Both could be completely out of scope for the programmer.
If I was reading it as a type integer from a
Field in a table defined as
MyNumber int not null default 0

Should I check for null and div by zero ?

PS
By preference I’d check, and I’d do it in every routine that used the value as an integer and an extra check where it was a divisor.
That could cost big style though.

I agree

In reply to Semantics

However, it does show why some analysis should be done. Most problems that I have encountered could have been solved simply if the programmer or analyst had just thought about what they were doing. For example, I ran into one problem where calculations were off because of duplicate records in the data table. The programmer designed the table with a surrogate key to make it easier to write to it. The problem was that the surrogate key undermined the uniqueness of a compound candidate key. If he would have thought the problem through, he could have created a unique constraint for that candidate key or he could check his inserts to make sure that they were truly unique. Since he did not think the problem through, he ended up creating a new row in the table everytime someone calculated the form. Customers get really testy when there are charged over and over again for the same items.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m always analysing

In reply to Semantics

99.9999% of the time the only math involved is the size of my overdraft if I keep making daft arse ‘mistakes’ though. 😀

A better example would have been overflows.

But, Tony, that merely begs the question.

In reply to That’s an interesting superstition !

In those case where the systems analysis and the programming are separate functions, performed by different persons, you are correct.

However, it long ago became the practice of combining those functions, with both being performed by a Programmer/Analyst, regardless of whether or not that individual’s title contained the word “analyst.”

Thus, it is no longer possible to make broad assertions re. that knowledge & those skills which are unessential to the “programmer.”

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=221757&messageID=2231694

Ambiguity abounds :D

In reply to But, Tony, that merely begs the question.

My job title has always had developer in it (well once I switched to IT), except when it was Systems Engineer.

I do systems analysis, never worked with one though, with me as the coder. Started in IT commercially in 87 as well.

Business Analysts / Domain Specialists, a few, very different job in my opinion.

I wasn’t saying math was unessential, I’m dubious of pure math being essential.
I’m also made distinctly uneasy that there is an equivalence of concepts in mathematical reasoning and that done in programming or requirements analysis.

You end up with the Vienna Development method if you go down that route.

They are both systems of logic and to be successful, you have to express yourself correctly within that system.
Other than that they are wildly different though and that’s before you get near implementation which is effectively what coding is.

I Can agree with that

In reply to Ambiguity abounds :D

I think I see where you are coming from. I concede the point that mathematical reasoning and programming logic are very different beasts. I do agree that Math != programming. However, I do feel that the one discipline can and does complement the other.

resource allocation

In reply to That’s an interesting superstition !

Writing an app well means considering the resources available to it, and using them wisely. Fluency in mathematics will help, even if it isn’t Absolutely Necessary.

Analysis In Software Development is not based on Mathematics

In reply to Higher level math makes you a better analyst

There are at least two types of analysis performed in software development, requirements analysis and program analysis. Neither is based on the type of analysis done in mathematics.

Requirements analysis is based on language, oral and written. It involves understanding of various shades of meaning, identifying and resolving apparent and real contradictions, determining rules and exceptions, and dealing with almost infinite variations. This type of analysis is better learned in a Literature course analyzing written works than in a mathematics course deriving equations and proofs.

Program analysis is even less clear cut. Here we use subjective concepts like cohesion, coupling, readability, testability, complexity, and bigness. For every problem there is almost an infinite amount of solutions and an even higher amount of dead ends. We try to eliminate the dead ends and argue endless over the nuances of “better” solutions. Where is the mathematics in determining which classes to create? Whether to use comments? To use a stored procedure or application code? I would love to have a proof to give the right answer, in practice I have to be satisfied with an answer that is accepted without physical violence or bloodshed.

In a branch of mathematics, one works in a closed world based on a set defined beliefs (axioms). Except for the extremely small few who create a new branch, mathematics involves the study and application of that branch’s axioms. Software development works in the world of human people and underlying, universal truths do not exist. It is a world of many right answers, each true and each false in a different way.

I respect mathematics and I respect software development, and I understand they are largely independent.

[i]Au contraire[/i]

In reply to Analysis In Software Development is not based on Mathematics

In my nearly 50 years of experience in this regards, I have found that it is not uncommon for mathematics to be used for analyzing both the problem and its possible solutions, not to mention the implementation of a chosen solution.

Mathematical models can be very useful

In reply to [i]Au contraire[/i]

Their real value is they by their nature they remove a lot of extraneous detail, so you don’t get someone whining about a spelling mistake, of choice of font, and missing the fact that they omitted a bit of the spec.

Nor do you suddenly find it’s been sold to ten customers, even though it’s not even close to being finished.

There are still a whole raft of questions that have to be answered before you can build the model though which is the point I think Wayne is trying to make.

Please Expand On Your Comment

In reply to [i]Au contraire[/i]

Could you perhaps provides some examples of where you found it beneficial to apply mathematics? I think this might provide a baseline for discussion. Thanks.

An example that immediately comes to mind is an inventory control system ..

In reply to Please Expand On Your Comment

for the forms used by an insurance company.

A very large number of the forms were used by different departments, for different purposes, with their usage levels being driven by activites, not directly involving the use of said forms, in multiple departments. Furthermore, the re-order lead times required varied both by the printing source as well as by the re-order quantities; likewise, so did the ability to take partial delivery of a given printing order.

Statistics were invaluable in measuring the historical usages, as were determined from warehouse records of shipments received & requisitions filled, and current samplings of departmental activities records with regards to those activities which drove demand. both directly & indirectly, for each form.

The intricate relationships between those inputs which in any manner affected the demand for a form or forms were best described by partial differential equations. From these I was able to model the expected demand for a given form based on real time levels of activities, and set re-order points that were self-adjusting so as to accomodate both the anticipated demands and the variable & quantity dependent lead times.

Deep

In reply to Please Expand On Your Comment

I can see why it would work, just wondering whether there was a real benefit from the extra effort?
Must say I’d have hacked at that one from expected demand, course that assumes a few other sytems in play. 🙁

The problem was that “expected demand” was highly variable, …

In reply to Deep

dependent on the future levels of various activities involving marketing of both new & existing products, both to existing policyholders, active & lapsed, (internal marketing), via direct mail (DM), and new ones (external marketing), via DM, TV, radio & newsprint; internal marketing tp active policyholders for the purposes of having them increase their coverage amounts and/or add optional benefits riders; internal marketing for the purposes of improving conversion and/or renewal rates; and, internal marketing to lapsed policyholders soliciting reinstatement.

Given that the response, conversion, renewal & reinstatement rates varied greatly by product, demographics & marketing channel, and that future marketing efforts were highly dependent externalities, forecasting forms demands for more than a few months into the future was problematic.

That I was called upon to design a new system was owing to the fact that the existing one used fixed re-order points that were really little mores than SWAGs, and no longer worked; too many forms were either being used up more quickly than they could be replaced, or gathering dust in the warehouses.

Never faced that particular problem

In reply to The problem was that “expected demand” was highly variable, …

The issues I had were more data quality, recording planned usage, that was originally non existent.
Minimising inventory was always important of course, but came second to the mill being stopped and 350 blokes playing cards on full money, waiting for a part.

Neither had I before then; and hopefully, never again.

In reply to Never faced that particular problem

That project was truly a bitch-and-a-half, which it what made it so memorable & easily called to mind when Wayne asked his question.

I suppose that, like myself before said project, most think of inventory control as being quite straight forward & simple, a function wholly lacking in cachet, one which should offer no challenge to other than the true neophyte. Man, was I wrong!

Not A Question Of Higher Mathematics But Of Mathematics

In reply to Programming Does Not Require Higher Level Mathematics

Quite often it is enough to use a formula or algorithm that can solve a real world problem without knowing how it was derived this is useful and saves a lot of time even if you have a PhD in mathematics, why reinvent the wheel? If an algorithm or formula already exist to model the problem and there is no accuracy or performance problems you should use it.
Unfortunately we are not in control of the problems we are going to encounter and from time to time a new situation crops up that you need to model yourself, this is where mathematical knowledge becomes indispensable, if you are a programmer without mathematical skills I can assure you that you are going to feel inadequate, I challenge you to find every solution in ?Numerical recipes in C? , ?Numerical recipes in Fortran?, or any other book or the Internet for that matter, it won?t happen, you will be surprised to know how many seemingly small problems can result in mathematical knowledge requirements. While this knowledge is not necessary sometimes, it can be a powerful friend to have when the time comes. I would not say you have to be a genius at tensors and calculus but a little college mathematics can go a far way in any type of programming. The universe is a mathematical entity and the problems therein. You cannot escape from using or knowing mathematics if you want to become an independent first class programmer. The objective of every teacher is to prepare the student to reach the top. If you do not grasp mathematical concepts, modeling a situation becomes more difficult and you will remain at the bottom of the programming heap using snippets of code that may not be optimal and sometimes scouring the internet in vain for that special solution, this is far from enjoyable. As an Engineer I find myself not using some branches of mathematics I learnt for quite some time now but should I had skipped learning those branches of mathematics that I knew I would not likely use? Of course not, I do not know when the requirement for them will come up, the argument posed here is not whether higher mathematics will be used or how often it will be used in programming but if a programmer should be taught mathematics, I would certainly believe so.

The universe is a mathematical entity ?

In reply to Not A Question Of Higher Mathematics But Of Mathematics

:p

Proof please

This should be interesting

Given U = The universe

LMAO

Prepare the student to reach the top of what?

If it’s the profession of programming they are failing horribly.

Yes the universe is mathematical (Space-Time) Remember?

In reply to The universe is a mathematical entity ?

You are missing the point, we have not yet discovered that one formula that governs all the forces in the universe, Einstein died trying, (See The unified field theory),or a Theory of Everything but even without these we have gathered enough knowledge to realize that mathematics is at the centre of understanding celestial mechanics, the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles, electromagnetism and so on, if you read something on astronomy or cosmology you will realize that our galaxy and others like it cannot be understood without mathematical treatment. The Plastic that makes your keyboard, the food you eat and any other material on this earth all have chemical models that can be understood by mathematics. As far as humans are concerned what we know now suggest that the universe is mathematical in so far as we need mathematics to properly describe it or at least the observable part, this should not be the point of focus, it is a little mischievous to ask for such proof, this argument was only used to illustrate how many problems in this world we find ourselves demand mathematical solutions, be it a gaming, scientific or business system, which takes us back to the core of the discussion as outlined by this analogy: There are some auto mechanics working without being taught the basic physics of the automobile, yes they can grind your valves and know enough symptoms to effect a repair on your car, they may even know how to use a dwell meter to adjust the timing and so on but if they understand a little of the physics along with their experience and rules of thumb they would be far more equipped to deal with new situations, that is what we mean by being at the top, you have a serious edge over your competitors, I am not saying the mechanic should be able to explain the Carnot cycle or the Otto cycle but if he can I would be more inclined to give that mechanic more business than the one who knows not, all else being equal. Therefore if you are running a school on automotive repair you would have as a part of your curriculum basic automotive physics it can only help. God forbid even a little mathematics may help him, maybe he will run into a velocity ratio calculation problem with a gear train. There is no good reason not to apply this same thinking to teaching programming, based on the simple fact that some problems may require an original mathematical solution. Nobody is going to tell me that a game programmer that has a good grasp of linear algebra won?t be better off than if he does not. How do you know what problems you are going to face as a programmer? You may be able to seek a solution from outside but would it not be smoother if you could solve your problem yourself? You can ride a motorcycle without a helmet for years without a problem you may even walk away from quite a few accidents without serious injury without this protection but by law in most countries you are required to wear a helmet, for a good reason, it may very well save your life, there has been no known cases where a helmet causes death. The statistics that suggest that you can become a motorcycle rider without head protection for years without harm is not used to determine whether or not you should be required to wear one, rather it is the statistics that suggest that when the cyclist is in an accident the helmet more often than not saves his life. Yes there are many who break the law and are happy riders but are they on a sound footing? I think not. The same applies to programmers that have the protection of mathematical understanding; it can be a life saver or maybe a job saver.

I’m missing the point ???

In reply to Yes the universe is mathematical (Space-Time) Remember?

The universe is an entity that has some properties that can be abstracted through mathematics.

The map is not the territory.
Other than that I fail to see how my disagreement with you one that isue, got me painted as a mathematical luddite.

How do I know the problems, I’ve been doing it for thirty years.
Number of times used calculus, none.
Numbers of times got messed up by, global variables, memory corruption, memory leaks, side effects, bad comments, ambiguous logic, compile depenadant logic, poor exception management, races, deadlocks, livelocks..
Too many to count.

Misunderstanding, Take Another Look

In reply to I’m missing the point ???

Oh no my friend I am not for one
minute suggesting that you
are a mathematical luddite, I read what you said and I could not
conclude from
that any such thing, I am not like that, I respect what you are saying
I was
just hoping that we could just find some common ground, for your
argument is
not by any means baseless, if I thought you were a novice I would not
even
bother to reply.

The map is not the territory that is
for sure but you can
reason that the whole territory can be mapped and that it obeys the
laws of
that already mapped. This is a priori reasoning that has to be used
countless
times in science. It
is then safe to say
the territory is mappable, similarly I did not say mathematics is the
universe;
I said the universe is mathematical. All the major strides we have made
in
science and technology over many years come from mathematical
understanding of
our surroundings.

Please let
us focus
on the core of the argument, even the original discussion that triggers
this
one suggest what I am saying, here is a quote from the original
article; ?Occasionally
I do feel the lack of higher calculus or linear algebra or graph
theory? I have
already admitted that you do not have to learn advanced mathematics to
be a
programmer , however, mathematics is such a useful tool to use for
abstracting
our ideas, a technical communication language if you will, that I
believe it
should be taught with any high quality programming course you should
not
indulge too much in the statistics of your own experience, mine is
different.
Once I was developing an Excel spreadsheet using VBA this application
was used
to program some communications receivers and transmitters that requires
as part
of the synthesizer calculation to convert some number to binary
Excel?s
engineering add-in has a DEC2BIN function for this purpose but to my
surprise anything
over 511 causes a #NUM! error and the calculations were coming out
quite often
greater than 511 the solution was needed quickly and could not wait too
long, since
the input number is not going to be negative and all the zeros need to
be
retained I came up with this function to solve the problem; note; error
traps
left out here.

Function
Deci_to_Bin(n As Double)
Dim bitval() As Integer
ReDim bitval(0 To 15)
For a = 0 To 15 Step 1
bitval(a) = (Int(n / (2 ^ a)) Mod 2)
Deci = bitval(a) & Deci
Next a
Deci_to_Bin = Deci
End Function

Now you may have a more clever
solution to this problem but
it did not take long for me to come up with this mathematical solution (Int(n
/ (2
^ a)) Mod 2)and fit it right into the for next loop

While there may be none mathematical
ways to solve this simple
problem, a search on the internet turned up nothing at the time, even
recently I
noticed someone at this
link that has a similar problem and having a hard time
finding a solution on the internet. This is just a simple example of
what I am
trying to illustrate, just a question of being armed with the right
weapon when
the time comes.

Nope , not having that

In reply to I’m missing the point ???

I don’t care how good your model is , it’s a model.

That’s the sort of nonsense that says I can manipulate a point on a line therefore I can travel back in time.

Or gived you Dark Energy, the multiverse and phlogiston.

Off topic, but please look up how to use paragraphs

In reply to Yes the universe is mathematical (Space-Time) Remember?

I expect that what you wrote is quite enlightened. You may well have well thought out points that would amaze us with their brilliance.

Without spaces between logical groupings (paragraphs) it is really annoying to try to read.

I know that this will appear picky to you as your text is way above such trivial matters but it is a small request and I hope you can take it to heart.

We now return you to the regularly scheduled deep ponderings.

Interesting point.

In reply to Yes the universe is mathematical (Space-Time) Remember?

I also prefer to understand how things work at the level of the underlying math. Most folks prefer to understand how things work at the minimum level required to make them “go”. They won’t be persuaded.

This would depend on whose definition of “first class programmer” you use.

In reply to Not A Question Of Higher Mathematics But Of Mathematics

In some circles it is defined as the person that can make the computer do exactly what you want it to do. If what you want involves little to no math skills then the math skills may well get in the way. I can see a Monty Python skit work it’s way out of this scenario.

Also, the Universe is made up (again, depending on whose definition you use) of stars, planetary systems, dust and people.

The jury is still out on whether or not you can define people using a function. And with that in mind, I am sure that there are a lot of folks out there that will be perfectly happy being the programmer equivelent of a french fry cook.

My definition of a first class programmer

In reply to This would depend on whose definition of “first class programmer” you use.

is one who writes code that does what it is supposed to and can be changed at minimal cost.

Sometimes math lends itself to this, sometimes it doesn’t.

Math can help you program, just as domain knowledge, psychology, communication and language skills can.

However if you come out of a CS course still writing code that can’t be read, therefore can’t be understood, therefore can’t be tested, maintained or enhanced, a qualified developer is going to rip you a new one, until you pick up what’s important.

The annoying thing is ‘french fry’ programmers have the most tools to do it well, yet in general seem to make the poorest use of them, most of them have CS degrees as well.

Fully agreed with Dan

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Dan, you are absolutely correct. Because in each and every scenerio of the programming, mathematics is involved in some way or the other. However, a programmer may or may not be the perfect in maths. But his logics should be clear about what he/she is going to program.

Developing program is not just putting the ingredients to the software. This requires a lot of optimization in terms of execution time and memory management. For this you have to again follow some or the other rules and formulae or the algorithms which again contributes to the mathematics.

Development without math.. Think again

In reply to Fully agreed with Dan

To those of you who believe that math is not an important factor of programming I would like you to reconsider your thinking. If you dig right down to the core of things you will realize that mathematics is the equivalent of what DNA is to humans. The problem with this argument is that ?programming? has been redefined over the years and today?s applications developers have been spoiled by having vast quantities of validated libraries handed to them on a silver platter. How can a triangle or any shape for that matter be drawn to the screen, be resized, or manipulated without knowing basic trigonometry? Many of today?s developers would say they would locate a library to handle this task but who develops the libraries? A programmer develops the library! CRC, MD5, compression, encryption, 3D engines, particle engines, graphics manipulation, physics engines are just a few examples that are heavily reliant on math and for you kids out there who are interested in game development? I hate to tell you this but you better start brushing up on math because AI is once again extremely math intensive.
I am not saying that an individual with basic knowledge of math cant develop a basic application however a computer science major must have a strong background in mathematics otherwise new technology is going to creep to a halt!

The kicker here is I have no degree in comp si, and I still see this

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

I went to tech school way back in 1979 in Pittsburgh, and they required math course’s be involved. I thought they were boring at the time, but they at least taught me the fundamentals of what is used on the job. If anything, I wish I had a better math background. I think it would have made so many things easier to understand.

As it is, at least with what little background I do have in math. I am able to. 1). Understand the requirements. and 2). As sandy said, independently verify my results.

Dan

Well there are two sides to the math

In reply to The kicker here is I have no degree in comp si, and I still see this

If there are formulae involved in the requirements, then how can you code something, if for instance if you can’t do basic algebra.
I mean you don’t have to be able to prove the equation, you should be able to manipulate it though.

It’s domain based, branches of maths, matrices, geometry, trig, statistics, sets, groups, functional analysis etc. I’ve used all of these from time to time.

I always count myself lucky to working on something that easily translates to a proven mathematical formula, makes the job much easier.

Without a sufficient [u]understanding[/u] of the formulae, …

In reply to Well there are two sides to the math

one lacks the means to assuredly select either the proper formula or data.

For example, I am able to do such for certain calculations used by the insurance industry [b]only[/b] by virtue of my having a solid understanding of actuarial mathematics.

Almost total agreement

In reply to Without a sufficient [u]understanding[/u] of the formulae, …

I could code the application of the formulae, but someone would have to tell me what to do, ie I’d be translating.
Never been a big fan of that sort of development myself.

I mean if I said calculate out v = u + at
it’s doesn’t say crap about what v, u, a and t are, what units they should be in….

That’s the applied side of the math though, given v, u and t, if I can’t solve for a, that’s a pure math issue.

Knowing how to add up and what to add up are different animals.

That’s why systems analysis & programming used to be wholly …

In reply to Almost total agreement

separate functions, performed by different people.

With the advent of the programmer/analyst, it frequently becomes a case of the blind leading the blind.

Done both

In reply to That’s why systems analysis & programming used to be wholly …

But where I was performing the analyst role, I had the domain knowledge. There are always a few impementation wrinkles, but a stock control system is a stock control system. I’ve never worked in insurance though, so I would be stuffed without guidance.

The maths wouldn’t phase me though. That would be an island of certainty in a sea of the unknown.

Actually, it ws the split of analysis and programming …

In reply to That’s why systems analysis & programming used to be wholly …

Originally, programming was skill used by an expert in a problem domain as a tool to solve a problem. It was the misguided notion that programmers could be ignorant of the business area, that programmers could be handed an all inclusive list of requirements, and left alone in a corner that has caused the decline in the usefulness of software.

I have seen far too many problems with business analysts being the “communicators” and programmers hiding behind documents and e-mail. If programmers are going to do their job, they need to get out and see the users and the users’ work environments on a first hand basis.

That is what I find so frustrating about all of the off-shoring.

In reply to Actually, it ws the split of analysis and programming …

(That, and the occasional loss of a job.)

When we move the developers away from the customer (whether a different floor, building, state or country) they get farther removed from what the code is supposed to do. RAD becomes impossible and QA takes days instead of hours. We find ourselves having code tested by one group in one time zone, then submitting the errors to developers in another time zone. The result is that one small fix that takes 2 minutes of a programmer’s time takes a full 24 hours to get back to him as working or still faulty.

Programmers are specialists; analysts, generalists.

In reply to Actually, it ws the split of analysis and programming …

It is the rare individual who can master both. Whether by virtue of innate inclination, education, experience or resources, very few specialists ever become good generalists.

By being generalists, analysts stand between the programmer and the use, serving, as it were, as an intrepreter for the two.

Not just for programming

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Ack! Just about EVERY occupation above the level of driving taxis and cleaning toilets is becoming more quantitative every year, so innumeracy is more and more of a handicap for LIFE, not just for programming. My grad school advisor had a theory that a major reason why so many people go to law school is precisely because it’s one of the few prestigious occupations one can enter without taking any math classes — and since the political class is dominated by people with law degrees, one can see the consequences of innumeracy all around!

Indeed

In reply to Not just for programming

neither profession requires their statements to add up. 😀

But laywers can sure add their billable hours up quite fast!

In reply to Indeed

nt

Even that field is coming under the metaphorical gun

In reply to Not just for programming

Look at how many lawyers are now having to deal with computer issues and are hoplessly bamboozled by the slick techs that [i]know[/i] that the lawyer doesn’t understand.

Oh, my! That code [i]must[/i] have been copied. Look: They both have “for i = 1 to 100” in them…

There’s math, and then there’s math.

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Obviously, you have to know some math to do effective programming. To be really good at it, it helps to have a lot of math — specifically, algebraic math, since programming is basically just really fun algebra. Learning algebraic mathematics up through linear algebra would be excellent for a programming curriculum.

Calculus? Not so much. Calculus is a great way to make people who think algebraically (the perfect people to do programming) throw their hands up in disgust and pursue a career in politics or window-washing instead.

So, in some respects I sympathize with Chromatic and Why. I’m an algebraic thinker. I loathe calculus. In fact, calculus and its precursors in the geometric realm of mathematics are basically the main reason I don’t have a degree in computer science today. The asinine tendency of universities to make a couple years’ worth of calculus a prerequisite for linear algebra, despite the fact the two classes of mathematics are each largely orthogonal to the other, drove me away from computer science and into the arms of philosophy as a major.

. . . where I learned more of use to programming in a single symbolic logic course than I did in more than a year of stupid calculus-track math classes while working on a CompSci degree.

There’s math, and then there’s DISCRETE math.

In reply to There’s math, and then there’s math.

How exactly is programming “just really fun algebra”? Any decent curriculum for CompSci should include the various branches of maths usually called “discrete mathematics”, but I fail to see how algebra fits into the picture, unless you’re referring to basic high school algebra (which everybody, not just programmers, should be familiar with).

And what on earth do you mean by “people who think algebraically”? Do you think in terms of vector spaces? Are there people who think “differentially” or “integrally”? Or maybe they think “statistically” or “probabilistically”?

I happen to have studied both CompSci and Maths, and I have no problem with either algebra or analysis. Given that there’s no such thing as “algebraic” thinking, I don’t think it’s impossible to be proficient in both (do you even know what “orthogonal” really means?). And if requring a bit of calculus means that students are exposed to some of the fundamentals of analysis, it certainly won’t kill them.

And now, I’m afraid I’m going to offend some of you, but the truth is simple: if you can’t handle the basic calculus they teach in American universities (in Europe it’s the kind of thing they teach you as a junior in high school!), you’re not really going to amount to much as a programmer. Either that, or you’ve had terrible math teachers throughout your life (which is also pretty likely).

Either way, you’re probably better off with your philosophy major!

What we have here is someone with too much edumacation.

In reply to There’s math, and then there’s DISCRETE math.

Clearly, you’re so thoroughly indoctrinated by course descriptions and bland curricula that you cannot recognize the points of crossover between artificially specialized disciplines. I can only guess that you must not be an INTJ or INTP (Myers-Briggs types) — a synthesist, in other words — if you have so much trouble recognizing the common threads in algebraic (as opposed to, say, geometric) mathematics, symbolic logic, and programming, or if you are unaware that algebraic mathematics extends far beyond high school.

Particularly when working within the functional programming paradigm, programming takes on much of the structural character of algebraic expressions. If that’s not helpful enough in wrapping your brain around the idea, try looking up the term “algebraic logic” in Wikipedia some time — and consider, as you do so, the fact that the entire field of programming is predicated upon building abstraction layers over boolean markers. If that doesn’t sound familiar in the context of computing, consider that boolean logic is directly translatable to ones and zeroes.

In fact, a case can be made for abstract algebraic logic as the very model of programming process.

“[i]Given that there’s no such thing as ‘algebraic’ thinking, I don’t think it’s impossible to be proficient in both (do you even know what “orthogonal” really means?).[/i]”

1. That was “algebraic” used as an adjective, not as the title of some class in a university. Get over your damned self.

2. Yes, I know what “orthogonal” really means, both mathematically and in other contexts. That’s why I used it instead of “tangential” — because I know what it means, and that it’s more appropriate to what I was saying than “tangential” would have been. Do you know what it means in the context in which I used it, or are you so locked into your narrow mindset that you cannot make the appropriate linguistic associations?

“[i]if you can’t handle the basic calculus they teach in American universities (in Europe it’s the kind of thing they teach you as a junior in high school!), you’re not really going to amount to much as a programmer.[/i]”

What I said has nothing to do with being able to “handle” calculus, and everything to do with finding it tedious, annoying, and about 98% unrelated to programming.

“[i]Either that, or you’ve have terrible math teachers throughout your life (which is also pretty likely).[/i]”

Actually, the best teacher I’ve ever had was a math teacher in college — and formerly an opera singer with the Bulgarian National Opera and Ballet. That doesn’t change the fact that I find using the fine art of mathematical guesstimation (calculus) to make a passable estimate of the area under a ballistic curve entirely outside my realm of interest and generally irrelevant to programming.

If I wanted to learn calculus in relation to computers, I’d have pursued an engineering degree.

Oh, yeah — and your attitude sucks. Don’t take it out on me when you feel your feathers ruffled by someone daring to suggest that the subject on which you’ve spent so many years isn’t at the core of every important human endeavor. Separate your ego from your areas of study long enough to actually grasp what I’m saying, rather than playing dumb with regard to the points I’m making.

Snap!

In reply to What we have here is someone with too much edumacation.

That was certainly scathing, and by far the best thing I’ve read this week. Kudos.

Crackle!

In reply to Snap!

Yes, the fact that he proved me right and further displayed his ignorance about mathematics *and* programming was indeed scathing. Ouch!

Would you be able to supply an explanation as to

In reply to Crackle!

why you feel you are right? And try to do so while maintaining some modesty. Your earlier comments were arrogant. It is easier for us to learn from somebody that can lift himself up without putting those around him down.

I definitely can!

In reply to Would you be able to supply an explanation as to

I’m sorry, but this was a case in which the poster needed to be put down, because his argument was entirely fallacious (as well as partly unintelligible) and extremely arrogant. Arguments are not made stronger by using big sounding words, particularly if those words are used incorrectly.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusion (learning calculus won’t make you a better programmer, although learning some of the foundations of analysis might), I was peeved by the logic: I hate calculus, they taught calculus in CompSci, studying calculus made me change majors, therefore calculus must be removed from the CompSci syllabus unless we want all the students to drop out.

As certain people are wont to do when their arguments are hazy, they try to make them sound grandiloquent, as though that will add weight to their logic. Mentioning “algebraic thinking” (which the poster still hasn’t been able to explain) and “orthogonality” (when the poster actually meant “tangentiality”, in the sense of barely touching) was the last straw (actually, the last straw was probably the whole Myers-Briggs psychobabble).

Going back to the original issue, I do think that mathematics are one of the essential tools of a programmer. Programming is not the same as writing code – you can learn to write code in Java or C++, but that doesn’t mean you’re a competent programmer, in the sense that the code you write isn’t necessarily the most efficient or elegant way to solve the problem you’re tackling. A solid knowledge of logic, set theory, graph theory, algorithmics, etc. are essential prerequisites for proper reasoning about programming.

Throwing in elementary algebra (and by this I mean the rules to manipulate mathematical symbols) simply shows a lack of insight. The concept of a variable in an equation bears only a superficial resemblance to that of a variable in a programming language; a much better parallel might be drawn between the concept of functions in both areas (which is why I brought up mathematical analysis).

To a degree…

In reply to Would you be able to supply an explanation as to

You blew it on the first sentence. Your charter was to make your point without putting anyone else down.

You are speaking about Chad as the person who “needed” putting down. Chad is a person who regularly contributes here at TR and in a great many other places. He offers some unique insights into issues that get discussed here and does so in a helpful manner, at least in the first post. If somebody attacks him he will come back, often with witty and/or scathing remarks.

His posts are usually informative and occasionally opinionated. I don’t always agree with them but he presents them intelligently.

I don’t know if you intend it but your posts come across as elitest. What is particularly interesting is that you seem to have adopted a Monty Python-esque method of replying to my question. Your first paragraph was insulting. Your second paragraph was informative. Your third paragraph was insulting. And so on, alternating. Was this intentional?

I can see that you have a point you want to make and that it differs from Chad’s (apotheon’s). Can you try to make that point without being so vulgar about it?

People talking out of their hats

In reply to Would you be able to supply an explanation as to

To be perfectly honest, my original intention was not put Chad down (I have nothing against him personally and cannot comment on his character), but to point out the blatant holes in his reasoning. Since his post was extremely opinionated and somewhat pompous, I also felt the need to call him on that. Now, if he chooses to respond with an even more offensive message (I can’t call it witty or scathing because it wasn’t, if only because he simply went on to demonstrate that he didn’t really know what he was talking about after all), then I’m not going to pull any punches.

As I said before, I’m not questioning Chad’s expertise in a number of different fields, but it’s pretty clear that he is not particularly well versed in the topics we are discussing here. Just because a person can make insightful comments about one subject does not mean that his opinions on a host of others are worthy of consideration; it makes about as much sense as me considering myself entitled to criticizing the syllabus of an art history course. To quote Dirty Harry: “a man’s gotta know his limitations.”

As to the point I originally wanted to make, I think my previous messages made it clear enough.

Thanks for making me the good guy, dbenito. Thanks to daveo2000, too.

In reply to Would you be able to supply an explanation as to

It’s always nice when someone saves me the trouble of having to take the moral high ground by yielding it without so much as a declaration that I want it.

“[i]I was peeved by the logic: I hate calculus, they taught calculus in CompSci, studying calculus made me change majors, therefore calculus must be removed from the CompSci syllabus unless we want all the students to drop out.[/i]”

If that’s what you though the “logic” was, I think you either failed some logic courses or failed some reading comprehension somewhere along the way. That was about the most superficial analysis I’ve ever seen of anything I’ve said. It’s a bit like scraping some makeup off a woman’s face and, after analyzing it in a lab, declaring her inhuman because you found no human genetic material in the makeup.

“[i]Mentioning ‘algebraic thinking’ (which the poster still hasn’t been able to explain)[/i]”

It’s blindingly obvious. Consider the word “algebraic” — referring to that which bears characteristics of algebra as contrasted with something non-algebra (pretend that’s a word for a moment). Now, imagine you know what the word “thinking” means. Ta-da! Comprehension. Your “playing dumb” routine doesn’t hold up any more than it would if I said “linear thinking” and you started yammering on about how a line is defined by two points so obviously what I said means nonthing since a brain has trillions of synapses.

“[i]’orthogonality’ (when the poster actually meant ‘tangentiality’, in the sense of barely touching)[/i]”

This certainly makes it seem likely that your problem with following my logic (as I noted above) is a failure of reading comprehension rather than a failure of logic on your part. Go back and read again what I said about my use of the term “orthogonality”. It’s the term I meant to use. It’s the appropriate term for what I was saying. Stop disagreeing with me when I tell you what I meant to say — you do not know my meaning better than I do. Trust me on this.

“[i]the last straw was probably the whole Myers-Briggs psychobabble[/i]”

So . . . now you’re putting down psychology, too. Are you capable of going three sentences without insulting someone?

“[i]A solid knowledge of logic, set theory, graph theory, algorithmics, etc. are essential prerequisites for proper reasoning about programming.[/i]”

. . . which, while clearly related to mathematics in general, has very little to do with calculus in particular (note that I speak of “calculus” in the commonly understood mathematical context of the term, not in a manner that should in any way be confused with formal logic terms like predicate calculus).

“[i]Throwing in elementary algebra (and by this I mean the rules to manipulate mathematical symbols) simply shows a lack of insight. The concept of a variable in an equation bears only a superficial resemblance to that of a variable in a programming language; a much better parallel might be drawn between the concept of functions in both areas (which is why I brought up mathematical analysis).[/i]”

Algebraic mathematics fields are not just about variables. Holy crap. I suddenly doubt your claims of mathematics-fu.

[b]as for daveo2000:[/b]

“[i]Chad is a person who regularly contributes here at TR and in a great many other places. He offers some unique insights into issues that get discussed here and does so in a helpful manner, at least in the first post. If somebody attacks him he will come back, often with witty and/or scathing remarks.

His posts are usually informative and occasionally opinionated. I don’t always agree with them but he presents them intelligently.[/i]”

Thanks. That’s pretty much exactly where I’m aiming when I comment here at TR, generally — it’s nice to know someone thinks I’m hitting the mark.

(edit: I’ve been out of town for three days or so. Pardon the tardiness of my response.)

You’re welcome

In reply to Would you be able to supply an explanation as to

[i]”If that’s what you though the “logic” was, I think you either failed some logic courses or failed some reading comprehension somewhere along the way.”[/i]

I’m sorry, but several posts later you still haven’t explained what you mean by “algebraic thinking”, in a way that explains why “algebraic” thinkers cannot cope with calculus. If by “algebra” you mean a set of elements and operations on them according to some specific axioms, I fail to see how calculus doesn’t come under that category.

If you did really have a point, and did not use the term “algebraic thinking” to distract us from the fact that your argument was based on your distaste for calculus, then I would be very grateful if you could enlighten me, given my extremely limited comprehension ability.

[i]”It’s blindingly obvious.”[/i]

Then why are you having such a hard time explaining it? You ramble on about the “characteristics of algebra as contrasted with something non-algebra”, and say absolutely nothing.

[i]”So . . . now you’re putting down psychology, too. Are you capable of going three sentences without insulting someone?”[/i]

OK, time to nit-pick. Where have I put down psychology as a field? The fact that I, along with a number of other people, consider MBTI concepts to have no basis in fact (I find it hard to believe that any scientist would consider Jung’s introspection to be acceptable scientific methodology). This is a classic case of what Feynman called “cargo-cult science” – just because people publish papers about it doesn’t mean it’s correct.

[i]”which, while clearly related to mathematics in general, has very little to do with calculus”[/i]

Would you be willing to reformulate the entire field of analysis without using set theory and logic? I didn’t think so – so we’ll just strike the whole “has very little to do with calculus” from the record.

[i]”Algebraic mathematics fields are not just about variables. Holy crap. I suddenly doubt your claims of mathematics-fu.”[/i]

My bad – as I mentioned in another post, given your patent lack of mathematical knowledge I never expected you to be acquainted with anything going by the name of “algebra”, beyond what is taught as “algebra” in high-school (and you’ll see that in several other posts I make that distinction specifically).

That said, given the way you sometimes refer to specific concepts like linear algebra or abstract algebraic logic and sometimes simply talk about “algebra”, it’s not particularly easy to know what you’re referring to at some points. You might as well talk about “stuff”, and redefine it every time you backpedal.

I won’t deny that certain classes of Boolean algebras can be used to model computational processes (they’re an essential tool for chip designers), but that is far beyond the scope of any CompSci curriculum. Do you really think programmers need to know about cylindrical algebras? Might as well teach them about the zeros of p-adic L-functions 😉

To close this inane discussion, I’d like to pretend that you did actually have some kind of structured argument against the need for calculus, and explain why I think that studying calculus can actually help a programmer. Any decent course in calculus should cover topics such as functions, limits and convergence (otherwise calculus doesn’t make much sense), and these are all extremely useful when reasoning about algorithms.

I hope you’re very happy with your moral high ground! I’ve got better things to do than argue with someone who, when confronted with his ignorance about calculus, goes into calculated tirades…

Reading comprehension again.

In reply to Would you be able to supply an explanation as to

“[i]I’m sorry, but several posts later you still haven’t explained what you mean by ‘algebraic thinking, in a way that explains why ‘algebraic’ thinkers cannot cope with calculus.[/i]”

I never said anyone couldn’t cope with calculus. Stop putting words in my mouth. Either your reading comprehension is even poorer than I thought, or you’re making crap up maliciously.

“[i]If you did really have a point, and did not use the term ‘algebraic thinking’ to distract us from the fact that your argument was based on your distaste for calculus, then I would be very grateful if you could enlighten me, given my extremely limited comprehension ability.[/i]”

I think you could solve that comprehension problem pretty quickly if you stopped imagining I said things that I didn’t say. Until you do that, I don’t think anything I say could help clear up the matter. Once you do that, I think you’ll notice that I don’t need to say anything else for it all to make sense — you just need to read it without making unfounded assumptions about my meaning and without concocting bizarre statements to attribute to me.

“[i]I find it hard to believe that any scientist would consider Jung’s introspection to be acceptable scientific methodology[/i]”

I find it absurd that someone can talk about scientific methodology but doesn’t realize that the questionable origin of an idea does not itself impugn the idea.

“[i]Would you be willing to reformulate the entire field of analysis without using set theory and logic? I didn’t think so – so we’ll just strike the whole ‘has very little to do with calculus’ from the record.[/i]”

I wouldn’t be willing to reformulate the entire field of analysis [b]at all[/b], so we should just strike that comment of yours from the record.

“[i]My bad – as I mentioned in another post, given your patent lack of mathematical knowledge I never expected you to be acquainted with anything going by the name of ‘algebra’, beyond what is taught as ‘algebra’ in high-school (and you’ll see that in several other posts I make that distinction specifically).[/i]”

You make many, many unfounded assumptions, and that I think is really the root of the problem here.

“[i]That said, given the way you sometimes refer to specific concepts like linear algebra or abstract algebraic logic and sometimes simply talk about ‘algebra’, it’s not particularly easy to know what you’re referring to at some points.[/i]”

Generally, if my reference to “algebra” is generic, I refer to algebraic mathematics in the generic. Is that so difficult to understand?

“[i]I won’t deny that certain classes of Boolean algebras can be used to model computational processes (they’re an essential tool for chip designers), but that is far beyond the scope of any CompSci curriculum. Do you really think programmers need to know about cylindrical algebras? Might as well teach them about the zeros of p-adic L-functions[/i]”

When did I ever say that CompSci majors should study cylindrical algebras? I similarly did not say that electronics engineers (people who actually [b]should[/b] study a lot of calculus) should study tensor calculus. The fact that I pointed out algebraic mathematics is more important than calculus for computer science in no way implies that someone majoring in CompSci should necessarily study every mathematical subfield that has the word “algebra” somewhere in the name or description.

“[i]Any decent course in calculus should cover topics such as functions, limits and convergence (otherwise calculus doesn’t make much sense), and these are all extremely useful when reasoning about algorithms.[/i]”

Functions, limits, and convergence as concepts useful to algorithm design do not necessitate twelve credits of calculus study. Somehow, though, a CompSci major generally [b]does[/b] require at least that much calculus study — because people advance exactly the facile, and incompletely reasoned, argument that you just presented.

Hell, limits and convergence can be covered sufficiently in an afternoon for a reasonably intelligent student body, and functions are in no way specific to calculus on any planet. In fact, I actually learned about functions in junior high school (since you like bringing up high school so much), long before I ever encountered calculus as more than a word that vaguely referred to some kind of mathematical “stuff”.

edit: typo

And we’re back to the usual vagueness

In reply to Would you be able to supply an explanation as to

[i]”I never said anyone couldn’t cope with calculus. Stop putting words in my mouth. Either your reading comprehension is even poorer than I thought, or you’re making crap up maliciously.”[/i]

I seriously have never met anyone who continually changed his stance the way you do, taking specific advantage of being incredible vague.

[i]”I find it absurd that someone can talk about scientific methodology but doesn’t realize that the questionable origin of an idea does not itself impugn the idea.”[/i]

If the idea is eventually formulated in the framework of a credible scientific theory, then I have no problem with it having a questionable origin. But when it isn’t, it’s a pseudoscience until proved otherwise.

[i]”I wouldn’t be willing to reformulate the entire field of analysis at all, so we should just strike that comment of yours from the record.”[/i]

Then, given that modern mathematical analysis requires axiomatic set theory, I fail to see how you can claim that set theory has very little to do with calculus.

[i]”You make many, many unfounded assumptions, and that I think is really the root of the problem here.”[/i]

Again, it would help if you were a bit more specific. You claim that I make unfounded assumptions and inferences; I claim that I have no other choice because you intentionally use vague terminology, and refuse to explain what you mean.

[i]”Generally, if my reference to “algebra” is generic, I refer to algebraic mathematics in the generic. Is that so difficult to understand?”[/i]

It is, if you just conjure up the term “algebraic mathematics” and expect everybody to know what on earth you’re talking about. Just to show you that I’m not alone, I went to the trouble of googling “algebraic mathematics” (with the quotes, so we get the exact expression). Lo and behold, we get an amazing 2600 results, and a cursory evaluation of the first few pages of results reveals that, when used at all, the term can mean just about anything. Funnily enough, one of the hits is about a book called “Lectures on expansion techniques in algebraic geometry”. Weren’t you the one defining algebraic mathematics based on how it differed from geometric mathematics?

[i]”When did I ever say that CompSci majors should study cylindrical algebras? I similarly did not say that electronics engineers (people who actually should study a lot of calculus) should study tenser calculus. The fact that I pointed out algebraic mathematics is more important than calculus for computer science in no way implies that someone majoring in CompSci should necessarily study every mathematical subfield that has the word “algebra” somewhere in the name or description.”[/i]

Again, if you mention the need to study “algebra”, vaguely state that “algebraic expressions” and “algebraic logic” are related (http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=221757&messageID=2231135), and claim that the programming is built upon algebraic logic, what kind of “algebra” is one supposed to infer you think CompSci majors should study? Oh wait, you later changed that to “algebraic mathematics”, making it that much clearer.

Once more, it’s hard to figure out what you mean if you say something incredibly vague, and only define the terms you use as a reaction to a counter-argument.

[i]”Functions, limits, and convergence as concepts useful to algorithm design do not necessitate twelve credits of calculus study. … Hell, limits and convergence can be covered sufficiently in an afternoon for a reasonably intelligent student body, and functions are in no way specific to calculus on any planet.”[/i]

Huh? I beg to differ. Spending a mere couple of hours explaining limits and convergence are bound to leave people with the impression that calculus is “mathematical guesstimation”. If anything, I think CompSci majors should spend much more time studying mathematics and less time learning specific languages.

computational theory vs. mathematical guesstimation

In reply to Would you be able to supply an explanation as to

“[i]I seriously have never met anyone who continually changed his stance the way you do, taking specific advantage of being incredible vague.[/i]”

I’ll try to put it in [b]very simple terms[/b], just for you:

My comment about people being unenthused with calculus is not equivalent to your recasting of my statement as a comment about people being incapable of doing calculus. There is no change of stance.

“[i]If the idea is eventually formulated in the framework of a credible scientific theory, then I have no problem with it having a questionable origin. But when it isn’t, it’s a pseudoscience until proved otherwise.[/i]”

There’s an ungodly volume of study data and scientific research (assuming you admit psychology as “scientific”) related to personality inventories. It’s mostly in the area of behavioral psychology in particular, if you need a nudge in the right direction.

“[i]Then, given that modern mathematical analysis requires axiomatic set theory, I fail to see how you can claim that set theory has very little to do with calculus.[/i]”

When did I claim that? In point of fact, I didn’t — but I wouldn’t say “set theory has a lot to do with calculus” so much as “calculus has a lot to do with set theory”, as the latter of the two more accurately reflects the foundational relationship between the two. Set theory is not specific to calculus, in other words, and some regard it as the foundation of mathematics in general — even mathematics having little or nothing (depending on your definitions) to do with calculus.

“[i]Again, it would help if you were a bit more specific. You claim that I make unfounded assumptions and inferences[/i]”

I’ve been more specific in a piecemeal fashion all along, pointing out most of your unfounded assumptions as they cropped up or otherwise made themselves unavoidable. The statement to which you responded was just a generalized statement of a trend I’ve observed.

“[i]It is, if you just conjure up the term “algebraic mathematics” and expect everybody to know what on earth you’re talking about. Just to show you that I’m not alone, I went to the trouble of googling “algebraic mathematics” (with the quotes, so we get the exact expression). Lo and behold, we get an amazing 2600 results, and a cursory evaluation of the first few pages of results reveals that, when used at all, the term can mean just about anything. Funnily enough, one of the hits is about a book called ‘Lectures on expansion techniques in algebraic geometry’. Weren’t you the one defining algebraic mathematics based on how it differed from geometric mathematics?[/i]”

If I specify that the point of my use of a term is in contrast to another term — well, I’d think that would be a clue.

How’s this: “I refer specifically to fields of mathematics that primarily employ algebraic logic, as contrasted with other fields of mathematics that are more concerned with other operational models.” Does that help?

“[i]Again, if you mention the need to study ‘algebra’, vaguely state that ‘algebraic expressions’ and ‘algebraic logic’ are related (http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=221757&messageID=2231135), and claim that the programming is built upon algebraic logic, what kind of ‘algebra’ is one supposed to infer you think CompSci majors should study? Oh wait, you later changed that to ‘algebraic mathematics’, making it that much clearer.[/i]”

When I use the term “algebra” and the term “algebraic mathematics” in contrast to calculus, someone with an average or better capacity for reasoning and communication should be able to infer my intent — that calculus should be secondary to algebra, speaking in general terms. Notice that my point was not about how [b]much[/b] algebra one should study, and as such I in no way implied that [b]all algebra EVAR[/b] should be studied by any given CompSci major.

“[i]Once more, it’s hard to figure out what you mean if you say something incredibly vague, and only define the terms you use as a reaction to a counter-argument.[/i]”

Do you lack the ability to differentiate between “general” and “vague”, or is this just an extremely persistent temporary lapse?

“[i]Huh? I beg to differ. Spending a mere couple of hours explaining limits and convergence are bound to leave people with the impression that calculus is “mathematical guesstimation”. If anything, I think CompSci majors should spend much more time studying mathematics and less time learning specific languages.[/i]”

Maybe that’s your problem — you think that being a mathematician makes one a great programmer, when in fact all it does is provide the fundamentals of programming through a circuitous and in many cases cluttered route. What CompSci majors should [b]actually[/b] study so much is not mathematics per se, but computational theory — and the specific mathematical fields and concepts that best contribute to it.

In any case:

1. I don’t care what impression a few hours’ explanation of limits and convergence will have on students’ impressions of calculus when the point of teaching them about limits and convergence is to prepare them for further study in algorithm design. It is not (properly) the job of a CompSci course of study to teach CompSci majors all about calculus — its job is to teach them all about computation and practical manifestations of computational theory.

2. If, in the process of teaching students about limits and convergence in an afternoon, you don’t tell them that’s all there is to calculus, I don’t see how that problem would arise anyway. Do you imagine that I think at the end of the class the instructor should say “And that’s all there is to calculus!”?

3. Calculus basically [b]is[/b] “just” the fine art of mathematical guesstimation. The fact that mathematical guesstimation is, in fact, a very complex, rigorous, and important field doesn’t change that fact.

Better than none, as appears to be your case :-)

In reply to What we have here is someone with too much edumacation.

1) Well, well, well, this has to be the first time I’ve seen anyone mention MBTI in a computing forum. I hope you covered that in your philosophy studies when they explained the difference between a science and a pseudoscience (MBTI falling under the latter category).

I am well aware of the superficial similarities between writing down equations on paper and writing programs in Miranda or Haskell, but I was trying to point out that programming has nothing to do with the kind of algebraic manipulation they teach you in high school (I doubt you studied abstract algebra in college). How you manage to conclude that I also meant that symbolic logic was not related to programming is beyond me (and probably beyond you too, since you made it up).

Once more, in case I didn’t make it clear: just because certain functional languages use brackets and function names does not mean the functional programming paradigm is modelled after algebra.

2) Do you even know what abstract algebraic logic is?

3) You clearly don’t know what orthogonal means, if you confuse it with tangential.

4) If you think calculus is “mathematical guesstimation”, you obviously weren’t taught calculus all that well. Ever since Newton first used it, calculus has come along way – analysis is a very rigorous branch of mathematics.

5) Truth be told, I haven’t studied analysis/calculus since my first year as an undergraduate, so I’m not particularly interested in defending its use. All I was saying was that your argument seemed to be based on your distaste for calculus (which you have confirmed, to the point of displaying your complete ignorance about it), rather than on its soundness as a basis for computational reasoning. Not only that, but half of your comments (again, the whole “algebraic” thinking) made no sense.

It looks like psychobabble has a new sibling. Shall we call it algebabble?

Interesting hypothesis.

In reply to Better than none, as appears to be your case :-)

It has been a while since I studied calculus but I remember the phrase “as x approaches 0” or similar. This seemed to be referring to working out a solution by using successively smaller deltas whilst approaching an ultimate point where everything actually falls apart. I thought this was estimating the value because you can’t actually measure the solution using that point.

What hypothesis?

In reply to Interesting hypothesis.

The use of smaller and smaller deltas is only meant to be used to gain an intuitive understanding of why calculus works. In modern mathematics, the whole framework of calculus is built on the solid concept of limits, avoiding the need to divide by zero, and also avoiding the conceptual hurdle of the fact that if the input of a function isn’t changing, the value of the function won’t change either (and what you’re trying to do in differential calculus is to measure the change of a function with respect to its input); in other words, you really need the deltas. By making the deltas as small as we want, we can obtain a result as accurate as we want, but we can never make them zero, or the whole thing does indeed fall apart (mostly because it makes no sense).

This isn’t really the place to explain why the use of limits makes calculus theoretically sound – you’ll need to study first year mathematical analysis to understand why. If you can’t, then I thoroughly recommend the book “Zero: The Biography Of A Dangerous Idea” by Charles Seife, which provides a very good overview of a number of concepts in mathematics related to both zero and infinity (including the infinitesimals used in calculus, and how they involved into limits).

What is your point?

In reply to What hypothesis?

And how many times have I used the concept of limits as a programmer? Approximately d/dx(e^(pi*i)+1) times. How many times have I used matrix algebra, discrete math, symbolic logic, boolean algebra, etc.? More than I can count. Apotheon’s point, and the view I take as well, is that there are certain types of mathematics that are very important, but calculus is not by the act of being a type of math eo ipso one of them.

I am not disputing that calculus has its place, nor that it is very useful in its own right. However, that does not mean that calculus and computers are a match made in heaven. The math used in computing is not calculus simply because calculus is a form of math any more than a plane and a car do the same thing simply because they both have wheels.

I’ve said the same thing three different ways in two different paragraphs. If you can’t understand it, here’s an executive summary suitable for PowerPointing:

programming != calculus

You are another example of Larry’s Law of Lame Posters.

Here’s an example of just how unimportant limits are.

In reply to What hypothesis?

Some reserved keywords and other types in C (IOW, things that were so important that they’re an integral part of the language):

|| OR (boolean algebra)
&& AND (boolean algebra)
^ XOR (take a guess)
some_type foo[][] a matrix
lim — oops, that one doesn’t exist. I suppose it wasn’t worth including in the language.

But wait, maybe it’s in math.h! Uh, no. Somehow both the wizards who designed the language AND those who extended it to make it more useful didn’t find it worth the time. A good programmer is a lazy programmer–one who squeezes out the maximum result from minimum effort and will use a tool available if it will save them time. If limits were a tool that could save them time, you can bet they’d have been included long ago. None of the programming languages I’ve used (C/C++, Java, Python, Lisp, Prolog, et al.) have a built-in limit function.

As far as C/C++ are concerned, “limit” means INT_MAX.

Indeed.

In reply to Interesting hypothesis.

My understanding of the ‘infinitesimal’ matches yours, and I understood Chad’s use of the word ‘guesstimate’ to refer specifically to the limit of x as x approaches zero.

I find little ben’s quarrel disingenuous.

That would be zero

In reply to Indeed.

Er… the limit of x as x approaches zero would be zero. Now, the limit of the value of an expression involving x as x approaches zero is another thing…

Crap, dbenito got me there.

In reply to Indeed.

I meant ‘the limit of [b]f(x)[/b] as x approaches zero. Please, Leibniz forgive me!

:p

‘psychobabble’ & ‘pseudoscience’

In reply to Better than none, as appears to be your case :-)

Myers-Briggs tests are well-known metrics of well-known personality traits, regardless of anybody’s opinion of psychology as a branch of science. I happen to concur with your opinion that psychology is not a valid scientific discipline, but a liberal arts subject, but Chad’s point does not rely on the authority of the psychological profession, nor is it countered by impeachment of that profession.

Makes absolutely no difference to me

In reply to ‘psychobabble’ & ‘pseudoscience’

Myers-Briggs tests are based on the work of a mother and daughter with no qualifications other than having read Jung’s “Psychological Types”, which wasn’t exactly the product of careful scientific study. What is he going to do next? Start quoting Freud?

Chad’s comment makes as much sense as if he had been trying to guess my astrological sign…

How ’bout we call it “English”?

In reply to Better than none, as appears to be your case :-)

“[i]Well, well, well, this has to be the first time I’ve seen anyone mention MBTI in a computing forum.[/i]”

You don’t get around much. Some computer geeks have interests — and knowledge — outside the limits of mathematics.

“[i]the kind of algebraic manipulation they teach you in high school[/i]”

Considering you’re the one who brought up high school, I cry foul on your straw man. Feel free to keep rambling about it, though.

“[i]How you manage to conclude that I also meant that symbolic logic was not related to programming is beyond me (and probably beyond you too, since you made it up).[/i]”

Where you got the idea that I claimed you meant that symbolic logic is not related to programming is beyond me. Where do you get these ideas? I never said, nor even implied, any such thing. Is it because I mentioned it in a sentence that also mentioned your difficulty recognizing the strong relevance of algebraic mathematics? It seems to me that what you’re having difficulty figuring out is that [b]all three[/b] are related to one another. I mentioned symbolic logic in the hopes that seeing it mentioned in the same sentence might actually spark a thought in your head — “Oh, yeah, logic and algebra are closely related. Why didn’t I think of that?” I guess my error was in expecting that you might have failed to make a connection, rather than that you simply like disagreeing with people and will (apparently) manufacture any flimsy excuse necessary to do so in pursuit of making yourself sound smart.

“[i]Once more, in case I didn’t make it clear: just because certain functional languages use brackets and function names does not mean the functional programming paradigm is modelled after algebra.[/i]”

1. You didn’t say it before, so you’re not saying it again.

2. I didn’t say the functional programming paradigm was modeled after algebra, so I don’t know why the hell you implied that I did.

“[i]Do you even know what abstract algebraic logic is?[/i]”

Yes, I do. That’s why I talked about it. Do you?

“[i]You clearly don’t know what orthogonal means, if you confuse it with tangential.[/i]”

I’m sorry. The moral high ground is about to slip away from me. I offer this disclaimer to everyone used to seeing me keep my cool before I blow the hell up:

[b]What kind of idiot are you that you think I confused “orthogonal” with “tangential”?[/b] I [b]very clearly[/b] differentiated between the two, [b]you f*cking dumbass[/b].

Maybe that woke you up enough to [b]read[/b] something and [b]try to comprehend[/b] it.

“[i]If you think calculus is ‘mathematical guesstimation’, you obviously weren’t taught calculus all that well.[/i]”

Don’t take it personally when I describe calculus in terms that don’t make it sound like the fruit of the tree of knowledge. You may, if you like, take it personally when I point out that your inability to think outside the box is simply appalling, though.

“[i]Ever since Newton first used it, calculus has come along way – analysis is a very rigorous branch of mathematics.[/i]”

I know it is. Get over yourself for knowing how to do calculus. Stop looking for excuses to be insulted just because I express an opinion that calculus is itself pretty much unrelated to programming, and stop looking for excuses to put people down for acting unlike calculus groupies.

“[i]Truth be told, I haven’t studied analysis/calculus since my first year as an undergraduate, so I’m not particularly interested in defending its use.[/i]”

Why make fatuous, facile arguments about how my statement that it’s not the center of the universe proves I’m a moron, then?

“[i]All I was saying was that your argument seemed to be based on your distaste for calculus[/i]”

The fact that I mentioned a distaste for calculus in the same post that I mentioned calculus isn’t much relevant to programming doesn’t link them as a statement of causation. Learn some reading comprehension. Attack the argument, not the person. Get a clue.

“[i]Not only that, but half of your comments (again, the whole ‘algebraic’ thinking) made no sense.[/i]”

You’re like the idiot who said “Superannuated? What’s that mean? Man, I don’t understand what you’re saying. You must be stupid!” Maybe you’re a little like another idiot, too — the one who said “You’re not reading that book for class? Why are you reading it, then?” as if reading for my own pleasure made [b]me[/b] the stupid one.

It’s not my fault that your thinking is so limited in scope that you can’t clue in on the concept of a descriptive phrase like “algebraic thinking”. I suppose you would have the same problem with the phrase “circular reasoning”, since examples of reasoning don’t have radii.

“[i]It looks like psychobabble has a new sibling. Shall we call it algebabble?[/i]”

See the title for my answer to that nonsense.

Algebabble sounds cooler

In reply to How ’bout we call it “English”?

[i]”You don’t get around much. Some computer geeks have interests — and knowledge — outside the limits of mathematics.”[/i]

What I meant is that computer geeks tend to shy away from pseudoscience. Do you also check the astrology readings in the daily newspaper?

[i]”Considering you’re the one who brought up high school, I cry foul on your straw man. Feel free to keep rambling about it, though.”[/i]

Considering I never said anything for or against high school, I fail to see how this has any relation to our discussion.

[i]”Where you got the idea that I claimed you meant that symbolic logic is not related to programming is beyond me. Where do you get these ideas? I never said, nor even implied, any such thing. Is it because I mentioned it in a sentence that also mentioned your difficulty recognizing the strong relevance of algebraic mathematics?”[/i]

Go back and re-read the first and second paragraphs of your response to my original message, and you’ll see why. If you dedicate an entire paragraph to explain the role of logic in programming, it’s fair to assume that you think I am not aware of it.

[i]”You didn’t say it before, so you’re not saying it again.”[/i]

Actually, I did say it before, only in another post in this thread. You see, I’ve been dealing not only with you with two of your worshippers whose central argument was that I wasn’t supposed to argue with someone of your stature. What you said was “programming is basically just really fun algebra”; in another message I explained that while certain programming languages bear a superficial resemblance to the high-school algebra, programming itself bears little relation to any kind of algebra you care to call on.

[i]”Yes, I do. That’s why I talked about it. Do you?”[/i]

I definitely do. I just found it surprising that someone lacking even a basic understanding of the foundations of calculus would have bothered to study considerably more complex mathematical subjects. Congratulations.

[i]”What kind of idiot are you that you think I confused “orthogonal” with “tangential”? I very clearly differentiated between the two, you f*cking dumbass.”[/i]

As a sanity check, I went back and re-read your original response to my message. Lo and behold, you do indeed claim that you used “orthogonal” instead of “tangential” because it was “more appropriate”. If you understand the difference between the two concepts, you’ll also understand that there really isn’t any context in which one would be acceptable but the other is more appropriate. They mean entirely different things! To infer from your message that you don’t understand the difference is therefore not at all unreasonable.

[i]”Don’t take it personally when I describe calculus in terms that don’t make it sound like the fruit of the tree of knowledge. You may, if you like, take it personally when I point out that your inability to think outside the box is simply appalling, though.”[/i]

I’m sorry, but you can’t say you aren’t criticizing calculus and at the same time call it “mathematical guesstimation”. It makes about as much sense as if I suddenly claimed that I had nothing against the whole MBTI rubbish, and yet I kept on calling it a pseudoscience.

[i]”The fact that I mentioned a distaste for calculus in the same post that I mentioned calculus isn’t much relevant to programming doesn’t link them as a statement of causation. Learn some reading comprehension. Attack the argument, not the person. Get a clue.”[/i]

It’s hard to attack the argument when there is none. Positing calculus as something incompatible with “algebraic thinking”, and therefore blaming calculus for making “algebraic thinkers” change majors makes no sense at all. You might as well have pulled it out of one of the Discworld novels.

It’s funny that you should get all incensed by what you perceive to be an ad hominem argument, and yet have no qualms in employing it constantly yourself.

[i]”It’s not my fault that your thinking is so limited in scope that you can’t clue in on the concept of a descriptive phrase like “algebraic thinking”. I suppose you would have the same problem with the phrase “circular reasoning”, since examples of reasoning don’t have radii.”[/i]

And yet you still haven’t been able to explain what you mean by “algebraic thinking”. Care to elaborate? And try to keep the vulgarity down to a minimum…

It’s not that difficult to figure out.

In reply to Algebabble sounds cooler

“[i]What I meant is that computer geeks tend to shy away from pseudoscience. Do you also check the astrology readings in the daily newspaper?[/i]”

Let me know when you’re done with the “psychology isn’t real science” straw man. I don’t want to interrupt your romantic interlude.

“[i]Considering I never said anything for or against high school, I fail to see how this has any relation to our discussion.[/i]”

It doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion. That’s what makes your repeated mention of high school a “straw man”.

“[i]Go back and re-read the first and second paragraphs of your response to my original message, and you’ll see why. If you dedicate an entire paragraph to explain the role of logic in programming, it’s fair to assume that you think I am not aware of it.[/i]”

Your claim was that I said you claimed symbolic logic wasn’t related to programming. What I actually said was that you apparently failed to link algebraic logic with programming logic.

What makes you think that claiming I’ve said things I haven’t will somehow convince me I’m wrong?

“[i]Actually, I did say it before, only in another post in this thread.[/i]”

Quote it, with a link to the source. I don’t believe you. By the way, all your nattering on about “programming” and “algebra” bearing no relation to one another is not only poppycock, but irrelevant to your assertion that you’d already said the fact some functional languages use “brackets” (actually, they tend to use parentheses) and function names doesn’t mean they’re algebraic. Since the commentary about the relationship between programming and algebra had previously been about similarities of logic and not parentheses or function names, your commentary about syntactic sugar was not only irrelevant, but previously unrepresented in the discussion.

“[i]whose central argument was that I wasn’t supposed to argue with someone of your stature[/i]”

Como se huh? Nobody said anything of the kind. They just pointed out that your argumentum ad hominem fallacies were particularly ill-conceived considering they’re aware of my history of useful contributions while your history so far is of vitriol and trollish behavior (paraphrased).

“[i]As a sanity check, I went back and re-read your original response to my message. Lo and behold, you do indeed claim that you used ‘orthogonal’ instead of ‘tangential’ because it was “more appropriate”. If you understand the difference between the two concepts, you’ll also understand that there really isn’t any context in which one would be acceptable but the other is more appropriate. They mean entirely different things! To infer from your message that you don’t understand the difference is therefore not at all unreasonable.[/i]”

When did I say one is “acceptable but the other is more appropriate”? The problem here is not that it’s reasonable to infer that I don’t understand the difference — it’s that you are making inferences based on things I never actually said.

“[i]I’m sorry, but you can’t say you aren’t criticizing calculus and at the same time call it ‘mathematical guesstimation’.[/i]”

Sure I can. I never said “mathematical guesstimation” was a bad thing, for instance. You’re attaching valuative judgments where they are not warranted or intended. Perhaps your problem in this case is that you take some things [b]way too friggin’ seriously[/b].

“[i]It’s hard to attack the argument when there is none.[/i]”
. . . that didn’t go over your head.

“[i]Positing calculus as something incompatible with ‘algebraic thinking'[/i]”

Reading comprehension again. I never said anything about incompatibility.

“[i]It’s funny that you should get all incensed by what you perceive to be an ad hominem argument, and yet have no qualms in employing it constantly yourself.[/i]”

I get the distinct impression that your understanding of “argumentum ad hominem” was gleaned from a website somewhere created by someone who got the term from another website somewhere, and you stopped reading at the point where it was mentioned that an argumentum ad hominem fallacy involves “attacking” the “person”. An argument directed at the person only becomes an argumentum ad hominem fallacy (literally, a fallacy of arguing against the person — not necessarily of attacking the person) when the argument against the person [b]takes the place of an argument against the preceding argument[/b]. In other words, while you have engaged in argumentum ad hominem fallacies by attacking me [b]instead of my arguments[/b], I have not engaged in such fallacious reasoning because my (rare) disparaging comments about you were simply seasoning sprinkled over my actual arguments.

“[i]And yet you still haven’t been able to explain what you mean by ‘algebraic thinking’. Care to elaborate? And try to keep the vulgarity down to a minimum…[/i]”

Wow. I’d really hoped that my reference to circular reasoning would have clued you in.

Do you think differently when reasoning through the logic of an algebraic expression than when you react negatively to kiddie porn? Okay, good. Now, start thinking about how that thinking is [b]different[/b], and you’ll be halfway there.

I’d analogize it for you, but at the moment nothing comes to mind as a useful analogy. C’est la vie. Sometimes I forget my telephone number, too.

You still appear to be unable to explain what you mean

In reply to Algebabble sounds cooler

[i]”Let me know when you’re done with the “psychology isn’t real science” straw man. I don’t want to interrupt your romantic interlude.”[/i]

Clearly you don’t know much about psychology if you equate MBTI with the field as a whole. Read my other post and stop repeating yourself. Psychology, when done properly, can be a science. Personality indicators are an example of what happens when you pretend to do science but make things up instead.

[i]”It doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion. That’s what makes your repeated mention of high school a “straw man”.”[/i]

I only mention “high-school” as a qualifier for what most people on this board would call “algebra” (and which, without any previously knowledge of your education, one might reasonably expect you to refer to by that name). If you had been condescending enough to explain to us what you were talking about, we might have spared everybody else a pretty stupid discussion. As you said yourself, you’re the only one who knows what you mean – but if you don’t explain it clearly people are bound to misinterpret you.

[i]”Your claim was that I said you claimed symbolic logic wasn’t related to programming. What I actually said was that you apparently failed to link algebraic logic with programming logic.”[/i]

Again, one has to go by what you write, not by what you think. Show me where you said that you thought I had failed to link “algebraic logic” with “programming logic”.

[i]”Quote it, with a link to the source. I don’t believe you.”[/i]

What I said was: “I am well aware of the superficial similarities between writing down equations on paper and writing programs in Miranda or Haskell…” (http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=221757&messageID=2231340)

Again, this all hinges on the fact that you repeatedly failed to clarify what you meant by “algebra” and “algebraic”. Then again, being vague is handy, because then you can rectify when your arguments are challenged, and claim that you meant something else.

[i]”Sure I can. I never said “mathematical guesstimation” was a bad thing, for instance.”[/i]

I never said pseudoscience was bad either. But you could probably infer it from the context and the tone. And yet when I’m forced to infer something from your vague rants, I’m incurring in some sort of logical fallacy. How can you possibly expect anyone to understand what on earth you mean by “algebraic mathematics”? You later make the incredible clarification of “as opposed to, say, geometric”. Wow, that makes a world of difference.

[i]”Reading comprehension again. I never said anything about incompatibility.”[/i]

Are you going to backpedal on absolutely everything? You said: “Calculus is a great way to make people who think algebraically (the perfect people to do programming) throw their hands up in disgust and pursue a career in politics or window-washing instead.” If that isn’t saying that people who “think algebraically” are somehow unable to study calculus, then explain exactly what you meant.

[i]”I get the distinct impression that your understanding of “argumentum ad hominem” was gleaned from a website somewhere created by someone who got the term from another website somewhere, and you stopped reading at the point where it was mentioned that an argumentum ad hominem fallacy involves “attacking” the “person”.”[/i]

And you have the nerve to say that you “have not engaged in such fallacious reasoning because [your] (rare) disparaging comments about [me] were simply seasoning sprinkled over [your] actual arguments.”?

[i]”I’d analogize it for you, but at the moment nothing comes to mind as a useful analogy. C’est la vie”[/i]

Wow, that has got to be the best argument ever – “I could explain it to you, but I won’t.” Wasn’t it “blindingly obvious”? Then do us the favor of explaining the terminology you keep on making up as you go, so that we can actually figure out what you’re really saying, as opposed to having to make inferences that you dislike.

Your army of straw men is getting pretty big.

In reply to Algebabble sounds cooler

“[i]Clearly you don’t know much about psychology if you equate MBTI with the field as a whole.[/i]”

Again, with the things I didn’t say. I didn’t say that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

“[i]Personality indicators are an example of what happens when you pretend to do science but make things up instead.[/i]”

Saying it doesn’t make it so.

“[i]I only mention ‘high-school’ as a qualifier for what most people on this board would call ‘algebra’ (and which, without any previously knowledge of your education, one might reasonably expect you to refer to by that name).[/i]”

Assumptions like that just make [b]you[/b] look stupid — once they’re done wasting [b]my[/b] time.

“[i]If you had been condescending enough to explain to us what you were talking about, we might have spared everybody else a pretty stupid discussion.[/i]”

You claimed to know something about mathematics. I proceeded with that in mind. Why should I assume that someone that claims to know something about mathematics needs me to explain that algebra is more than the use of variables?

“[i]As you said yourself, you’re the only one who knows what you mean – but if you don’t explain it clearly people are bound to misinterpret you.[/i]”

That’s especially true when they’re so obviously [b]determined[/b] to misinterpret my statements as much as possible.

“[i]Show me where you said that you thought I had failed to link ‘algebraic logic’ with ‘programming logic.[/i]”

I said “the common threads in algebraic (as opposed to, say, geometric) mathematics, symbolic logic, and programming” in [url=http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=221757&messageID=2231135][b]this post[/b][/url]. There was, I would think, a fairly clear and obvious progression of concepts from algebraic mathematics, though symbolic logic, to programming. Thus, I distinctly referred to a relationship between algebraic logic and programming logic.

“[i]What I said was: ‘I am well aware of the superficial similarities between writing down equations on paper and writing programs in Miranda or Haskell…'[/i]”

Ahhh . . . okay, so you did say that before. I apologize for failing to recall the previous statement and make the connection.

Now . . . maybe you can explain how that ended up being such a big part of the discussion.

“[i]Again, this all hinges on the fact that you repeatedly failed to clarify what you meant by ‘algebra’ and ‘algebraic’.[/i]”

I was very clear about what I meant by “algebra”: I meant “algebra”. You assumed I meant “high school algebra”, but I even corrected that assumption by pointing out that algebra goes well beyond what’s taught in high school.

I was clearer about “algebraic”, and sooner, too: I pointed out that “algebraic” is basically just an adjective that denotes characteristics in common with algebra, et cetera.

“[i]How can you possibly expect anyone to understand what on earth you mean by ‘algebraic mathematics’?[/i]”

Do you know how to operate that wonder of modern technology, the “dictionary”? It might help. At http://www.onelook.com I discovered that “algebraic” means “of or relating to algebra” just now, with only about three seconds’ time invested. You might try that some time.

“[i]You said: ‘Calculus is a great way to make people who think algebraically (the perfect people to do programming) throw their hands up in disgust and pursue a career in politics or window-washing instead.’ If that isn’t saying that people who ‘think algebraically’ are somehow unable to study calculus, then explain exactly what you meant.[/i]”

One would think context would help inform you that the intent was to take “algebraically” as at least somewhat exclusive of other modes of thought related to calculus. In other words, I meant that some people who think in a manner more related to algebraic logic than the fine art of mathematical guesstimation might be less than enthused with a course of study in calculus instead of actual computer science, while you took my statement to mean that anyone who has the capacity for thinking in a manner consistent with algebraic logic is congenitally incapable of doing calculus at all.

“[i]And you have the nerve to say that you ‘have not engaged in such fallacious reasoning because [your] (rare) disparaging comments about [me] were simply seasoning sprinkled over [your] actual arguments.’?[/i]”

Yes. It’s true.

In response to my statement that no analogies came to mind:
“[i]Wow, that has got to be the best argument ever[/i]”

That wasn’t an argument. Stop pretending it was.

Blah blah blah

In reply to Algebabble sounds cooler

[i]”Again, with the things I didn’t say. I didn’t say that. Stop putting words in my mouth.”[/i]

It’s pretty simple. I criticize MBTI and [b]twice[/b] you claim that I’m putting down psychology. You’re either equating MBTI with psychology as a whole, or you’re a fool. I assumed the former, but I guess I’ll have reconsider.

[i]”Assumptions like that just make you look stupid — once they’re done wasting my time.”[/i]

Assumptions like that are entirely reasonable given that we’re on an IT website.

[i]”You claimed to know something about mathematics. I proceeded with that in mind. Why should I assume that someone that claims to know something about mathematics needs me to explain that algebra is more than the use of variables?”[/i]

I never said I needed you to explain whether algebra involves more than the use of variables or not, but exactly what you meant by algebra. I quote Eric Weisstein’s MathWorld: “In modern usage, algebra has several meanings.” MathWorld goes on to define the various senses, as do a number of other mathematical and general references.

Is that not clear enough for you?

[i]”That’s especially true when they’re so obviously determined to misinterpret my statements as much as possible.”[/i]

And you’re not making it any easier.

[i]”There was, I would think, a fairly clear and obvious progression of concepts from algebraic mathematics, though symbolic logic, to programming. Thus, I distinctly referred to a relationship between algebraic logic and programming logic.”[/i]

Again with the vagueness. First you talk about “algebraic mathematics” and later talk about “algebraic logic”. I will assume (correctly, I hope, although at this point I expect just about anything) that the latter is contained in the former. Even so (or perhaps because of it), the progression is not clear. Neither can it ever be obvious, given that symbolic logic has been around for a while while algebraic logic is considerably more recent.

(Of course, if we let “algebraic mathematics” be whatever you want it to be at any specific point, as you seem to be doing, then your statement is a tautology.)

It makes about as much sense as saying there is a clear and obvious progression of concepts from abstract algebra to quantum mechanics to classical mechanics.

[i]”I was very clear about what I meant by “algebra”: I meant “algebra”. You assumed I meant “high school algebra”, but I even corrected that assumption by pointing out that algebra goes well beyond what’s taught in high school.”[/i]

Again, the term “algebra” has a wide range of meanings. The way you talk about it, you could be referring to pretty much anything in mathematics (or maybe everything, which is even more convenient). And yet, somehow you manage to somehow place algebra and calculus in different categories. I’m sure Descartes would also be thrilled by the fact that you consider geometry not to be algebraic.

[i]”I was clearer about “algebraic”, and sooner, too: I pointed out that “algebraic” is basically just an adjective that denotes characteristics in common with algebra, et cetera.”[/i]

Clear as mud. You’re basing your definition on the term “algebra”, which you have failed to define. Even if we assume that you’re talking about abstract algebra, it is such a wide field that talking about “characteristic in common with algebra” is as vague as it can possibly be.

[i]”Do you know how to operate that wonder of modern technology, the “dictionary”? It might help. At http://www.onelook.com I discovered that “algebraic” means “of or relating to algebra” just now, with only about three seconds’ time invested. You might try that some time.”[/i]

Again, I was asking about “algebraic mathematics” and “algebraic thinking”, not the adjective by itself. Would accept “numbers related to algebra” as the definition for “algebraic numbers”? Moreover, have a look at the definitions that http://www.onelook.com returns when you search for algebra.

Seriously, if you had said something like “algorithmic thinking” (not that I’m implying that it means the same thing as whatever you’re talking about), it would have been pretty clear, because an algorithm is a pretty specific concept. Algebra, on the other hand, isn’t.

[i]”One would think context would help inform you that the intent was to take “algebraically” as at least somewhat exclusive of other modes of thought related to calculus.”[/i]

What other modes? Do you even know what you’re talking about? I would think it would be pretty simple for you to define something that is “blindingly obvious”, and yet you haven’t (and I’m beginning to think that rather than not wanting to, you simply can’t).

[i]”In other words, I meant that some people who think in a manner more related to algebraic logic than the fine art of mathematical guesstimation might be less than enthused with a course of study in calculus instead of actual computer science, while you took my statement to mean that anyone who has the capacity for thinking in a manner consistent with algebraic logic is congenitally incapable of doing calculus at all.”[/i]

Whoa there! So now “algebraic thinking” means “thinking in a manner consistent with algebraic logic”? We finally have a definition, even if it isn’t particularly intuitive. Whether you’re talking about Boolean algebra (not to be confused with Boolean logic) or abstract algebraic logic in general, that is defintely the last thing anyone would take “algebraic thinking” to mean.

You could at least try to be consistent in the use of the adjective “algebraic”. At this point I’m not sure if even you know what you’re talking about when you use that word.

[i]”That wasn’t an argument. Stop pretending it was.”[/i]

Given the depth and quality of your arguments so far, one cannot be faulted for thinking that you might have considered it to be one.

Vagueness and figures of speech like synecdoche (you really love it, don’t you?) may work well in poetry, but if you’re having a discussion, I sincerely think you should be aiming for clarity (and stay away from grandiloquence while you’re at it).

Where in europe do they teach calculus at school ?

In reply to What we have here is someone with too much edumacation.

Certainly not in the UK, they can barely add up.

Personally I think it’s in the courses to make the teachers look clever, when we assume they understand it.

Never used it in 30 years of coding, lot’s of other math, calculus not once, unless you want to count the gradient of a slope which can be calculated by far easier means.

We might use equations derived by calculus, I can’t think of anything but a teaching program ever needing to code how differentiation or integration is done.
Indeed, my spotty memory suggests that you can’t guarantee to be able to differentiate and that integrating was basically a look up table.

Profit = Turnover – Deductions;

Doesn’t have to have an x in it to be algebra.

In the UK, for example

In reply to Where in europe do they teach calculus at school ?

If you took mathematics for your A Levels, you definitely studied both differential and integral calculus. (I took my math GCSE a year early, so the following year I took math AS Level and studied differential calculus, which made A Levels that much easier.)

If you go back and read my message, you’ll see that I do not once claim that calculus is useful for programmers; what I do say is that, if teaching calculus means you are taught at least an introductory course in analysis (so you study the concept of functions), it’s not all that bad.

I never went near to calculus

In reply to In the UK, for example

until an OU course as part of a BSc .

I think you are being hard on Apotheon.

Calculus is based on the continuous number line and infinity, both mathematical abstracts than cannot be implemented digitially.
The one thing I always bear in mind in that calculus is an approximation.
What does the volume of a sphere is 4/3 pir cubed mean.
Never mind pi is irrational, how accurate your measurement of r and the fact that space is not flat.
Limit’s are a mathemetical dodge of the infinities that are implicit in counting.

It’s an effective model of reality, it can be proven within the axioms of mathematics, but it is an estimation.

Models vs. reality

In reply to I never went near to calculus

1) Mathematics can and does exist independently of its use to model “reality” (unfortunately, this is really not the place to discuss the merits of mathematical realism). Furthermore, the fact that something cannot be implemented digitally does not mean it is not part of “reality”.

2) Calculus is NOT an approximation. Its application to real world problems may result in approximate models, if only because the world is apparently discrete and our measurements are also approximate.

3) I imagine you bring up pi’s irrationality in relation to its infinite decimal expansion – the fact that we cannot perform calculations with infinite accuracy does not mean that exact results do not exist, only that we cannot always obtain them.

4) Space is nearly flat in our vecinity, which is why Euclidean geometry works well as an approximation to the geometry of the space we inhabit. If, however, you want further accuracy, you can always use non-Euclidean geometry.

5) Limits are not a way of dodging infinity – they are actually a way of embracing the infinitely small and the infinitely large, and they have a solid theoretical foundation.

6) Obviously, the only completely accurate model of reality is reality itself (but then it’s not much of a model, is it?). However, that doesn’t at all mean that mathematics (or even just calculus) is an estimate; it means that models, by their very nature, are approximate.

Non euclidean geometry is only part

In reply to I never went near to calculus

of the problem. What if in reality a line is not infinitely divisible.
ie space is discrete, the granularity being so fine that treating it as infinite in a mathematical model results in an effective approximation.

One of the biggest problems in physics is relating the discrete and therefore finite quantities in Quantum Mechanics to the Rieman based geometries of relativity.

At the moments it’s done with a set of mathematical transformations that can only be justified by their result. It’s right because it works, (incredibly well I might add), but we have no mathematically rigourously provable theory as to why.

There’s a strong feeling amongst physicists that it’s applying the math based on continuity that’s causing the problem.

If a line is not infinitely divisible then calculus is an abtruse piece of mathematics with no foundation in the real world.

Discreteness

In reply to I never went near to calculus

(Actually, non-Euclidian geometry is not a problem at all! Neither is the continuity or discreteness of spacetime.)

The point is that, by definition, a line is infinitely divisible. What you call a line in “reality” is an approximation to the Platonic ideal which mathematics deals with. Whether the physical line is infinitely divisible or not does not make calculus wrong.

Let me put it another way: mathematics is NOT an empirical science, where we need to conduct experiments to check whether our theories correspond to reality. On the other hand, physics is not and can never be mathematically rigorous; the theories we construct are only models that can be disproved by experiment.

I showed your post to a physicist friend of mine, and he couldn’t quite understand exactly what you were referring to. At large scales, discrete systems exhibit continuum-like behavior (which is why calculus can be applied to physics, economics, etc.).

Obviously, if you go down to scales where the discreteness of spacetime becomes apparent, techniques meant for continuous pseudo-Riemannian manifolds are going to give weird results. Then again, M-theorists have bigger problems, such as background dependece, or the fact that they cannot even come up with a testable or falsifiable theory. But don’t blame the maths, blame Edward Witten 😉

I really begin to wonder why you are going to such lengths to discredit calculus…

Discredit ?

In reply to I never went near to calculus

Calculus was a stroke of genius. I merely wished to back up what Apotheon said in that it is guestimation, when applied to real world problems.

All engineering is a guess, good engineering a good guess.
Also it would seem we are all agreed that the actual process on integration or differentiation is of limited value to developers, we are more likely to use the results of it. Yet maths courses to back up computer science, spend a lot of time in it and correspondingly less of math we are much much more likely to apply.
Compared to set theory, groups, boolean algebra, iteration….

Its not the mechanics, but the principles

In reply to Where in europe do they teach calculus at school ?

I am not going to dogmatically state that Calculus is absolute necessity to programming. However, Calculus does hone one’s analytical abilities. The problem I see with most people learning math (whether it is algebra, geometry, or calculus) is that they concentrate on the mechanics of the course. True, the mechanics of Algebra are used constantly through out life (not just in programming); however, it the principles behind the formulas that help us more. Knowing the logic behind differientiation and integration is more valuable than knowing that dy/dx x^2 is 2x.
The problem with the algebra courses that I took when I was in school is that they concentrated on teaching students how to solve equations by set formulas. If the student does not know the formula, then he is lost. Whereas a good geometry or calculus course tends to concentrate on the principles behind the mathematics.

I think both are essential to excel at programming.

You seem to be confusing the map with the territory

In reply to Its not the mechanics, but the principles

One of the most interesting things I ever did on a math course was learn the why of the formula for calculating the area of a triangle.

It was all done with pictures, by itself the math related to nothing I could picture, it was about as clear as a memory dump.

I am not sure what you mean

In reply to You seem to be confusing the map with the territory

The problem appears to be the method of teaching and not the math itself.

That was what I said

In reply to You seem to be confusing the map with the territory

Didn’t say the math was wrong, the model the math expresses could be though.
Pure math is an almost enclosed system, it’s when you attempt to apply to the real world you get problems like

The chance of this electron being here is 90% so there must be another 10% universes in existence where it isn’t.

Or because I can take line that describes my place in time and manipulate a point on it to be before any other point therefore time travel is possible.

That’s what I mean by the map not being the territory, being able to express something mathematically, only means it exists as a mathematical ‘reality’

To little edgumeacation

In reply to What we have here is someone with too much edumacation.

How often have you summed floats to find if they fit within a range of error. Summation is basic calculus. Summation is often used in CS.

Probably never, same as me.

In reply to To little edgumeacation

That’s an academic exercise. I have some vague memory of doing it once, in class, not since though.

Summation is Basic Arithmetic

In reply to To little edgumeacation

In computer programs we add discrete columns of numbers, typically by repeately adding two values at a time. Do not try to upgrade that to be calculus.

Agreed.

In reply to Summation is Basic Arithmetic

Theoretical calculus uses the concepts of “sum” & “limit” [of f(x) as x approaches 0] to exactly determine values which a computer programmer, who has not studied calculus, can only approximate with a large number of simple sums. The mathematician can be more accurate, more quickly, by using calculus. Therefore, I see no reason at all for calculus to be a general requirement for all coders.

Who’s the customer for such a coder?

In reply to Agreed.

Anybody who wants to know the value of a definite integral has [I’m quite certain!] already learned the calculus of integrals, and can therefore find it more quickly using calculus than by using coders, who hopefully are still more expensive than pencils & paper! [ie, a waste of money, for the mathematician]

Works great for rational numbers; but, …

In reply to Summation is Basic Arithmetic

what about [i]irrational[/i] ones, particularly those pesky [i]transcendentals[/i]?

And, just how do you go about determining the slope of a curve at a given point if you don’t know how to calculate a derivative? Or, calculate the area encompassed by it if you can’t calculate an integral?

In general, how do you model that which is [u]analog[/u]?

You don’t.

In reply to Works great for rational numbers; but, …

Then again, those things aren’t particularly relevant to computer science.

‘application’ of those calculations

In reply to Works great for rational numbers; but, …

would be primarily in physical modeling, or other [u]scientific[/u] programming applications, a small field within comp sci, and not much of a reason to require all comp sci majors to know calculus, IMO.

Well then, apotheon, if not Comp. Sci., what are they relevant to?

In reply to Works great for rational numbers; but, …

.

Absolutely: Time valued financial expressions are also analog.

In reply to Works great for rational numbers; but, …

While I do understand your position, the problem as I see it is how to determine who will & will not find use for certain knowledge. Absent prescience, it that possible?

True, deepsand, but that is also a small subset of programming…

In reply to Works great for rational numbers; but, …

as the programming profession exists today. As long as coders know what options their academic choices do not open for them, what’s the differential?

😉

In this context — who cares?

In reply to Works great for rational numbers; but, …

If something is irrelevant to the subject at hand, there’s no point derailing the subject at hand by talking about other subjects related to that irrelevancy instead.

Depends on whether the “programmer” is just a programmer, …

In reply to Works great for rational numbers; but, …

or is a programmer/analyst.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=221757&messageID=2234658

Much of the technical trading of financial instruments is based on …

In reply to Works great for rational numbers; but, …

calculus.

Technical analysis of such instruments uses many analogs of physical measures, such as mass, velocity, acceleration & momentum, and perforce relies on calculus for making the evaluations upon which trading decisions are made.

Are you sure?

In reply to Summation is Basic Arithmetic

About three months ago I had to write a program that summed and unknown list of floats and had to branch a decision based on the error value. The program based its decision on an error value of 1^-13. call it fuzzy logic, if you will, or scientific computing.

Back in the day, on programmer that ended up in prison used the round off error in simple adding of floats to enrich himself. This was the banking system he bamboozled.

How much does accuracy in accounting mean to your company. It meant a lot to the banking system. The failure of an appropriate model also cost them 13 million before it was caught.

Based on this, I disagree that you can simple sum discrete columns of numbers.

Exactly, so what eejit decided

In reply to Are you sure?

to use floats in the first place?

Floats are inaccurate, you can do the math to prove it if you want, but the conclusion is all that matters to a programmer.

Single, double you are setting the precision and magnitude and accepting a level of inaccuracy.
If accuracy is mandatory, don’t use them, that’s what things like BCD are for.

What you said, Tony.

In reply to Are you sure?

As a programmer, I know that floats are inaccurate. Being a mathematician wouldn’t change that fact. As such I know that the proper way to handle accuracy with a given decimal place limit for any given calculation, with absolute accuracy necessary over the long haul, the way to handle it is to use integer arithmetic and collect modulus values until you’ve got enough to perform the required integer arithmetic again.

That solution requires a little algebra, a whole lot of arithmetic, and reasonable knowledge of the programming language you’re using. It sure doesn’t take a dozen credits or so of calculus.

That’s another way

In reply to Are you sure?

Like you I fail to see the point of writing a shed load of code that comes up with the wrong answer, and then rescue it by using my mathematical skills to calculate how inaccurate I was.

That’s just stoopid.

One system we wanted the weight in metric tonnes to three decimal places. In other words kilos.

It was really difficult to write that bit of code to insert the decimal point for display and reports. :p

Course then some twit imported them into another system as a float, did a categorised report, added up his group totals and got a different answer to me.

This was communicated urgently to me as a software fault in my code, because his numbers added up!

Damn eejit.

Things are a lot better now, but you used to be able to get the same code with the same data come up with two different answers on two machines dependant on the numerical co-processor. The explanation for that would go over a manager’s head at very high altitude! Quite rightly he wouldn’t give a toss.

No difficulty understanding what you meant by “algebraic thinking”

In reply to There’s math, and then there’s math.

The concept of ‘variable’ is what allows a single program to handle [b]varying[/b] input. That concept is defined in mathematics within ‘algebra’.

I also concur on calculus as prerequisite for linear algebra; having passed both, there is a lot of potential to be realized from linear algebra, which does not depend logically, in any way, on the concept of an ‘infinitesimal’, nor any of its logical derivatives.

Kudos for using the word ‘orthogonal’ at a higher level of abstraction than in the mathematics departments!

Aargh!

In reply to No difficulty understanding what you meant by “algebraic thinking”

What is taught as elementary algebra in schools (which is what you are referring to when you talk about variables) has very little to do with algebra in the mathematical sense.

The concept of a variable is, in fact, much more a part of analysis (calculus) as it is of abstract algebra (linear or otherwise), and is not the same in programming as it is in mathematics.

The techniques for manipulating equations are applicable in most branches of mathematics so, again, “algebra” is a misnomer.

Finally, given that the person who used “orthogonal” was actually thinking of “tangential” (which is the opposite of orthogonal), I wouldn’t go around congratulating him/her.

definitions

In reply to Aargh!

Tangential: a line which contacts a curve at exactly one point, with slope equal to the slope of the curve at that point, is tangential to that curve.

Orthogonal: perpendicular, with more rigorous definition required in more than 3 dimensions. I don’t have time to explain the multi-dimensional definition to you right now.

These definitions are different, but they are not “opposite”.

Hey Abs, you might want to include the definition of “opposite”

In reply to definitions

just in case.

antiparallel

In reply to Hey Abs, you might want to include the definition of “opposite”

You were right, he doesn’t know what “opposite” means. Sheesh.

anticorrect

In reply to antiparallel

Well, it appears as though you don’t know what “antiparallel” means, so we’re even. Oh wait, you also don’t know what “tangent” means 🙂

good one

In reply to antiparallel

.

They are opposite!

In reply to definitions

I don’t need you to explain the n-dimensional equivalent of perpendicularity to me, thank you very much.

I don’t have time to explain the concept in 3 or more dimensions right now, so I’ll have to keep it simple. Given a point on a curve, a tangent and a normal (orthogonal) are perpendicular. In 2 dimensions, that is as opposite as two lines can be…

Not at all!

In reply to They are opposite!

Two tangents to the same curve can be opposite. A tangent to a curve [b]cannot[/b] be opposite to the normal to that curve, in two dimensions!

Observe: call tangent one ‘t1’ and tangent two ‘t2’. Now. let the slope of t1 = x. The slope of t2 may satisfy the definition of a tangent by having either of two values: x, or -x. If t2 = -x, then t2 is ‘opposite’ or ‘antiparallel’ to t1. The angle of separation of two antiparallel lines is 180 degress. The angle of separation of two orthogonal lines is 90 degrees.

‘Orthogonal’ was the correct word for the context in which apotheon used it because the branches of mathematics he named are not opposite one another, but they do have limited intersection, which was the crux of the now excessively debated statement in which he used the term ‘orthogonal’ so creatively.

Sheesh!

What?!

In reply to Not at all!

If a curve at some point has a slope of x, how can a line with a slope of -x be a tangent to that curve at that same point? It contradicts the very definition of a tangent (unless you’re talking about tangents to a curve at different points, but then we’re talking about something entirely different). If you want further proof, draw a line with a slope of 1 and a line with a slope of -1, and you’ll see they intersect (and at right angles, actually).

(Your assertion would be almost correct if you were talking about vectors instead of lines, and directions instead of slopes.)

Where exactly do you get your definitions of “opposite”, “antiparallel” and “angle of separation”?

Going back to the use of “orthogonal”: what do you mean by “limited intersection”? And how can two branches of mathematics be “opposite”?

Got me again.

In reply to Not at all!

My math is rusty. The slope is always defined from left to right, so the values of x & -x for the tangent to a given curve, at a given point, were nonsensical. What I should have said if we draw a ray tangent to a curve, we can draw another ray antiparallel to that tangent, etc., but I should stop pontificating about things I used to know before I require an oral podiatrist.

You Win db–Good Job.

In reply to They are opposite!

I guess the rest of this sub-thread shows the futility of using shop math to supplant things like vector analysis.

Perhaps that should be the lesson an aspiring CompSci should take away from this discussion.

benito’s real lesson…

In reply to You Win db–Good Job.

“Never do in 30 seconds what you can do in two hours.” Or, perhaps, “If the poor sucker who will be maintaining your code years from now can understand it, then you’re doing something wrong.” Or, maybe, “Wimpy programmers abstract. Manly programmers obfuscate. And real wizards obfuscate their abstractions.”

Besides, customers don’t care about having a finished product; they insist that it be written in the most beautiful, most elegant, most mathematically brilliant way no matter how long it takes. If it actually works, that’s a bonus, not a prerequisite. That’s why the field of computers ceased to exist after John von Neumann died.

Mr 808 ….

In reply to You Win db–Good Job.

LMAO

Coffee everywhere…

Indeed the map is not the territory, something none of us should forget.

“as opposite as two lines can be… “

In reply to They are opposite!

To use the term “opposite” we need to specify rays, not lines. Now that we are using the correct geometric terminology to illustrate the meaning of “opposite”, perpendicular is not “opposite”, antiparallel is “opposite”. Perpendicular lines (or rays) are 90 degrees apart. Antiparallel rays are 180 degrees apart, aka “opposite”.
Opposite != Perpendicular

You don’t get it.

In reply to Aargh!

You were being put down.

You are behaving arrogantly and, although you may well have a valid point, you have blown the chance of getting a warm welcome. I will concede that your ego does not appear to need or even want a warm welcome but that is beside the point.

It is entirely possible that you may simply want to point out something that you feel is important. It is entirely possible that English is not your first language and you never took the time to learn tact in the use of English.

While these things are possible, they don’t change the fact that you are communicating in English to a group of English speaking computer professionals who are trying to help up and coming computer professionals not to screw up their professional lives. And in the process of this communication you have shown self to be a fairly unsufferable, arrogant, snobbish math bigot.

Is this the image you want to be known by?

Oh, I get it alright

In reply to You don’t get it.

I’m sorry, but I was responding to comments which I felt were unfounded and rather arrogant (and I’ve explained why in another post), and showed symptoms of coming from someone who, while probably knowledgeable in a number of other fields, did not know much about mathematics or programming and was making misleading comments about both fields. I find it hard to see how dissing calculus (without any basis in fact) can possibly help up-and-coming computer professionals.

For what it’s worth, over the years I’ve tutored a number of kinds who had problems with high school math, and I’ve invariably come across exactly the same kind of attitude I’ve seen here, which is probably why I’m rather sensitive to the type of unfounded criticism of calculus to which I originally responded. But I’m certainly not going to apologize for writing what I wrote.

By the way, it is entirely possible that I am actually a native English speaker who is well aware of how to write tactfully, but chose not to.

That, at least, I can appreciate!

In reply to Oh, I get it alright

[i]By the way, it is entirely possible that I am actually a native English speaker who is well aware of how to write tactfully, but chose not to.[/i]

I can relate.

There are things you aren’t getting.

In reply to Oh, I get it alright

“[i]I’m rather sensitive to the type of unfounded criticism of calculus to which I originally responded.[/i]”

I think the term you want is “hypersensitive” there. I didn’t criticize calculus. Thinking I criticized calculus by pointing out its (almost complete) irrelevancy, as contrasted with other mathematical fields, to programming (which I actually do on an almost daily basis — so no, I’m not clueless about programming) is about as much a reasonable reaction as thinking I’m criticizing calculus when I say that study of calculus is irrelevant to the field of English lit. Criticism? Hell no. It’s a simple statement of fact. Calculus is not the only important field. Get over it.

Glad I read this first

In reply to There’s math, and then there’s math.

I was about to post, “You at least need algebra” when I read appy’s post. If you can’t understand algebra, how are you going to use a variable?

Little Ben seems to think none of us do anyway…

In reply to Glad I read this first

so I gues that maybe I must not know what a variable is either.

I think I used too many words…

In reply to Glad I read this first

to say the same thing. I received a long reply that addressed things I didn’t say in the first place. Hmmm.

You can’t blame math as the problem when you don’t like it.

In reply to I think I used too many words…

Perhaps in a “pure” programming-only sense you don’t ALWAYS need math, but I don’t see how you can’t get by without an understanding. Frankly calculus is not a difficult subject (I’m referring to entry-level university calculus here, but we also cover calculus in high school here in Canada, not sure about the US), and even if you don’t use it directly, the benefits in discovering how to solve a problem can be very useful.

I find that math is a more “pure” logic than programming – I guess thats why I used math to figure out programming, not vice versa.

And to top it off, I don’t see the perceived arrogance that you all are seeing. I find it arrogant to suggest in the first place you don’t need math (whether calculus or otherwise) to get by in the programming world. Talk about not understanding other people’s perspectives here.

Uh, I didn’t ‘blame math as the problem’. Did you misplace your post?

In reply to You can’t blame math as the problem when you don’t like it.

[i]Perhaps in a “pure” programming-only sense you don’t ALWAYS need math, but I don’t see how you can’t get by without an understanding.[/i]

I don’t know either. I apply principles I learned in math all the time, including logic principles that I only ever saw in school in math classes, but which, I understand from hearsay and subsequent reading, are taught in philosophy classes. So even when I’m not using mathematics, my programming ability relies largely on what I have learned in math classes.

[i]Frankly calculus is not a difficult subject (I’m referring to entry-level university calculus here, but we also cover calculus in high school here in Canada, not sure about the US), and even if you don’t use it directly, the benefits in discovering how to solve a problem can be very useful.[/i]

Calculus is optional in most US high schools, but I took it and enjoyed it.

[i]And to top it off, I don’t see the perceived arrogance that you all are seeing. I find it arrogant to suggest in the first place you don’t need math (whether calculus or otherwise) to get by in the programming world. Talk about not understanding other people’s perspectives here.[/i]

I think you misplaced your post. If you think I suggested, in the first or any other place that I don’t need math as a programmer, please point me to the text that led you to that impression, so I can explain more clearly any statement I intended to make, or which I did not make, but which you thought was implied.

Thanks,

It’s because you are Absolutely not Apotheon

In reply to Uh, I didn’t ‘blame math as the problem’. Did you misplace your post?

I believe apotheon said he didn’t like calculus. I’m too lazy right now to find the exact post.

I think Marshmallow confuzzeled the two names.

I capitalize my ‘A’

In reply to It’s because you are Absolutely not Apotheon

apotheon does not, although a lot of other members do when they post to, or about him. maybe that will make it easier for marshmallow. maybe it won’t. no big deal.

Ah, maybe it’s my partial agreement with apotheon?

In reply to You can’t blame math as the problem when you don’t like it.

If you read what he and I actually wrote, you’ll see that he dislikes calculus and claims it does not apply (much? at all? you would have to ask him to know which) to the programming he does; I like calculus, but I cannot think of a reason for a programmer to want to know calculus other than to be a scientific programmer, which is a small subset of programmers.

Agreements with limits ;)

In reply to Ah, maybe it’s my partial agreement with apotheon?

Throughout this thread I have been trying to think of when I have ever needed calculus in a programming task. I can’t explicitly think of one.

Oddly, it wasn’t until deepsand mentioned sliderules that I remembered how sine waves had been useful (ok, the connection is tenuous, but the thought train got me there).

I can see how my [b]basic[/b] understanding of calculus may have formed my thinking and caused it to flow differently over the surface of a problem to lead me to alternative solutions. That doesn’t mean that I [i]needed[/i] calculus to get where I am, just that it has most likely helped me.

That said, those concepts go a long way in helping turn physical models into coded models since most physical models do require abstract mathematical descriptions to work their way into a computer.

I still disagree with Benito’s apparent assertion that coders are never programmers and you can’t be a programmer unless you know higher math. I apologize for the arrogance of this next statement; but, we will always need the lower paid programmers to build the GUIs and connective glue-code for the more interesting stuff that [i]does[/i] require the higher math background.

Not really higher mathematics, but otherwise I mostly agree

In reply to Agreements with limits ;)

I was talking about this with a physicist friend, and we both reached the same conclusion: even though you are not exactly likely to need calculus when reasoning about programming (in the same way you’re not likely to need trigonometry or geometry), there are a number of concepts you normally study as part of calculus that do have a lot more to do with programming. As part of any basic analysis course, one studies concepts like functions, series, convergence and limits, all of which can come in handy when understanding or writing new algorithms.

(I wouldn’t particularly call that higher mathematics, though, since in many places it is something that is taught in high school.)

I still stand by my previous assertion: programming is not the same as simply writing code, and a good programmer needs a number of mathematical tools (though, again, not calculus) to program efficiently. I also think the programming world would benefit enormously if the people who you think can get along being mere coders were actually skilled programmers – I believe software in general would be of a consistently higher quality.

Then you have elevated the term beyond its common meaning

In reply to Agreements with limits ;)

The term “programmer” applies to more fields than just computers. A programmer is simply somebody that programs things. I think you might want to add an adjective to the word for your chosen limits.

We apparently agree that one should have a more advanced knowledge of mathematics to have interesting prospects in “programming” and I think that this is the real crux of the thread. The degree of that advanced knowledge is subject to debate.

calculus vs. mathematical concepts in calculus classes

In reply to Agreements with limits ;)

Actually, I find the tendency to subsume pervasive concepts in mathematics within calculus classes as odious as the requirement for studying a bunch of largely irrelevant calculus as a prerequisite for linear algebra. These concepts — the concepts that are actually useful for programming — have nothing more to do with calculus than linear algebra itself. In other words, these concepts are not specific to calculus, and the fact that these concepts are subsumed within the calculus courses of study in most universities is the only “logical” reason for calculus as a prerequisite for linear algebra courses.

I guess I see calculus as, in some ways, the Java of mathematics. These days, when you go to school to learn programming, many schools only provide basic programming concepts within the context of Java classes — classes that are prerequisites for classes related to AI development that has nothing to do with Java programming at all. Similarly, many universities treat calculus as the universal field of mathematics just as they treat Java as the universal language of programming — not universal in the sense of being the only one, but in the sense of being the one that everybody wants to know if they’re going to be studying [programming|mathematics] at all.

The failure in reasoning that occurs in that approach to designing a curriculum should be unavoidably obvious.

You’re not the only one.

In reply to I think I used too many words…

“[i]I received a long reply that addressed things I didn’t say in the first place. Hmmm.[/i]”

It looks like dbenito is pretty committed to constructing that army of straw men.

Speaking of “not the only one”, don’t you find the alias “TiggerTwo”…

In reply to You’re not the only one.

to be a contradiction to the fictional character’s favorite fictional attribute of itself?

“The most wonderful thing about Tiggers, is I’m the only one!”

:^0

yes, I do

In reply to Speaking of “not the only one”, don’t you find the alias “TiggerTwo”…

I always liked that ironic aspect of the name TiggerTwo.

Perhaps you’ve forgotten “Tigger [u]too[/u].”

In reply to Speaking of “not the only one”, don’t you find the alias “TiggerTwo”…

As in “Eyore, Piglet and Tigger too,” and “Winnie the Pooh and Tigger too.”

Perhaps, but homophone notwithstanding, “TiggerTwo”…

In reply to Perhaps you’ve forgotten “Tigger [u]too[/u].”

[u]is[/u] a very ironic alias!

Oddly enough

In reply to Perhaps you’ve forgotten “Tigger [u]too[/u].”

I considered TiggerToo briefly.

When I joined, Tigger was taken so I needed a plan “B”. I wasn’t willing to give up on my first choice for an alias- I earned the right to be called Tigger when I was young and stupid and living in Southern California. TiggerTwo seemed to work for me.

So, TiggerTwo [u]is[/u] Tigger Too!

In reply to Perhaps you’ve forgotten “Tigger [u]too[/u].”

Love it.

Very little math and no degree

In reply to There’s math, and then there’s math.

I have a year of college. I took college algebra because I realized I would fail my calculus class in the first week (I had no interest in it).

I work with engineers (Chem, Mech, Structural, Electrical). I write the software that does what they used to have to do in excel spreadsheets on their own.

I am capable of understanding the formulae they use for their work and I apply them in appropriate ways.

I realized long ago I am not a linear thinker, and so programming has long been a struggle. Analysis has largely been easy.

I don’t think you need math, per se. You need (in certain circumstance) to be able to understand concepts that you might not otherwise have been exposed to.

Amen!!!

In reply to There’s math, and then there’s math.

I haven’t read all 609 of these arguments, but here in Alabama, you can’t get an english-speaking teacher for Trigonometry or Calculus. So you have to spend another 2 years learning conversational German before you can pursue your Mathematics. Stick with the Algebra requirements!

Maths maybe Native Language definately

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

As others have said maths is important in business. But only what many call ‘basic’ math – not the fancy stuff like Analysis/Calculus – but Logic and Algebra – well you cannot program without them.
However, it was stated by Edgar (?) Dijkstra [a Dutchman ] a long time ago that ‘fluency in your native language is essential to a programmer’. And I cant help but wonder how you could understand and communicate on a problem, let alone solve it, without that fluency.
In my own experience I have worked with PhD in Ancient Greek – no math – who have been excellant programmers

Maths is a system logic defined

In reply to Maths maybe Native Language definately

by a set of axioms. It has syntax, semantics and rules.

The problems come when we use the same symbols in the different systems and end up with some bastardised mix of the two.

1 + 1 = 1

for instance.

That expression would be true

In reply to Maths is a system logic defined

if you were talking about boolean logic…

😀

Indeed

In reply to That expression would be true

My point exactly

Symbols, and representation

100 / 10 = 10
or
4 / 2 = 2

But, 1 + 1 = 0 [u]is true[/u] …

In reply to Maths is a system logic defined

in Residue Class Modulus 1!

And, I defy anyone without a sufficient understanding of mathematics to grok that.

Context is everything :D

In reply to But, 1 + 1 = 0 [u]is true[/u] …

1 + 1 = 10 :p

It’s the confusion of using the same symbols to mean different things that trips us up time after time.

Not just in various branches on maths either, witness above discussion Tangenital vs Orthogonal.
🙁

Do you have 1 or 2 tangenitals?

In reply to Context is everything :D

:^0

Neither.

In reply to Do you have 1 or 2 tangenitals?

I learned long ago not to expose either to the sun for long, thus they are not at all tan!

:^0

Yup.

In reply to Neither.

They burn a lot easier than they tan.

I’ll buy nary a bit of that one :D

In reply to But, 1 + 1 = 0 [u]is true[/u] …

Reminds me of the geek joke:

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don’t.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world …

In reply to But, 1 + 1 = 0 [u]is true[/u] …

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don’t.

[I just saw this in a letter to the editor of the May 7, 2007 Computer World by Mark Everhart].

That ranks up there with

In reply to There are 10 kinds of people in the world …

[There are 3 kinds of people in this world, those who can count and those who can’t]

Well, daveo2000 & Wayne are definitely 10 of a kind.

In reply to But, 1 + 1 = 0 [u]is true[/u] …

:^0

Here is another dopey binary joke…

In reply to Well, daveo2000 & Wayne are definitely 10 of a kind.

A guy at work came up with a truly geeky way to remember the zip code of the office. Now I can’t forget it.

It is a NYC address and the zip is 10010. Binary 18. It is virus-like since I have mentioned this to some other folks (IT folks, of course) and they have had the same complaint: dopey but hard to forget… 🙁

(Edited because the subject was misleading)

Yes Dan, but what about real mathematics

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Too right, but you’re talking about algebra, trig, geometry, calculus, etc as if they’re some kind of rocket science. They’re not!

You should try working in an engineering environment using fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms, solving non-linear simultaneous equations, blah, blah…

I’m amazed by the lack of supposedly qualified programmers who can do this type of job.

MathMan

Math really counts

In reply to Yes Dan, but what about real mathematics

…If you’re gunning for a computer science or computer engineering course. From a practical standpoint (and a bit of hindsight thrown in), CS students never really know what kind of job they’ll land after graduation, though they may have their sights set on getting a job in some tech company. Some are luckier than others (get a job directly related to their chosen field), some not so lucky at all. But that’s life and another subject altogether…

But going back to the topic at hand, I personally believe schools offering computer science as a course should make Math (Algebra, Calculus, Accounting, Logic, etc.) a requirement to produce a well-rounded computer professional. After all, one never really knows in what business area he/she will end up working in, so it really pays to be ready for anything especially if you are a newly-grad just starting to look for your first IT-related job.

–It’s better to be armed with the necessary knowledge and tools before you wade into the battlefield that is life…

It’s not just the math…

In reply to Yes Dan, but what about real mathematics

While it is a pity that most programmers don’t have a grasp of those concepts, I don’t think it’s particularly surprising either, because 99% of them won’t ever need them. What most people need on a day-to-day basis is a knowledge of object-oriented design and a little Java or C# so they can build large systems out of premade components.

However, if you haven’t been exposed to more complex programming problems (I love minimizaton/optimization ones!), when you encounter relatively simple ones you probably won’t be prepared to come up with an efficient solution.

To me, what’s eve more amazing is how a lot of programmers have very little knowledge about data structures, algorithm design, graphs, state machines, and a host of other essential tools. Learning a programming language is simply not enough…

What about English as well.

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

I agree on your basic premise about math and its essential character. However, after reading over your article, and noting entirely too many grammatical errors, perhaps you should spend some time honing or re-honing these skills as well. It seems to me that grammar is every bit as essential to a writer as math. And your editor might like to attend a refresher course on possessives, plurals and punctuation as well.

Agreeing with Cyberdad

In reply to What about English as well.

The article, while stating a valuable point, is an indicator of other failings in school degrees. English teaches syntax, for one thing, and anyone who programs knows this can be important. If you can learn to code, keeping all the punctuation and symbols straight, you can learn to write.

DNW

Agree with a vengeance!

In reply to Agreeing with Cyberdad

I took typing in high school because a beautiful brunette was in the same class. I didn’t get very far with her but the typing skills have been incredibly useful. 🙂

I have also found the understanding of language grammar and syntax to be very useful in working with parsers and developing languages, even simple ones.

If you ever want to really stretch your brain, try writing the input to yacc to parse common English (current British or American. Both are screwed up!).

That is just for the programming side. Now try communicating your ideas to either a client (who will use Business idiom) or another programmer (who may be in a different country and learned a different dialect of English)!

Walter Cronkite English rules! Learn it and learn it well!

(Edited because I am not perfect.)

If you THINK programming and math today is HARD!

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Think again! I got my degree WAY back in the days of Cobol, Fortran, C (Not C++ or C#) We didn’t have ANY kind of object oriented program what so ever. WE built program with Math, more math, and just for fun we added EVEN more MATH! I’m talking programming with 10s of thousands of lines of code. It took on average at least a team of 20 programmers to (example) get Lotus 123 out the door. The minimum time it took to write, debug, and test any commerical program was anywhere from 9 to 28 months depending on it’s complexity. I remember when Windows was first introduced (I’m talking about the original version, not 3.1 or 95 none of that fun stuff) WE finally had a single interface to test our programs. Ahhhhhhh, Math still bring back fond memories.

Solution is Easy

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Seniors in high school should take the Activity Vectory Analysis (AVA), and then choose their major according to the results.

Our students, business community, government, and nation as a whole would be moving towards optimizing it’s human resources.

It’s so sad that you don’t understand…

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Being a good programmer means having good analytical/logical skills. Mathematics is a fundamental science, which helps uncover and develop them. Of course, it has many conventions/axioms to memorize, but so does any science.
We have so many high school graduates, who cannot compute 9×8 without calculator, that it makes the quality of our general ed a national problem. On the other hand, we have too many programmers, who just move data from point A to point B and have no idea about the “big picture”. That’s why so many websites are poorly designed and/or unreliable.
ENOUGH SAID…

And The Calculus of a Web Site Is?

In reply to It’s so sad that you don’t understand…

I do not follow the logic of your argument. What does even memorization of the times table (I happen to know many programmers who could not compute 0x1E x 0x21 without a calculator) have to do with web site layout? The ability to do market research, understand a problem domain, and translate that into an operation program is independent of mathematics.

Huh?

In reply to And The Calculus of a Web Site Is?

There’s really not much to follow. The OP claims that certain analytical skills are needed in order to program competently, and that studying mathematics develops those skills. Most decent CompSci curricula include courses on various aspects of discrete mathematics, which are directly applicable to almost all kinds of programming.

Of course, most programming nowadays is limited to plugging components into each other, so there’s not much place for applying analytical skills unless you’re the one writing the basic components – eventually someone has to write algorithms that actually do things, as opposed to just writing plumbing and UI code.

E.g. being able to work out the position of object

In reply to And The Calculus of a Web Site Is?

Some people are unable to work out the positioning of screen elements using screen resolution. How about working out a total on an e-commerce site? I bet this poster is a mouse click fanatic who is able to handle web design software that generates the code but needs assistance if the software does not do what he wants.

Not A Website…ACTUAL Programming

In reply to And The Calculus of a Web Site Is?

We are not talking about building A Website, we’re talking about creating an application from the ground up Wayne. Math comes in as a portion of programming with Cobol, Fortan, C, and Machine languages. In today’s world, programming is simple, just put the objects together, slap a couple of lines of code and VIOLA you’ve built a program. Heck my son with no programming education has built dozens of mod for various games, he and his friends play. If you’re familar with Battlefield 1942, they built (my son and his friends) the Hitler’s Bunker battle mod.And from the amount of downloads it has gotten, it seems pretty popular.

Proper programming

In reply to Not A Website…ACTUAL Programming

You have just made my point. Everyone can slap together something using visual tools but understanding what these tools do and how to control them properly is the art of programming. Thake the Java SDK by Sun. Who do you think determins where and how the windows open? A programmer who is able to do a little more then 1+1=2! You are hacking! In other words what you call programming is using a utility to do your work. Everyone can use software. These things have limits. And as you have not reached these limits yet may I suggest that you have not done any proper programming to date.

Mathematics is integral to business and programming

In reply to And The Calculus of a Web Site Is?

Whether you realize it or not, mathematics is a training in analysis and logic. If you are going to properly solve the problem domain, you are going to have to use some form of mathematics. How do you figure out which procedure to follow to accomplish the problem? It requires analyzing the needs of the customer and then finding the most efficient way to implement what they have in mind. You use the same concepts in solving mathematical problems.
You also learn how to deal with ambiguities in math.
example 3+5*2=? Is it 16 or 13? You have to define it before you can solve it. I have lost count of the number of times I have been handed some spec that was ambiguous. A good programmer is going to clarify what the spec actually means and not just code something and hope it flies.

3+5*2=? Is it 16 or 13 !!

In reply to Mathematics is integral to business and programming

What are you going on about ?

Explain the mathematical concepts that you would use to resolve this ambiguity.

Axiom of Choice, maybe?

Oy Fred, Should this be add a to b and double it or double b add a ?

Would be my pick, no program, no math !

A good developer(analyst, solution provider 😀 ) would go back and resolve the potential ambiguity, a good programmer would whap some parentheses in it to make the code unambiguous.

Not necessarily correct though, maybe Fred was the wrong guy to ask

or a could have been 0 :p

You missed the point

In reply to 3+5*2=? Is it 16 or 13 !!

Algebra has already defined how to solve the problem. You could just memorize the operator precedence rules; however, why were those rules created in the first place?

Learning the principles behind the various mathematical rules and theorems helps one learn how to spot ambiguities in code. True, you can learn the skills elsewhere like trial and error or English grammar. However, mathematics provides an excellent basis to hone those skills.

I am not saying that mathematics == programming, it does not. However, it does not have to equal programming for it to be useful to the programmer.

No I did not

In reply to 3+5*2=? Is it 16 or 13 !!

What axiom of mathematics sets out operator precedence ? That is a convention.

There is no inherently mathematical concept that will resolve the ambiguity.

You can prove where
2(a + b) <> a + 2b when a <> 0
You can prove that for any n(a + b) the result must be wholly divisible by n

If you gave me foo(a,b,c) and asked me to work out what was in it, I’d try it with a range of inputs and then map it. But I’d still need to know all three numbers were used and only once and that there was + and * in there !

You are saying mathematical reasoning will make you go back and ask which one was meant, I’m saying having a +ve IQ should do that much.

The scariest thing is a mathematician might spend a shed load of resource proving that it couldn’t be proven without more information.

Math is not going to cure everything

In reply to No I did not

Actually, what I am saying is that math should at least teach you to think about ambiguities and solving things logically. However, math or any other subject is not going do your thinking for you. I can see your point of not absolutely needing higher math to become an accomplished programmer and I agree that you can learn analysis through other means. However, personally I have found that higher math has helped me in analyzing the specs better.
Nevertheless, math is not a cure all, you have to have some feel for what the customer wants and the ability to see where more information is needed. Math is just one tool, not the only tool that a good programmer needs.

Yes, But 16 or 13 = 29

In reply to 3+5*2=? Is it 16 or 13 !!

3 + 5 * 2 = 16 or 13
3 + 5 = 7
7 * 2 = 2
16 or 13 = 10

Show your work and all answers.

Good one

In reply to Yes, But 16 or 13 = 29

My point was that the phrase in of itself was ambiguous until a rule was laid down to clarify the equation. Most spec that I receive is a lot like that equation. You have to go back to PM or the user and ask what exactly did you mean by this. Sometimes you have to do this repeatedly and make sure you document everything. It seems to be a given axiom that the user is going to contradict what he said previously or he is going to assume that you should have known some obscure detail about his line of work that is undocumented, but generally accepted. It comes as a shock to them for example that I don’t know how to drive an eighteen-wheeler, so how could I have known that this trailor size is always assumed to be the same as that size when tariffs are calculated.

The problem is the calculator

In reply to It’s so sad that you don’t understand…

They really need to take the calculator out of high school math classes.
1) If you learn the basic principles, you can easily learn how to punch calculator keys later on.
2) In order to compensate for having a calculator, many math courses purposely complicate the problem. This causes the student to concentrate more on the mechanics of solving the problem and less on the principles behind solving the problem. If I have to use a calculator to calculate some incomprehensible irrational number, how am I going to see the basis for the calculation?

Saddle up!!!

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

I agree that everyone should know how to +-*/ so they don?t get ripped off at the checkout counter. I also agree that fewer people are coming away from HS with those skills.

But you can forget algebra and calculus, and here?s why.

Math is a tool.

After reading a few of the posts, my ?opinion? is that in the old days users expected programmers to know as much or more about their daily activities as they did.

Programmers were much more math oriented because the older programming languages and computers required programmers to know more math and the users were less educated.

By knowing higher math you could get the results in fewer lines of code and fewer CPU cycles and fewer hours on an old IBM 370-158 with half a MIP and half a meg of RAM. Those days are gone as hardware is now cheaper than labor. And, users gleefully wait up to a minute for a web app response with pretty pictures and icons while complaining incessantly about a green screen that doesn?t have sub second response time. Go figure.

I?ve seen programmers explain the calculations needed to give a user a desired analysis. Essentially, the programmer was doing the users job for them. I?ve seen programmers get blamed for the results after bending over backwards to help the user understand their job. The user needs to take responsibility for understanding what they want and the calculations that go behind it.

While I kind of enjoyed the rules and rigors of higher math, the last place I used it was checking my kids homework. It?s good to know what it can do so you can go back to it if you have to, but very few people really need it in their daily lives.

I agree that math is important, higher math should not be a requirement of a programming job unless that programming job is meant to program in higher math.

I saved my higher math books, so if I ever feel I need a new tool for a tough problem, I?ll crack them open and find something I can use.

As far as ignorance of a new generation goes ? 120 years ago you were an idiot if you couldn?t saddle and ride a horse. How many of us are brainiacs by those standards? Times change.

I disagree with the algebra part

In reply to Saddle up!!!

Isn’t algebra the 2x+5 = 15 stuff (x = 5)? If that is so, then I used that about 5-10 minutes ago, and I am not even what most would consider a programmer. I am a systems admin. I was working on a report with those types of formulas. If a programmer doesn’t understand algebra, then they are pretty useless.

Calculus, on the other hand is a whole different story. I haven’t really used that in a while except to explain to people how they can find the volume of an object if they have the area. I was never very good at geometry, but since I took Calc I-IV (which at the time, most colleges did not have a Calc IV), I understand geometry much better.

One thing that should definitely be on the course schedule for all programmers is user interface design – maybe it is now, but when I was studying CS it was mostly an afterthought.

fortionally, where Ive worked/work

In reply to Saddle up!!!

I still communicate with users in application development. I would have power users sit down with pen and paper at my last job, and show me mathematically why the results I gave them were incorrect. This was workers compensation insurance. But, I had to be able to understand(and read her writing) the mathematics she presented me. Because, that is fully what she expected as a user.

My position against the original article is from a purely business environment, which does require a knowledge of at least algebra in the design and debugging of the applications. And a deeper understanding of mathematics when debugging abnormal terminations that provided hex dumps.

Example of where this is still relevant. Windows grey box of gag and spew usually provides a memory address of where the error occurred. For the application developer or production support person, if they are worth their salt. Will be able to take that and find in the actual code where the error occurred. What the variables were at the time and what was in those variables.

Where do students of Comp Sci expect to work? What career path are they following? web pages? Business? How can they not have a math background for business. OS development? Need I even expand. Scientific? Again, need I expand. If they want to make good money, in a business environment that is going through the roof(science, medical, graphics, security, networking). Then they need as much math as possible. And if the school did not teach this to everyone, then they would be short changing these students.

I don’t have the background, and my career is lacking because of it. I’m respected for my knowledge and work ethic both where I work and with individuals I communicate this knowledge to. But, I could be much further ahead if I had a better math background. I’d be able to contribute to the open source community in various security daemon area’s which really does interest me. Networking intrests me to a great extent to. Again, to efficiently write a daemon for either of those two area’s. A good level of math, how the computer works, is required. What do I want being associated to my name? bloatware that provides a result, but requires a huge investment to operate. Or efficient and fast applications that provide results that I can manually verify for you if you ever ask. I want the second.

Dan

You’re not a programmer if you can’t do the math

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Harsh as that may sound, it’s absolutely true.

Logic, boolean algebra, trigonometry, differential and integral calculus, etc. are all necessary tools for programmers. You may not use them on a daily basis; but if you’re really working in the field, you’re going to eventually need them.

In one manner of speaking, I had excrable math teachers in high school. Cs, Ds and Fs were a result of either personality clashes and poor teaching ability on the part of the adults, and a juvenile dislike of being there on my part.

On the other hand, they must have done something right, because when I went back to start college 3 years later, I had enough background to easily ace my courses up to calculus.

Yes, calculus was a bear. But I was able to recognize it’s value enough to go back and retake the courses, even though I’d passed them the first time, because I needed to really understand it, and not just know about it.

When I see someone with a BA in Computer Information Systems, I see someone who knows how to use a computer, and may know about business applications, but probably doesn’t have the complete skill set to be more than a mediocre programmer. If I see someone with a BS on the other hand, I see someone with the mathematical ability needed.
Programmers have to be able to understand mathmatical formula, select and apply them appropriately to problems, and translate them into working code. If you don’t know a formula for something even exists, you’re not going to be as effective as someone who both knows the formula, and how to use it.

What it comes down to is the more you know, the more valuable you are, and the more deserving you are of the job. Which is what it all comes down to in the end. You want to be a programmer, learn the math; you can’t learn the math, go be a bagger for Walmart.

Just to advocate for the devil a bit here…

In reply to You’re not a programmer if you can’t do the math

We may actually have a use for the programmers that don’t have very good math skills. Remember, there are always jobs that nobody wants to do because they are menial and not interesting.

We need people to review legacy code to see if certain functions or stored procedures have been called. We need people to see if certain variable names have been accessed in executable code.

These jobs do not require any particular math skill and can be done by any underqualified programmer that knows how to do exactly what s/he is told.

We also don’t have to pay them very much and won’t feel as bad when we have to lay them off during budget cuts.

In my last interview for a development management position, I was asked about the order of certain functions and sort routines. Then I had to justify why I would use an Order N function in one case, an order N-log-N in another case and why the Exponential one was the best choice in others.

If you want to work in the really neat, cutting edge jobs where you need programming as one of your skills, you don’t want a bunch of other people trying to get the same job. If there are more “programmers” out there that don’t have the math skills, there will be less competition.

If this guy want to be known only as “a programmer” then so be it. I prefer to be known as an analyst, a developer, a project manager, a development lead, and a few other titles. “Programmer” is just one skill in my kit and would often be rendered useless without the math skill along with it.

Underestimating

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

It think people who decry the need for math in programming are probably underestimating their own math skills. I think they’ve trivialized the math they do in their work because they’ve done it so much it just seems obvious to them. For those without the math knowledge it would be difficult to say the least. Don’t underestimate what you know.

Reply to “Underestimating”

In reply to Underestimating

I don’t know if you saw it around here or not, but I kind of had an experience like that during my first programming class. But the difference was, I hadn’t been sufficiently prepared in the math before I took the class (my first ever programming class, Python, a few years ago). It gave me a hard, hard time at first, but after a couple of months, things just seemed to start to click into place, logic began to present itself more & more plainly. Now, like you said, its gotten to the point now where most of the time I don’t even really notice most of the math I’m doing, unless it’s really in-depth. Normally though, its the same old song & dance, since right now it’s just homework assignments and exams. But I’ll second that; it’s all too easy to underestimate how much you may actually know about what you’re working on.

Actually Overestimating

In reply to Underestimating

I believe, especially if one reads much of the previous discussion, people are overestimating how much of what they do is related to higher mathematics.

Where equations do come into play, we evaluate the result of the equation, we do not manipulate the equation into different forms.

Where we do implement equations, for the vast majority of times, we implement the equations created by others. There is no shame in this, we are eliminating the tedious work of repeatedly entering values and recording results.

Where computers are really advantageous are in handling discontinuities and problems with high numbers of variables. These are the situations that are avoided or simplified in mathematics because the resulting equations are far too complex to be humanly understandable. Computers are great way to apply numerous conflicting rules and getting a result. We avoid the difficulty of trying to merge those rules into a single equation to be able to work with them.

There is a great deal of knwoledge concerning computer programming. There is no need to try and portray computer programming as higher mathematics.

It still helps

In reply to Actually Overestimating

I think a main point missed is that programming does not have to equate to mathematics for mathematics to be useful to the programmer. Higher level mathematics gives the programmer an extra tool. You can program with just a basic knowledge of addition and subtraction just like you can build a house with just a saw and hammer. However, it sure makes it convenient to also have a level and few more tools. The same goes with programming. If you can learn the principles used in higher mathematics (whether you take them in college course or learn them on your own), it gives you an extra tool to do the job.

You want just to code

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Let us be more strict. May be you want just to code not to program. It may be OK and it will have some positive consequences. Examples given:
– you will avoid most troubles possible as you will not have to work on any complex projects;
– you will code using no formal logic, no math descriptions and formulae, so no one could be able to find any bugs;
– you will not evaluate anything quantitatively by your code (time, speed, price, salaries included) so there will be no mistakes at all;
– you will never have negative evaluations of your code and coding abilities.
Perfect! They say God did it that way…

And you will be the French Fry cook of the coding world.

In reply to You want just to code

Many years ago I heard an engineering student say “Why do I have to take composition? I will have a secretary to write my reports!” I have little doubt about his rude awakening.

Yes, you can probably get a job coding if you have little or no math skills. You can also get a job at McDonalds or an assembly line or as anyone that will always work for the people that make the decisions.

Remember when you used to hope for the day when you could move out of your parents’ house so you could make your own decisions? Without a broad background including math skills you will be moving back in with “your parents” except now it will be everyone at your job telling you what to do and how to do it.

Not my idea of fun.

Perfectly put

In reply to And you will be the French Fry cook of the coding world.

Point beautifully made. If only it was this easy to get through to every single student there is.. That was a great analogy. “The French Fry cook of the coding world.”

Of course even the French Fry cook

In reply to Perfectly put

Even the French Fry cook will have to know some mathematics if he is to survive…well maybe not!

MATH is needed

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

noted you said..

As my post to the article states, in the business world Math is a requirement.

Math is deserately needed for a responsible daily life.. beyond “business”. That was proven by all those that got hooked on the “ARMS, ZEOR down” home loans. It is enforced by survey’s that prove most college grads.. to say nothing of HS students/grads CANNOT understand that interest rates or compute them for their own credit cards. Worse yet al to many cannot even do the most simple of math or even compute percentages.
I helped out one guy whom was worried a tree in his yard “could fall and hit home”. Simply told him to find a spot where angle from there to top of tree 45 degrees and then measure distance from their to base of tree, will get real close to tree height. He was amazed as such “really heavy duty math stuff”. He is a info manager.. and is “math illiterate” and admits it.
Even read where some states now want to drop math for some as “not needed if not going on to school (college). Most forget that to compete at world level, we must be educated and to cherry pick what “basics are needed” is to assume “this is only job I will ever have”.. We cannot as a nation shrug of a well rounded and grounded education.. and scary. fully 1/3 drop out of HS each year.. The usa cannot remain a world power and maintain our standard of living and leading via dumbed won citizenry.. A good basis in math, history sciences and more is required.. or we fail.. even if some consider such things as “a bore and why do I need it”… better yet why do you not need it..

MATH is needed

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

noted you said..

As my post to the article states, in the business world Math is a requirement.

Math is desperately needed for a responsible daily life.. beyond “business”. That was proven by all those that got hooked on the “ARMS, ZERO down” home loans. It is enforced by surveys that prove most college grads.. to say nothing of HS students/grads CANNOT understand that interest rates or compute them for their own credit cards. Worse yet al to many cannot even do the most simple of math or even compute percentages.
I helped out one guy whom was worried a tree in his yard “could fall and hit home”. Simply told him to find a spot where angle from there to top of tree 45 degrees and then measure distance from their to base of tree, will get real close to tree height. He was amazed as such “really heavy duty math stuff”. He is a info manager.. and is “math illiterate” and admits it.
Even read where some states now want to drop math for some as “not needed if not going on to school (college). Most forget that to compete at world level, we must be educated and to cherry pick what “basics are needed” is to assume “this is only job I will ever have”.. We cannot as a nation shrug of a well rounded and grounded education.. and scary. fully 1/3 drop out of HS each year.. The usa cannot remain a world power and maintain our standard of living and leading via dumbed won citizenry.. A good basis in math, history sciences and more is required.. or we fail.. even if some consider such things as “a bore and why do I need it”… better yet why do you not need it..

Comp. Science & Math

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

I think they both go hand in hand. I remember the very first programming class I ever had. I walked in there with very little math experience to fall back on, and that class nearly killed me. I still managed a B for the semester in that class, but needless to say, the next semester I started taking the math courses I needed and it made my programming stuff a hell of a lot easier to learn… not to mention the CCNA courses.. my GOD it helped with the CCNA courses. So there you go, I completely agree with the Edit, and I second it: How can a computer science major NOT have a math background?

MATH is needed

In reply to Comp. Science & Math

I guess we can just ask all …would you want your bank and money and ins and such ALL run by programmers and IT that had no real in-depth math.. and could not compute if code they cut was working as advertised.. worse yet what if you could no do the math yourself..
Validation for math is that daily we hear and read of “statistics” that are there to influence, from Gov to business.. to our daily lives happenings… and if you do not know math????

Basic math or higher math

In reply to MATH is needed

There is some validity to the arguments above about the math needed. Basic algebra and statistics will allow a programmer to write code to solve the above problems and think most of the posters agree that these math disciplines are needed. However, I still feel that the higher maths provide a programmer with more options especially of the student can master the principles behind those maths.

It is a fault of government policies

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

While teaching programming at a technical education institution I constantly see students who have no understanding of even the basic mathematical operations like working out a percentage. Yet they wish to do things likes games programming. This just does not work. Unfortunately education has gone very soft in recent times and considers attendance alone to deserve a pass mark. I wish people would bring the real world back into education and tell a student in no uncertain terms when they stuff up. Unfortunately this is no longer happening.

“fault of government policies” – Couldn’t agree more

In reply to It is a fault of government policies

I honestly cannot agree more. The whole time while I was in regular school, prior to college, whenever it would get to math class, my teachers would simply pass out calculators, go back to their desks, kick their feet up and fall asleep. I saw a problem with it then, and I certainly see major problems with it now. Because of that, I was kind of behind in math for a little while. Thankfully, I was taking that programming class, and I had the drive to want to learn that. So, I learned the math that accompanied it, and I’m much better off. Then, even further, some of the students don’t even care enough about their own futures to *want* to learn this stuff, so they go and sit in the student lounge and play Pool or Ping Pong all day. Thinking about it makes me half angry… but it also makes me half sad, because it really makes you think ahead and wonder, “Wow… where are some of these people going to be in 10 or 15 years?” Also, you’re very right on on the issue of attendance. At our school (on any semester except the summer semester, summer semester is shorter), a student is allowed to miss up to 6 full days of each of his or her classes. To me, thats pretty excessive. The only way we should be excused from our classes if we’re sick, or have a previous appointment with a doctor, or if there’s been a true family emergency.

“While teaching programming at a technical education institution I constantly see students who have no understanding of even the basic mathematical operations like working out a percentage. Yet they wish to do things likes games programming. This just does not work.”

I see that type of thing constantly with my fellow students. It just doesn’t make sense to me; there’s a huge gap in logic right there. Even the percentage sign is the Modulus operator in most programming languages, and I’ll bet most of your run-of-the-mill programming students like the ones you describe would not be able to tell you that. That’s one of the most commonly used operators in programming, period. How do most of my peers manage to skip all this logic that is sitting right out in front of them saying, simply put, “Hey, if you don’t learn this, then the next part won’t make any sense!” I simply don’t understand how some of my peers can just…completely disregard steps 1 and 2 and hop directly onto step 10 or step 20. It’s like they think they can just take a huge shortcut; but in the technology fields like programming, there are, simply put, absolutely no shortcuts.

But, how is this the fault of “government policies?”

In reply to It is a fault of government policies

Not being aware of how your school systems are run, that may or mat not be the case there. However, here in the U.S. schoolds are [u]not[/u] government agencies, but private and public schools controlled by their owners and local constituencies respectively.

In either case, it is frequently the case that students are taught in both a manner & of certain matters such as are dictated by the “customers.” In other words, schools are a business, and deliver what the customers desire.

Point taken, deepsand

In reply to But, how is this the fault of “government policies?”

Basically, what you’re saying is if the population of “City X” is in the low IQ range, then that will be the range of education they will recieve? That really sounds like a crappy deal to me, but at the same time it makes sense. My sympathies go out to the higher IQ students in the lower IQ towns/cities who get screwed out of better education when this kind of thing happens.

Just think…

In reply to Point taken, deepsand

If the average person is pretty stupid, then (nearly) half the population are even worse!

MathMan

Re: just thought…

In reply to Just think…

That’s pretty disheartening… I’m sure its true. All we need for proof really is simply this: watch an hour or two or TV a day 🙂

Edit: Man… I just thought about what you said a little bit more. Where will that put the world in another century? What type of state will it be in? I mean, if its this bad now, and our future is truly in the hands of our children (who are being widely under -educated), I’d say we’re easily on the fast- track to a dystopian future. Maybe not in some of our lifetimes, but it is certainly possible within the next couple centuries I believe. Look at the shape the world is in now. I believe we can save it, but one of the answers is most certainly bringing our educational standards up and actually teaching at that level, then work on other things. Sad though.. I don’t see it happening any time soon.

Reality strikes [i]and[/i] cuts

In reply to Re: just thought…

I had my kids were in a “Charter” school out here for a while thinking that they would get a progressive education. Big mistake. My older kid was in 4th and younger in 2nd. Both were complaining about being bored. The 2nd grader brought home a “math” problem page for homework that was all single digit addition of “x + 4” type. No, they weren’t using variables, they had 100 problems on the page and all were any of 0 through 9 added to 4. The 4th grade teacher one day told me that they had finally found he spelling book so he had 3 weeks of assignments to catch up on. They had never bothered to tell me that he was missing anything!

They are both now in a private school even though we have to cut expenses to afford it.

I realize that not all public schools suck but, good grief, I never realized how much some of them can!

Tip of the iceburg, man..

In reply to Reality strikes [i]and[/i] cuts

I remember the elementary school I went to as a kid… the second grade “teacher” taught us to count using our fingers… and – I swear I’m not making this up – would mark points off of our grade if we didn’t use our fingers. Then, as if it couldn’t get worse, one of the 4th grade teachers locked one of her students in a CLOSET after pulling her up in front of the classroom and making fun of her in front of the entire class of 30 or so kids. As if that wasn’t bad enough, she ended up forgetting that the kid was locked up in there, and the parent arrived half-crazed at the school wondering where her daughter was. It took them 6 hours to find her because the poor girl was petrified in their and couldn’t make so much as a squeak to give off her position to any adults. She never came back to that school, but then again neither did that teacher. She also got charged with child abuse for that incident. Middle & High school weren’t too bad. Just about the only idiots there were other students. There were plenty of smart ones there, but there were also plenty of stoners who just don’t care about their respective futures, and sometime down the road, that will come back to hurt not just them, but everyone if something doesn’t change.

I hear you and add to it (sadly)

In reply to Reality strikes [i]and[/i] cuts

I had a friend in high school who was a stoner. He was because he couldn’t take the boredom. He was incredibly intelligent and would have probably committed suicide if he didn’t get high. Instead, he devoted his time to creative ways to avoid boredom.

We had an electronics teacher that taught as if everyone of his students wanted to be either an antenna installation specialist or a TV repairman. I had thought of going into electrical engineering until that class.

My friend was equally bored in that class and found a way to entertain himself. When the teacher got especially boring, this guy would ask him a “genuine” question on the religious implications of something. The teacher would then step up onto his metaphorical pulpit and spend the rest of the period on the question.

Sad…

Just thinking…

In reply to Re: just thought…

[i]All we need for proof really is simply this: watch an hour or two or TV a day[/i]

There is cause for hope: At the rate that the quality of programming is deteriorating, soon even the most lethargic people will be too disgusted by what they see to continue wasting time on television.

Cute thread for the title “just think”.

In reply to Just think…

I’ll leave it at that.

Sad & sadder.

In reply to Point taken, deepsand

I’ve a friend who is a teacher in a rural area that has long been economically depressed. Most of the families in the school district are poorly educated, unemployed or underemployed, with a sufficant portion being on the dole.

Parents here are so unable to grasp the value of education, and therefore see it to be of little to no value to their children. They are so convinced that it is inevitable that their children will fare no better than they, that they [u]actively[/u] resist they efforts of teachers there to do anything that they the parents perceive as threatening the ability of their children to continue to be eligible for public welfare.

All too true

In reply to But, how is this the fault of “government policies?”

Public schools in the UK are judged in league tables.
Number of passes has become more important than what the pass means.
I mean why would you pay taxes or private tuition for a school where the pupils consistently failed.
Option 1 Choose students that will pass
Option 2 Teach students so they can pass
Option 3 Make course easier so students will pass.

Option 3 is the most popular option, not just in Maths either.

Unfortunate truth

In reply to All too true

You are very, very right… although I know we both wish we could say you’re wrong. Dumb-down the exams and homework assignments, or sometimes even eliminate the assignments and just grade them based on attendance so the students have a shot at passing. I’ve even heard that one of my local schools has cut their academically gifted programs. This world is going down the tubes faster and faster each passing second. And with every kid that loses a drive to succeed, we all lose a little bit more hope sometime in the future.

One of the scariest things I’ve seen

In reply to Unfortunate truth

My daughters GCSE math paper, I could have passed at age 11, and maxed it 13.
She would have had to take an A level to get passed the one I had at her age.
That would have been without a calculator too.
Pen and my trusty book of log tables.

bad ed fault of gov?

In reply to But, how is this the fault of “government policies?”

You hit it dead center.. WE are the customers and we (the public-parents) establish the product. Most no longer really care, perhaps 25% on a good day. others, well try and gut a sports program verse a science lab and see what really incurs the wrath of the “parents”.
NONE seem to upset that fully 1/3 no drop out of HS. and most college grads are very poorly educated.. in general areas, some even wonder about how well the major is done. I think I read where somewhere around 60% of college grads cannot do basic percentages, much less understand loan and credit card interest, and even less can compute APR’s.. NONE wish to discuss what happens and whom pays for the 1 MILLION/YEAR HS dropouts.. as they are now a burden on society as pretty much must compete at the very lowest end jobs..
I am sorry to see it and say it.. but the education system is not failing.. as you said it seems it’s customers are not very demanding… they set on butts and blame the system… and when I read of those that feel math is not needed for their “major”.. any MAJOR.. it is no longer surprising that min payment on maxed out credit card is the standard… not the exception’
USA is dumbing down fast… as it seems all feel they will be the next “Idol” or NBA, AFL or AM league star.. etc. To out it in terms they can understand “NOT”. Yes, we do not need math, or history or economics or other such “stuff”, even at into or basic levels.. we will just make the min payments.

Some actually [u]oppose[/u] meaningful education.

In reply to bad ed fault of gov?

See
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=221757&messageID=2232550

Courses are made too easy

In reply to bad ed fault of gov?

I recently took an accounting course at a local tech college. The tests given were multiple choice and open book. This is supposed to be a college level course. Sadly, even with an open book multiple choice test, there were still some who failed the test.

No more politics but math!

In reply to But, how is this the fault of “government policies?”

Hi mate,

Here schools are funded by the government to ensure that everyone is getting at least a basic education. That should include math, reading and writing. These skills are basic in the modern world. Unfortunately people like the original poster, in the US system as you explained it, would not learn one of these basic skills as he does not demand it. Here government actually did not fund some of these basic skills for some time. Now it has been recognised as essential and a huge “catch up” with very limited funding is on the way. Silly! Math is needed! Do not even think to cut one of these essential areas of learning. I am a teacher of IT in a technical high school just outside Sydney and my students are at times not able to work out how much change they are to get in a supermarket. Teaching these people programming, even simple things like HTML and CSS, is close to impossible. However they are very able to make things look good in in e.g. Dreamweaver. How about when things do not work in a certain browser version? They haven’t got a clue where to look in the code to fix things.

elected government: of the ______, by the ______, for the ______

In reply to It is a fault of government policies

So, what do you [b]do[/b] about it?

“I [b]wish[/b] people would bring the real world back into education and tell a student in no uncertain terms when they stuff up.”

I wish I had Microsoft’s cash flow. What of it? You [b]people[/b] who have the right to vote, yet blame the government you elect, disgust me.

Ooh ooh! I know the answer!

In reply to elected government: of the ______, by the ______, for the ______

Is it _stupid_?

What do I win?

Very good! You get…

In reply to Ooh ooh! I know the answer!

to vote, _stupid_!

And, if you know some words Thomas Jefferson said about an informed electorate, you get to fully appreciate the irony of your answer, as I’m sure you do.

Which is why I take issue with those who would “get out the vote.”

In reply to Very good! You get…

Those that need to be pushed to the polls almost certainly know little to nothing re. either the issues or the candidates, and are therefore not fit to vote.

Their participation should be limited to sitting by the radio or TV to learn of the results.

Me too.

In reply to Which is why I take issue with those who would “get out the vote.”

I think all voters should have to pass a small quiz before being allowed to vote. Nothing complex; just a simple

1. Name the senators from your state and your Congressional representative (2 out of 3 required).

2. Who is the mayor of your city?

3a. Give a brief description of at least seven of the first ten amendments. (No more than a sentence required for each.)
3b. What are these amendments usually referred to as a group?

4a. How many amendments are left?
4b. Briefly describe at least five of them.

5. Name the years Ben Franklin was president.

6. Name at least half of the issues on the ballot by issue number and give a one sentence description of each.

So, you see, nothing complicated. If you can’t pass it, or you can’t be bothered to fill it out, you’ve got no business casting a vote that will affect me. I suspect this requirement would either completely exclude any Texan from ever voting, or would result in teams of Republican (D, L, I, and G voters wouldn’t need them) coaches swarming there for voters heading to the polls, possibly with crib sheets.

In any population, about 50% of people are below average. About 50% of people voted for Bush. This is not a coincidence.

Motor Voter is yet another reason I didn’t care too much for Clinton. Registering to vote should be something you have to go out of your way to do.

Naturalized citizens are likely to be more & better informed than natives.

In reply to Me too.

If naturalization must be earned, why not also the privilege of voting? The only voting “right” should be that of being allowed to [u]try[/u] to qualify, and to then vote [u]if[/u] qualified.

No doubt, like me, you’ve been accused of being an elitist for espousing this view.

Me 1/2

In reply to Me too.

The idea that voters “should” all know, & to some substantial degree, understand what they’re voting for, sounds swell until I consider implementation.

Want to let me decide how much you have to know, about what, in order for your vote to be counted? That’s what I thought.

Absolutely, the consequences

In reply to Me too.

of not having done this already have clearly demonstrated that no matter how “difficult” the implementation, it is much better than throwing up one’s hands and say, “That’s hard, therefore it’s impossible.”

Besides, hasn’t the federal government already created a whole slew of standardized tests to measure aptitude in a wide variety of subjects? I believe it was part of some obscure legislation that no one’s ever heard of. Some “No Child Misundereducated Act” or something like that. So it’s not a hard problem after all.

Would it really be that hard for those same psychometricians to create a short quiz to determine that a voter has a basic level of awareness before being allowed to vote? Hell, I wrote the other one in less than five minutes. Surely it couldn’t take a room full of Ph.D.’s more than a month or two to come up with the same basic thing. I’ll even officially release the quiz I wrote under the Creative Commons license so everyone can use it.

I’m not talking about making sure people have a Master’s degree in international diplomacy here; it’s merely a matter of making sure they have at least as much knowledge about the issues they’re casting votes on as the average garden snail does. Right now, the only thing you need to qualify as a voter is the fact that you’ve managed to breathe for 18 consecutive years. In Diebold districts, even that requirement is waived, provided you’re a registered Republican. Call me conceited, but I think something is seriously wrong when the 400-lb. screaming woman throwing a chair on the Jerry Springer show is entitled to a vote that counts just as much as mine does simply because she’s managed not to get hit by a bus yet. If she can demonstrate a basic level of awareness of what’s going on around her, then more power to her, and good for her. But until then, redneck cowboys with gun racks in their pickup trucks should be able to identify something positive about Duhbya Bush besides “He shore gots a purty mouth” before being allowed to cast a vote.

Such campaigns would be much more useful if…

In reply to Which is why I take issue with those who would “get out the vote.”

geared to being informative rather than instructive. I agree with the basic sentiment about voters who take their agenda from MTV or other campaigns to merely encourage voting, rather than provide such information as to motivate substantial participation in all levels of government from federal to local. Facts are useful. Urging otherwise disinterested people to vote seems bound to be stupid or worse.

In some ways it’s smart.

In reply to Such campaigns would be much more useful if…

When someone with a vested interest in the outcome of the voting process, such as Bill Clinton, starts advocating voting without specifying how people should vote, that is a de facto bit of self-marketing. Consider it: this supposedly selfless bit of voting advocacy in fact convinces people to vote for the advocate (or for whatever is perceived as that person’s cause). In other words, Bill Clinton’s supposedly nonpartisan voting advocacy was nothing but a cynical ploy to convince people to vote for [b]him[/b].

So . . . it’s very smart, if your goal is to win an election. It’s stupid if your goal is for good things to come about as a result of people voting.

In other ways, too.

In reply to Such campaigns would be much more useful if…

Having seen both sides now run “get out the vote” campaigns — one on MTV, the other door to door — we see that just voting “D” or “R” without knowing something about the candidates, and ballot measures, is not sufficient to bring about the desired outcomes. Loyalists in both parties have very valid reasons to be disappointed, and not only with the opposition party.

Question to the floor:

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Would you [b]object[/b] to the existence of classes, for aspiring programmers whose interests do not call for it, which allow varying mathematics requirements to match their career intentions? For example, apotheon notes that for his degree, calculus was formally required, but not pragmatically necessary. I have no such objections to any of the major requirements of my education, but I have similar feelings about general education requirements, so I can relate to the sentiment. And, I have no interest in [u]forcing[/u] people to learn subjects that don’t interest them.

Thanks for your opinions,

My response

In reply to Question to the floor:

No, I wouldn’t object. It would be foolish to force someone to take extraneous courses in order to get a degree, when you weren’t going to use the courses in question ever, if that were the case. Math needed in order to help you advance your studies in programming, however, should be at the very least, highly encouraged (at my school, it is a requirement).

What about calculus, specifically?

In reply to My response

Or, other advanced topics in math? Do you have any ideas for reducing the curriculum, with specific ‘career path’ differences? For example, in English departments there are different requirements for journalists than for literary critics. Would it be useful to make comp sci degrees as malleable?

Continuing..

In reply to What about calculus, specifically?

I’m not a teacher, nor will I ever be, so please bear with me over the next few sentences. My whole experience has been somewhat.. I honestly don’t know how to put it. It’s like they’re requiring us to take courses that have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on comp. sci. For example, we’ve all had to take Spanish and advanced Spanish one semester, as well as all the English courses, plus math classes that seem to be the only classes that have any type of bearing on comp. sci. So yes, I would try to make comp. sci degrees more malleable, I would try to condense them as much as possible, because what my friends & I have had to put up with has got us teetering on the brink of insanity.

Thanks.

In reply to Continuing..

I have a similar perspective. I enjoyed the options of a liberal arts college, but not the breadth of study [b]requirement[/b]. I think it’s childish & frivolous that adults tell one another what we “must” study, outside the subject matter of a career goal. Of course, to earn a degree in computer science requires computer programming classes. But Spanish? I should be completely free to omit a foreign language, either in favor of some other subject I want to study, or in favor of spending more of my time earning money to afford tuition while I study. My time = my choice, not yours, or his, or hers.

I tend to agree.

In reply to Thanks.

I think part of the reason so many people find education distasteful is that they’re being “forced” to learn what someone else wants them to learn rather than what interests them. I know that I’d probably have taken a hell of a lot more math in college if I hadn’t been “forced” to learn Calculus as the One True Math. Similarly, the ludicrous general ed requirements are absurdly restrictive — like that asinine “interpersonal communication” class I ended up taking as the alternative to a speech class. I thought speech would be a stupid class. Silly me: “interpersonal communication” wasn’t what its dry, formal-sounding name implied. It was all about how being touchy-feely and having exactly the same opinions about how people should interact as the teacher would bring about world peace.

Holy mudder o’ gob, that was a complete waste of my time.

They’re called “electives.”

In reply to Question to the floor:

However, students, by virtue of having neither a sufficiently broad base of experiences nor a prescience sufficent for determining their future needs, are not sufficiently qualified for determining what knowledge is requisite and what is not.

Even if one is certain that he will employed as a programmer, he cannot know what type of applications he will be called upon to develop, and cannot therefore know which particular mathematical skills will be needed.

May be I’ll get a job one day

In reply to They’re called “electives.”

where I need eugenvalues, lebesque integrals, and calculus.

Now there’s something to look forward to. 😀

It is ALWAYS about NEED with you people!

In reply to May be I’ll get a job one day

May be I’ll get a job one day where I [b]get to apply what I intentionally learned[/b] about eigenvalues, lebesque integrals, and calculus.
Now there’s something to look forward to. Enjoy your self-imposed ignorance.

Amen.

In reply to It is ALWAYS about NEED with you people!

A good craftsman enjoys both having all the tools that he may need and using as many of them as possible.

True.

In reply to Amen.

Of course, the reason that a good craftsman fits that description is simple:

A good craftsman is someone who chose a craft he enjoys. A bad craftsman is often the result of being railroaded into a related, but far less enjoyable (to him), craft because it’s as close as he could get to what he actually wanted to do.

There are also bad craftsmen that enjoy what they do.

In reply to True.

And, frequently, that owing to the fact that they use the wrong tool(s).

The wrong tools . . .

In reply to True.

. . . like calculus instead of advanced algebra for programming.

Man with only hammer sees everything as nail.

In reply to True.

& little red animated man with only head sees everything…

In reply to True.

as wall!

:^0

And, only [u]his[/u] wall.

In reply to True.

♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

WTF ?

In reply to It is ALWAYS about NEED with you people!

Not sure where that came from, or why.

Self imposed ignorance, that’s well funny, considering the only reason I know anything about them was completely voluntary on my part.

Quite Right, Tony

In reply to It is ALWAYS about NEED with you people!

If you want to join the ranks of the true programmer, you will need to study high level mathematics and every other bit of arcane knowledge available on the off chance you might need it somewhere at sometime to do something.

As it is, I am afraid you will have to join me and the other gibbering masses as we sit drooling at our keyboards yet somehow create programs that actually work without integrating or taking a derivative.

Well calculus

In reply to It is ALWAYS about NEED with you people!

was part of a foundation course required for a self study degree program.
The other was an admittedly short lived investigation into multi dimensional mathematics after reading about string theory and Kaluza-Klein spaces.

Fascinating stuff, but I’d need to embark on a two to three year study program and that would be after I’d revised calculus and some other math which has gone rusty from disuse.

Perhaps when I retire.

And, should that happen, will you not be the better for having learned …

In reply to May be I’ll get a job one day

of them, rather than having to scratch your head while muttering “what the hell is that?”

Bumping into the boundaries of my knowledge

In reply to And, should that happen, will you not be the better for having learned …

is an opportunity, to expand them.

One I’ve always looked forward to.

Sad that so many see that as a burden, rather than an opportunity.

In reply to Bumping into the boundaries of my knowledge

Like you, I count myself fortunate to be among the latter.

It is that “certainty” that I have a hard time being convinced of…

In reply to They’re called “electives.”

It is so rare that one ends up performing the jobs that one is specifically trained for.

I hear so often about how somebody has ended up in one field when they studied something completely different in university. Getting a broader background whilst in the innocent days of high school (or equivalent) doesn’t strike me as such a loss.

Not only that, but how many people do you know that were studying a particular career track because their parents thought it was what they [i]should[/i] be studying? Maybe the people that chose the requirements realized that parents would influence their kids to take specific electives and steer them away from others “in their own interest”.

It is a hard call in such a mass-production oriented education system.

Which is why universities had traditionally provided …

In reply to It is that “certainty” that I have a hard time being convinced of…

a liberal arts education. This, so as to prepare one with both a broad overview of the breadth and scope of knowledge, and the ability to then continue learning such as one’s avocations and vocations required.

The present situation of universities acting as [i]de facto[/i] trade schools, oriented toward teaching those specific skills needed for a particular career, is a relatively recent phenomenon, driven, in general, by the technological exposion spurred by WWII, and, in the U.S., by the GI Bill’s education benefits & the large number of GI who availed themselves of such.

an answer to that

In reply to Which is why universities had traditionally provided …

I don’t think the way to solve the problem of unfortunately narrow education is to say “You have to take a speech class to graduate!” It is, instead, to say “You should have a liberal arts basis for your education. With that in mind, pick something from this bucket of thirty classes (including speech) to satisfy this one requirement, or make a good case to the dean for why a class not in this bucket is a good alternative.”

As things currently stand, you have to have a [b]documented learning disability[/b] to get out of a speech class and replace it with something credible but of more interest to you as an individual. Meanwhile, there is [b]no way[/b] to avoid calculus in favor of more of a focus on algebraic mathematics in a CompSci course of study — which is just mind-boggling.

Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

In reply to an answer to that

A BS in Comp. Sci. is [b]not[/b] intended to be merely a training program for would be programmers; its scope is far broader than that. Going to a trade school will suffice for learning the skills needed for programming, at a lower cost of both time and money than a BS program.

Weren’t you paying attention?

In reply to Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

I didn’t say that people should go to college for a BS and study nothing but writing code. Where are you getting this idea? Please read what I actually posted before replying.

Again, apotheon, you’ve missed the point.

In reply to Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

This sub-thread is re. the distinction between Comp. Sci. and computer programming, and the fact that the latter is but one particular subset of the former.

Please refrain from claiming that it is others who fail to pay attention when interjecting yourself in their conversations.

Let’s put it this way:

In reply to Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

Basicaly, computer science is all about [b]computation[/b]. Programming is manifest computation. Thus, while I speak specifically of programming, I refer in general to computational theory and related matters.

Now . . . explain to me where calculus fits into that.

The characteristics of a subset do not suffice to describe the whole.

In reply to Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

By analogy, consider the parable of the elephant and the blind men.

That’s sorta my point.

In reply to Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

The fact that math is useful to computer science is not in dispute. The fact that you, with a blindfold on your face, walked up to an elephant and grabbed its calculus with both hands is my point.

That’s hardly a substantive response.

In reply to Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

.

That’s funny . . .

In reply to Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

It’s astounding to see you have the unmitigated gall to make a comment like that after your reference to the blind men and the elephant. Holy freakin’ cow.

Did you not understand the analogy?

In reply to Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

Or, was it the case that it too well served to make my point?

The problem . . .

In reply to Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

The problem is that you’re a hypocrite who’s more interested in “winning” than in actually discussing the matter rationally.

Sub-thread terminated, owing to repeated [i]argumentum ad hominem[/i]

In reply to Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

.

I think you mean . . .

In reply to Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

. . . because you’ve run out of worthwhile arguments. Every time you disagree with me, you get stubborn as a mule and absolutely refuse to listen to anything anyone else has to say. Actually, I’ve noticed you do that with pretty much everyone — but it’s less obnoxious when you’re disagreeing with someone with his head up his behind so far he’s looking at the morning’s lunch.

I think that you either [u]don’t know[/u] what I mean, or …

In reply to Those who wish to be coders don’t belong in a BS program.

choose to pretend not to.

Um, so you find it easier to be [u]convinced[/u] of [u]uncertainty[/u]?

In reply to It is that “certainty” that I have a hard time being convinced of…

No reply to the content of your post, for now. I just thought your title was ironic, and wondered if it was intentional.

Later.

Actually, yes.

In reply to Um, so you find it easier to be [u]convinced[/u] of [u]uncertainty[/u]?

Sandy was speaking of someone being certain that they would be a programmer and so are educating themselves for that certainty.

Having met so many people that graduated with a degree in one field and ended up providing for the family in a different field, I am somewhat convinced of the uncertainty of such a decision.

Yes, the person making the decision is certain that they want (or think they want) to be a programmer but stepping back from them the reality that they will end up living is nowhere near as certain.

Oh, I understand all that just fine.

In reply to Actually, yes.

Still, “convinced of uncertainty”, it’s funny, yes?

absolutely. ;)

In reply to Oh, I understand all that just fine.

and since you use capital “A” for your name… 🙂

Please explain something to me:

In reply to They’re called “electives.”

How does that, in any way, mean that we (meaning people interested in CompSci as a course of study) should be “forced” to spend years on a field of mathematics among the [b]least likely[/b] to be relevant to a programming career?

I’ve just addressed that above, at …

In reply to Please explain something to me:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=221757&messageID=2233217 .

The study of Comp. Sci and learning to program are quite different things.

Holy crap.

In reply to I’ve just addressed that above, at …

Dude, if you want a field that is grounded in calculus, [b]study electronics engineering, not computer science[/b]!

Did both, along with math and physics.

In reply to Holy crap.

They are all highly complementary.

Of course they are . . .

In reply to Did both, along with math and physics.

. . . but [b]computer science itself[/b] is not grounded in calculus. If you want the complementary electronics engineering, complete with calculus, study that [b]along with[/b] computer science — don’t try to substitute parts of it into the CompSci curriculum.

Have you overlooked the fact that the universe is [i]analog[/i]?

In reply to Did both, along with math and physics.

Were it the case that all computations required only inputs and outputs that were rational numbers, then calculus would of course be irrelevant to Comp. Sci.. However, it is because the real world is analog, and cannot be adequately described by rational numbers alone, that gave rise to calculus.

Thus, to exclude calculus from Comp. Sci. is to bar that discipline from addressing the real universe in an accurate and comprehensive manner.

That’s a heck of a stretch.

In reply to Did both, along with math and physics.

Electronics engineering is the interface between computer science and physics. Use calculus for electronics engineering. Stop wasting half my computer science education on calculus when I’d get a lot more value out of algebraic mathematics.

Are you saying that all analog calculations are done by hardware?

In reply to Did both, along with math and physics.

That hardware is outside the domain of Comp. Sci.?

That one can program an analog computer with no knowledge of calculus?

That one can implement and/or use analog functions on a digital computer with no knowledge of calculus?

That one can model physical systems on either an analog or digital computer with no knowledge of calculus?

That the only ones involved in the design and use of computational systems who use calculus are EEs?

title

In reply to Did both, along with math and physics.

“[i]Are you saying that all analog calculations are done by hardware?[/i]”

No. What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

“[i]That hardware is outside the domain of Comp. Sci.?[/i]”

Mostly, yeah.

“[i]That one can program an analog computer with no knowledge of calculus?[/i]”

Where do you get this crap?

“[i]That one can implement and/or use analog functions on a digital computer with no knowledge of calculus?[/i]”

Admit it — you aren’t even reading what I say. You’re just making this crap up, pulling it out of thin air, because it’s easier to refute what you want me to say than what I am saying.

“[i]That one can model physical systems on either an analog or digital computer with no knowledge of calculus?[/i]”

Umm . . . I thought we were talking about computer science, not game programming.

“[i]That the only ones involved in the design and use of computational systems who use calculus are EEs?[/i]”

No. Again — where do you get this crap?

To continue …

In reply to Did both, along with math and physics.

Are you saying:

“That hardware is outside the domain of Comp. Sci.?”

[i]Mostly, yeah.[/i]

Why “mostly?”

“That one can program an analog computer with no knowledge of calculus?”

[i]Where do you get this crap?[/i]

Non-responsive.

“That one can implement and/or use analog functions on a digital computer with no knowledge of calculus?”

[i]Admit it — you aren’t even reading what I say. You’re just making this crap up, pulling it out of thin air, because it’s easier to refute what you want me to say than what I am saying.[/i]

Non-responsive.

“That one can model physical systems on either an analog or digital computer with no knowledge of calculus?”

[i]Umm . . . I thought we were talking about computer science, not game programming.[/i]

Non-responsive.

trolling

In reply to Did both, along with math and physics.

“[i]Non-responsive.[/i]”

Non-responsive.

Do you realize that you are now acting like maxwell?

In reply to Did both, along with math and physics.

Is that the impression that you desire and seek?

Subthread terminated blah blah blah . . .

In reply to Did both, along with math and physics.

Are you aware of how unutterably self-righteous and full of yourself you sound when you start up with this crap? It’s not my fault you can’t summon a useful argument and have to resort to name-calling, insults, and asinine holier-than-thou proclamations.

You alone have engaged in name-calling and insults.

In reply to Did both, along with math and physics.

Is your memory that short that that’s slipped your mind? Or, do you simply think that others might accept your false statement without question?

Right . . .

In reply to You alone have engaged in name-calling and insults.

You’re the one here who has implied insult to two people — me, and someone not even involved in this discussion — in the immediately previous post (previous to my comment in which I referred to your insults, that is). Good job, contradicting yourself with your [b]very next post[/b].

A factual observation is an “insult?”

In reply to Right . . .

It’s not [i]my[/i] fault if you’re embarrassed by your behavior.

Quit playing innocent.

In reply to A factual observation is an “insult?”

The way you phrased that was an obvious attempt at insult of two people simultaneously, and anyone with half a brain reading what you posted would see the same implications I did.

As you triggered this by name calling, the comparison is fitting.

In reply to Quit playing innocent.

If you don’t like being compared to maxwell, then refrain from calling others “dolts,” etc., or from labeling their postings as “crap.” To insult others and then cry “foul” when you get flagged for such is unconscionable.

Nonsense and poppycock.

In reply to As you triggered this by name calling, the comparison is fitting.

Your ridiculous attempts at insult were in response to me throwing your own words back at you.

The facts: You’re the one who hurled the word “dolt.”

In reply to Nonsense and poppycock.

You don’t like being publicly taken to task for your bad behavior? That’s not my problem.

Deal with it.

Who cares?

In reply to The facts: You’re the one who hurled the word “dolt.”

I used some strong (though not obscene, at least) language to emphasize the fact that you were somewhere way out in left field. You, then, set out to insult both me [b]and someone not even involved in the discussion[/b], not as emphasis for an argument but [b]in place of one[/b], then dissembled and pretended that you hadn’t set out to insult anyone.

. . . and what does my use of the word “dolt” have to do with the fact that I was right? Answer: Nothing.

To repeat, the comparison was both apt and well deserved.

In reply to Who cares?

And, should I ever [i]intend to insult[/u], rest assured that there will be no doubt held by anyone.

To clarify: you’re still dissembling and avoiding the subject.

In reply to To repeat, the comparison was both apt and well deserved.

. . . and [b]nobody[/b] has any doubt you intended to insult — at least, nobody with a brain.

Yes, that is precisely what you are doing.

In reply to To clarify: you’re still dissembling and avoiding the subject.

You resorted to [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks, and then attempted to misdirect attention from that fact; said comparison served to succinctly & clearly describe the totality of such. That you are offended by a legitimate comparison serves to neither void nor diminish your offense.

As for the views of others re. my intent, best leave it to them to speak for themselves.

hypocrite, dissembler, et cetera

In reply to Yes, that is precisely what you are doing.

EOF

Once again, an apt description of your behavior here.

In reply to hypocrite, dissembler, et cetera

You’re only digging a deeper hole for yourself by refusing to own up to your incivility here.

I gave you fair warning when you called me a “dolt,” and let you go with that warning only; but, you persisted in repeating your bad behavior.

Why you should do so is a mystery to me.

I can do that too:

In reply to Once again, an apt description of your behavior here.

“I know you are — but what am I?”

When are you going to get back on-topic?

You guys should just bite the bullet and get married. ]:)

In reply to Did both, along with math and physics.

Yes, to each other. You sound like you already are! ]:)

You marry him.

In reply to You guys should just bite the bullet and get married. ]:)

I prefer a “significant other” who doesn’t spend an entire debate trying to manufacture some kind of “moral high ground” out of nothing.

Define Your Terms

In reply to I’ve just addressed that above, at …

What specifically do you mean by “Computer Science” and “Programming”?

Do you really not know the difference?

In reply to Define Your Terms

Or, is this a trick question?

“[b]Computer science[/b], or computing science, is the study of the theoretical foundations of information and computation and their implementation and application in computer systems.”

“[b]Computer programming[/b] applies specific programming languages to solve specific computational problems with solutions.”

Definitions are Important to Discussions

In reply to Do you really not know the difference?

Differing definitions are often the basis to misunderstanding. I usually find it quite helpful to ask about underlying definitions and assumptions in order to follow the conclusions reached by others.

Within your definition of computer science, I will readily concede that study of mathematics might be applicable.

There is another definition of computer science that is implied by the typical course of study for a BSCS degree. This seems to fit your definition for computer programming. It is for computer programming that I would contend that study of higher mathematics is unnecessary. I would also suggest that a vast majority of the industry and those posting in this discussion are doing computer programming.

Differing axioms, those underlying statements assumed to be true, will result in differing conclusions. When conclusions differ, it is always valuable to verify the axioms in use.

WayneM

In reply to Do you really not know the difference?

Since CompSci is all about computational theory and the like, it is in essence the study of the theoretical foundations of programming. Computer science and programming are more closely linked than someone like deepsand seems to realize. Apparently, when he hears the word “programming”, he thinks “writing a shell script”, and when he hears “computer science” he hears “physics as it relates to computers”. When I hear “programming” I think “computational theory in practice” and when I hear “computer science” I hear “computational theory in, well, theory”.

Because of the fact that programming is essentially just a lucrative manifestation of computer science, I believe that advanced mathematics is extremely valuable to a programmer. It is not necessary to do the job of a programmer, but it is valuable as it provides a lot of foundational understanding of how and why programming works, which can aid greatly in being good at it.

However . . . just like “corporation” isn’t synonymous with “business” and “computer” isn’t synonymous with “technology”, it’s true that “calculus” isn’t synonymous with “advanced mathematics”. The fact that millions of people in the world seem unable to differentiate between calculus in the specific sense and advanced mathematics in the generic is, I think, where this ridiculous belief that calculus is somehow necessary to a computer science education arises.

Perhaps, Wayne, the curricula have changed.

In reply to Do you really not know the difference?

“[i]There is another definition of computer science that is implied by the typical course of study for a BSCS degree. This seems to fit your definition for computer programming.[/i]”

This was not the case when I studied Comp. Sci.; and, absent any at hand contemporary evidence, I will allow that it may now be otherwise, as you suggest.

If so, I am not surprised. In another sub-thread here I addressed the fact that, by and large, universities had become more and more like trade schools, with the emphasis on teaching specific skills required for a specific career path.

Nonetheless, so as to make a clear distinction between the two, I shall here continue to use the standard definitions that I posted.

Just guessing

In reply to Please explain something to me:

The calculus requirement is a holdover from the days that computers were more widely used for, well, computing? Thus, my suggestion above, for separate tracks, or concentrations, or whatever. Sciences and math are offered in ‘theoretical’ and ‘applied’ flavors, even at the undergraduate level, some places. Would colleges & universities who offer similar flexibility in comp sci have a competitive advantage in attracting the best students? The most focused? Those in the biggest hurry to graduate? The latter group seems to be one that may be very likely to be lost to traditional colleges, opting instead for specialized vocational schools, that can teach all they need to know to make a good living, in a relatively short time. Less rigidity might help more traditional educational institutions stay, or become, competitive.

That flexibility exists by way of different degree paths.

In reply to Just guessing

The Associate Degree was introduced for the specific purpose of providing accreditation to those wishing to pursue a shorter, more application oriented course of study.

That wasn’t his point.

In reply to That flexibility exists by way of different degree paths.

Man, you seem to want to turn everything into “I want a broad education, and thus everyone that doesn’t want to mandate calculus must be in favor of making degree programs into daycoder factories where people don’t learn anything they can’t get in a trade school.” The truth, however, is that neither Absolutely nor I am saying anything of the kind.

He suggested that a more flexible degree program (not a more narrow program — a more [b]flexible[/b] program!) might make traditional universities more competitive with trade schools. The underlying (and logical) assumption is that it would do so without sacrificing quality — and may, in fact, improve in quality.

“make traditional universities more competitive with trade schools”

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

You’ve missed my point, which is that, by and large, [u]universities [b]have become[/b] trade schools[/u].

And, in keeping with that, they [b]do[/b] offer study paths that are less broad than that of a Bachelors degree.

To maintain that one is “forced” to study that which you find extraneous in order to learn to be a “programmer” is specious indeed.

No, I didn’t miss your point.

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

“[i]You’ve missed my point, which is that, by and large, universities have become trade schools.[/i]”

That may well have been [b]a point[/b] of yours, but it’s not the point that was conveyed by the statement “That flexibility exists by way of different degree paths.”

“[i]To maintain that one is ‘forced’ to study that which you find extraneous in order to learn to be a ‘programmer’ is specious indeed.[/i]”

Replace the word “programmer” with the term “computer scientist” if it makes you feel better. My statements are still accurate.

Re. “Replace the word “programmer” with the term “computer scientist””

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

I could, but I’ll not, as it’s a distinction with a very important difference.

There is no need to soften the requirements for a BS in Comp. Sci. when suitable alternative paths of study already exist for those who would be programmers.

Soften?

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

Who said anything about “softening” requirements? Don’t be a dolt. I’m not talking about removing advanced mathematics from computer science degree programs — I’m talking about replacing calculus with [b]relevant[/b] advanced mathematics.

Dolt?

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

Now would be the time to remind you that my experiences greatly exceed those of yourself, and, from such experiences, I can unequivocably state that that which seems irrelevant to you is [b]not[/b] necessarily true of all.

Dolt? I will this once ignore such; but, expect not that I shall be so gracious in the future.

another title

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

“[i]Now would be the time to remind you that my experiences greatly exceed those of yourself[/i]”

Yes, that’s right, I forgot — and your penis is bigger than mine, too.

“[i]Dolt? I will this once ignore such[/i]”

Funny — two thirds of your inane rambling in that post was about that.

“[i]expect not that[/i]” you will stop talking like Yoda because you think it makes you sound smart.

This sub-thread terminated, owing to [i]argumentum ad hominen[/i].

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

.

It’s kind of you to admit it.

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

EOF

How very maxwellian.

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

Is that by accident or design?

what it is

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

This is a direct result of your self-righteous nonsense getting so absurd that I find it increasingly difficult to take you seriously.

Seriously.

Odd that, when one agrees with you, you’ve no complaints …

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

re. the manner in which they state their case, or the degree to which they defend against those in opposition.

So, it seems that the real problem is not the how another carries himself here, but whose “side” he’s on. If he’s on yours, all is well; otherwise, there’s hell to pay.

Lying or ignorant. I don’t know which.

In reply to Odd that, when one agrees with you, you’ve no complaints …

I’ve corrected people several times around here even when they substantially agree with me in terms of conclusions. You just don’t pay attention, I guess — or you choose to pretend it hasn’t happened. Only you can say for sure, though I’m sure you’ll just go on saying it hasn’t happened.

Hell, I’ve even agreed with the opposition from time to time. In another thread, I even agreed with rickk pretty publicly once or twice in the last couple days. Yes, really — rickk. He said something intelligent. Who’d’ve thunk it?

What I [u]do know[/u] is that you turn ugly when I take issue with you.

In reply to Lying or ignorant. I don’t know which.

My knowledge of what you do or do not say to others is based on threads/sub-threads in which we have both participated. What you say elsewhere is hardly a priority of mine.

Stop talking about crap about which you know nothing, then.

In reply to What I [u]do know[/u] is that you turn ugly when I take issue with you.

I’d ask why you made blanket statements about my behavior then, when I corrected you, you professed disinterest in the subject, but I know it’d be futile.

You seem to have a fondness for the word “crap.”

In reply to Stop talking about crap about which you know nothing, then.

I count 9 instances in which you’ve used this word as “rebuttal.” Is that some sort of technical term?

more nonsense and poppycock

In reply to You seem to have a fondness for the word “crap.”

I didn’t use the word as “rebuttal”. I used it as a descriptive term in the middle of a statement that, as a whole, was a rebuttal.

By analogy, I might as well say that you used the word “instances” as a “rebuttal”. With argument tactics like this, it’s a wonder everyone hasn’t simply put you on ignore already.

Avoiding the issue, which is that you’ve a habit of belittling others.

In reply to more nonsense and poppycock

.

Uh, no — that’s not the issue.

In reply to Avoiding the issue, which is that you’ve a habit of belittling others.

The issue is that you seem to think that electronics engineering and computer science are somehow the same thing, or that programming is about calculating the area under a ballistic curve, or something like that. You seem to think that computational theory is all about constructing physical models of the universe, to judge by some of your posts about how modeling the analog universe is so critical to computer science.

This crap about how I “belittle” people almost as much as you do (but have the balls to just come out and say it) is just your attempt to distract from the issue at hand so you can try to claim a “moral high ground” win.

Changing the subject won’t work; and, there’s that “crap” word again.

In reply to Uh, no — that’s not the issue.

You got flagged for bad conduct. While you may have gotten away with it elsewhere & at other times doesn’t mean that should expect to always immune from censure. But, rather than simply accept a well earned rebuke, you persist in being uncivil.

pot, kettle

In reply to Changing the subject won’t work; and, there’s that “crap” word again.

Change the subject . . . ? You’re kidding — right? Didn’t you notice when I just pointed out that, after letting myself be led astray for so long, you changed the damned subject in the first place?

As for civility, using prettier words to achieve worse insults is hardly civil. This, combined with the above, adds up to one thing:

Hypocrisy much?

Now . . . maybe you could [b]get back on the damned subject[/b] — specifically, maybe you could explain how tensor calculus relates to programming language design.

edit: typo

I led you astray by changing the subject?

In reply to pot, kettle

Where, when & how.

And, who declared that this discussion was about tensor math?

And, if so, this gives you the right to resort to [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks?

cluebat

In reply to I led you astray by changing the subject?

Whack! Ouch, gotta hurt.

“[i]And, who declared that this discussion was about tensor math?[/i]”

I’ll try to use small words: We were talking about how math does or does not apply to CompSci.

“[i]And, if so, this gives you the right to resort to ad hominem attacks?[/i]”

I’m not sure whether you’re being hypersensitive about someone being less than perfectly worshipful or you simply lack the educational foundation to understand that an [i]argumentum ad hominem[/i] fallacy requires that a personal attack actually replace logical reasoning. If the former, I don’t care. If the latter, you’re out in left field again.

Nope, didn’t hurt at all.

In reply to cluebat

“[i]I’ll try to use small words: We were talking about how math does or does not apply to CompSci.[/i]”

Which fails to explain why I should specifically address [i]tensor[/i] math.

“[i]I’m not sure whether you’re being hypersensitive about someone being less than perfectly worshipful or you simply lack the educational foundation to understand that an argumentum ad hominem fallacy requires that a personal attack [b]actually replace[/b] logical reasoning.[/i]” (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps you should revisit the meaning of [i]ad hominem[/i], and its various forms, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Is it just me, or has your crusade become pointless 800 posts later?

In reply to Nope, didn’t hurt at all.

“[i]Which fails to explain why I should specifically address tensor math.[/i]”

I think you must have gotten your wit shot off in the war.

“[i]Perhaps you should revisit the meaning of ad hominem[/i]”

Perhaps you should stop pretending you got an effective education.

All you need do is cease your uncivil behavior.

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

I bear you no ill will, but I will not quietly suffer abuse from any other here or elsewhere.

Only you have the power to control your emotions; why not exercise such?

Uh-huh.

In reply to All you need do is cease your uncivil behavior.

When was the last time I was “uncivil”?

“[i]I bear you no ill will[/i]”

Sure — but you’ll still try a “moral high ground” approach to argument when you don’t have any factual arguments to use.

“[i]I will not quietly suffer abuse from any other here or elsewhere.[/i]”

Yeah, it’s already quite obvious you can’t take what you dish out. The fact you try to apply a more dignified veneer to your insults and attacks doesn’t change what they are.

“[i]Only you have the power to control your emotions; why not exercise such?[/i]”

Now you’re a psychologist . . . ?

Odd that you were able to post a Reply to my post, but I’m not!

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

And, as my post to which you replied was made [b]after[/b] TR “fixed” the new View All function to truncate the allowed nesting depth, it cannot be that your reply was possible owing to that “bug.”

If you are able to post a Reply to this post, TR’s “fix” broke something.

To answer your question “[i]When was the last time I was “uncivil”?,” rather than search for all such occasions, I will point to one that is easily located & obvious – when you called me a “dolt,” at http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=221757&messageID=2234043 .

As for “[i]Yeah, it’s already quite obvious you can’t take what you dish out,[/i]” the fact that I’m still here, despite your hostile attitude & continued slurs, proves otherwise.

If you truly disbelieve me when I say that I bear you no ill will, ask yourself then why it is that there is not evidence of ill will in my postings to you in the discussion re. the new View All function.

I don’t think they broke anything.

In reply to Odd that you were able to post a Reply to my post, but I’m not!

I haven’t been using the “view all posts” thing to make greater-depth posts at all — I think the way I’ve been doing it is a “bug” (or maybe just loophole) that has been there from the very beginning.

“[i]To answer your question[/i]”

I think you missed the point of my question. You told me I needed to stop being “uncivil” and, without commenting on your complaint that I’ve been “uncivil” in this case, I just asked a question meant to wake you up to the fact that I haven’t been “uncivil” for quite a while. It’s only your obsessions that’s causing you to keep pursuing the matter, and prolonging the agony of your attempt to distract from the actual topic of discussion.

“[i]the fact that I’m still here, despite your hostile attitude & continued slurs, proves otherwise.[/i]”

The fact that, despite your incredible arrogance and far-from-clean hands in attacking other people all the time (just trying to disguise it with pretty words), you throw a hissy fit when someone half-jokingly suggests you avoid acting like a “dolt” makes it pretty clear that you can’t take what you dish out.

“[i]ask yourself then why it is that there is not evidence of ill will in my postings to you in the discussion re. the new View All function.[/i]”

I didn’t say you bore me, personally, ill will. It just seems obvious you can’t handle having your ideas challenged by anyone that actually makes sense. In any case, you’d entirely throw away what little illusion of general civility you think you maintain if you flamed me there, in an entirely separate discussion, where I haven’t even really contradicted you.

Still won’t let me Reply to next to last allowable level.

In reply to That wasn’t his point.

It may be that this happens only if it’s your own post, as clearly you can Reply to where I cannot.

As for “someone half-jokingly suggest(ing) you avoid acting like a “dolt”,” the post in which such happened, particularly when read within the context of preceeding post, did not strike me as being even remotely in jest. However, I will accept your word that such was your intent.

Likewise, I would ask that you accept that my comparison of your behavior to another was that which I have earlier said, and not that of insult.

replying beyond “max depth”

In reply to Still won’t let me Reply to next to last allowable level.

I’ve been replying beyond “max depth” by editing the URL, not by using the “view all posts” feature.

Thanks.

In reply to replying beyond “max depth”

.

hmmmm, let’s check this out

In reply to replying beyond “max depth”

dan

Don’t make us have to shoot you.

In reply to hmmmm, let’s check this out

😉

Associate Degree is one example of the flexibility I mean.

In reply to That flexibility exists by way of different degree paths.

This shows you understand what I’m suggesting. If you disagree on making existing Associate or Bachelor’s Degrees more flexible, I don’t think I’ll bother arguing such a fine point. I estimate that a lot of businesses don’t care if their employees know differential calculus from difference calculations, but I’m not making hiring decisions at this point in my career. I might be wrong about what employers want.

Employers are a great part of the problem.

In reply to Associate Degree is one example of the flexibility I mean.

They all too frequently overstate their requirements, resulting in their hiring those who have spent a great deal of time and money securing that for which the employer will never make recompense.

Businesses as employers, like businesses as producers…

In reply to Associate Degree is one example of the flexibility I mean.

take all their cues from the market. Although what you say is true, it is the market whose demands have not kept pace with education requirements. Businesses have not [u]imposed[/u] lower requirements in a vacuum. I know you did not say they did impose them in a vacuum, but the omission might tend to imply that you are placing all blame for this on employers, who in fact are beholden to profit, via shareholders. In fact, I always blame ‘the people’, whether in our roles as voters, or as purchasers. I consider it the more ’empowering’ perspective.

Employers [i]do[/i] oft times demand [u]unnecessary[/u] qualifications.

In reply to Associate Degree is one example of the flexibility I mean.

That is what I thought I had made clear.

Employers ARE often part of the problem…

In reply to Associate Degree is one example of the flexibility I mean.

Speaking from the “Sr. Developer” side of the world, we often assume capabilities from resumes and far too brief interviews. The warning signs are far to unreliable and the expectation of some degree of “objective evaluation of self” by the candidate is often really absurd.

Too often we skip the parts of the interview that could help point out problem areas and, as research has shown, the hire or not decisions are usually made in the first 30 seconds of meeting the person.

Many managers will impose arbitrary restrictions to limit the number of people that they have to see to make their job of hiring somebody that much easier. Remember the line “MBA or equivalent experience” in any job specs? I don’t. Have you ever seen job specs that require 2+ years experience in a [i]new[/i] technology (as in maybe 1 year old)? I have seen these.

Then, after we learn all of these lessons, we STILL make fun of and berate the HR departments. Of course, most of them deserve it. ]:)

Yes, it’s nice to be able to blame HR for failing to …

In reply to Associate Degree is one example of the flexibility I mean.

save us from ourselves.

I’ve seen fat too many of the help-wanted ads of the sort mentioned. Not only do they frequently call for experience that exceeds the age of the technology in question, but some to the extent that it is highly unlikely that the implicitly targeted youthful respondent could have accumulated such in his lifespan.

Tradition

In reply to Please explain something to me:

Computing often started in the Maths faculty.

To be considered to be ‘qualified’ at math at degree level, you must know calculus….

An outdated tradition, Tony?

In reply to Tradition

You’re speaking of the days when computers’ primary purpose was [u]numerical[/u] computation. Today, a heck of a lot of return values are not numerical, and if we were to measure [please, let’s just estimate according to display output, pixels, refresh rates, bytes required for text encoding, audio bit rates, etc.!] the distribution of clock cycles allocated to text, audio, video, static image, and numerical computations, we’d find a [b]much[/b] different result today than when the calculus became a part of the comp sci curriculum. Since it’s used so little by today’s coders, why keep the major requirement? Why not make a separate, specialist track for programmers who actually [b]do[/b] still want to use calculus?

I agree quite strongly.

In reply to An outdated tradition, Tony?

It is now 2007. I found a copy of a New York magazine from May 1997 once when cleaning up some stuff. The most amazing thing I found was that it didn’t have [b]any[/b] e-mail or web URLs in it!

When I graduated from University (around 1985) the computer facility was in the “Math/Sciences” building and the two were very linked. The big deal was the vector based supercomputer that they had installed which could crunch numbers at an amazing rate.

Now, 20+ years after graduation and 10 years after that magazine was printed, the world is a very different place.

There are a lot of folks out there who just don’t need very advanced math and simply will never become analysts. The definition of “computer programmer” is getting more diluted every day. (Far more than little Ben would care to admit!) I have heard of the job descriptions “Excel Programmer” and “VBA Programmer”.

Yeah, it is probably time for a change in requirements but that doesn’t require that I not be sad to see the deeper understanding of these concepts being left behind.

(edited because my keyboard made a mistake)

I’m all for a deeper understanding of concepts of CompSci.

In reply to I agree quite strongly.

I just don’t understand why so many people seem to think that calculus is a core competency for such a “deeper understanding”. It’s not. It’s a dingleberry on the butt of computer science, a cling-on left over from the days when CompSci grew out of other disciplines (as Tony Hopkinson pointed out).

Think of it in another context. Would you say that evaluating the quality of a hammer is a core competency of architecture, just because architecture can ultimately be traced back to carpentry? The fact that both need to know something about the comparative strengths of different types of wood does not prove that the architect requires all the skills of the carpenter just to do the job of architecture.

By the same token, while a deep understanding of mathematical concepts related to computation can be invaluable to a computer scientist, those mathematical concepts that are essentially irrelevant to computational theory are also essentially irrelevant to computer science as a field of study. They provide no “deeper understanding” of computer science.

It’s just that nagging feeling that they are missing something…

In reply to I agree quite strongly.

I fully understand what you mean and by no means do I fully support forcing calculus on everybody. I didn’t do a stellar job on the topic myself.

What worries me is that there are so many corners cut these days that major issues get forgotten. People that lose touch with the end job will often skip elements that are critical in getting that end job accomplished.

Let’s take the hammer / carpenter / architect example. No, the architect doesn’t need to be an expert carpenter but they do need to know about wood. They also need to know about construction techniques or they can make stupid assumptions. What happens when they design a set of walls coming together in a wood frame house and they make no allowances for driving the nails into the frames? If the location only allows for hammers to be in use and the only thing the architect knows is an air gun, the results could cost a lot of time on the site to jury rig a solution.

Look at cars. Does a car designer need to know how to tune up an engine? Ask anyone who owns (well, owned) a V8-Vega from Chevrolet. Part of tuning up the engine usually involves replacing (or at least checking) the spark plugs. The designers failed to consider this (or didn’t care) because the engine sits so close to the frame that you have to remove the motor mount and jack up the engine to take out many of the spark plugs.

In some Chevy trucks, if you wanted to replace the heater core (the thing that heats the cab) then you had to take off the right front wheel, clean off the crud from the wheel well and half-way remove the wheel well lining to get at the heater core.

When people (as a collective) forget what needs to be done, they will cut corners such that it may prevent or severly hamper what needs to be done.

Determining what the “what needs to be done” is? That is an art form of hindsight.

In hindsight, then . . .

In reply to I agree quite strongly.

Calculus is pretty much useless to computer science. They should be sticking to advanced mathematics subjects that are actually relevant to computational theory.

Does academia teach people to program

In reply to An outdated tradition, Tony?

in computer science courses ?
I’ve never been convinced of this.
Calculate the efficiency of a sort routine vs write one that doesn’t crash when there’s an odd number of items.

Seems to me the emphasis is in the wrong place. There’s nothing wrong with picking up the math, but in my opinion, things like why side effects and global variables are bad is way more important than say predicate calculus.

I’m firmly convinced it happened because the teachers didn’t want to expose their ignorance and so fell bqck on their own expertise.

Great point.

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

What has bothered me for a long time now is how people complain about coming out of courses with more questions than when they started.

THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT!

When we go into a class, we usually know very little (relatively speaking) about the topic. There is no way that we can learn all there is to know about a topic in a single semester (or even several semesters). What a class can do is expose you to a surface view of many facets of that topic so you can figure out where you need to ask questions to learn more.

I am amazed at the number of people that really don’t understand the evils possible with global variables or structures. Worse yet, there are people who absolutely forbid globals and don’t understand the times that they are most useful or even necessary.

People that grew up with C++ missed a wealth of learning opportunities by not learning C. (And don’t tell me you know ‘C’ if you don’t know what calloc is or can’t build an object oriented structure in ‘C’!). The lessons (if not the background) of ‘C’ and memory management is vital to building responsive applications in C++. However, I keep meeting people that tell me that it is far cheaper to buy new processing power or more memory than to hire programmers that understand these concepts.

Oh, woe is us… 🙁

The biggest change in our industry

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

was when the hardware / operational cost became cheaper than the human one.

We have a larf about 640k being bigger than you’d ever need, but educating and paying for a coder to be able to cram a lot of code into a small space either in time or size, vs doubling up your ram or processor speed is to be a no brainer nowadays.

Optimisation aside from on massive relational databases is becoming a lost art.
There too, based on some of the posts I’ve seen about SQL onj this site. 🙁

C, far too advanced to start with, gates, flip – flops and counters is where everyone should begin. 😀

With a good laymans understanding of transistor theory of course.

That brings up an interesting point…

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

Maybe we are just repeating an earlier rant.

[i]With a good laymans understanding of transistor theory of course. [/i]

I have never gotten a firm grasp of how transistors really figure into all of this. Yes, I know that there are a whole bunch of transistor thingies glued together to make a CPU, I have been told so. But what, exactly, they do in there is way beyond me. I can carry on a moderately uneducated conversation about assembly instruction sets and how a line of code might translate into assembly but the jump from assembly to binary and into transistor-land is pure black magic to me.

I can see where the same would apply to a lot of programmers today with regard to stuff that we took for granted.

Basically . . .

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

Transistors are the reason computers “talk” in binary. As they’re used in computer CPUs, they’re basically just a bunch of on/off switches (ones and zeros).

Well that was a long time ago

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

I can remember building an and gate out of discrete components, never used one in a practical circuit though.
Buy a chip with 8 on, costs less works much better, uses less power…

The circuit diagram for that chip was more than you could take in, in one go. A modern chip not a prayer, it might as well be black magic.

Work on a non trivial application, let it evolve for a year, then say you understand how it works, you’d be lying your ass off.
You’ll know the main blocks, the main logic paths, which bit started off where, after that, it’s get out your metaphorical multimeter and figure this bit of it out.

Not black magic, but black box. The only time what’s inside it matters, is when you have to lift the lid.
When you do lift it do you find

A well layed out circuit diagram?

A rigorous mathematical proof?

Or a boiling mass of tubular invertebrates?

Programming is a messy discipline that’s why those of us who do it, call it ‘getting your hands dirty’.

Now if all that study for comp sci made a science out of it, I’d be well pleased.

However this is self evidently not true, I’ve seen code written by mathematicians.
File Open TinOfWorms.c

Like many skills, programming isn’t what is used to be.

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

When I started, on PENNSTAC, a 1st generation machine, constructed of vacuum tubes & relays, one needed to have an intimate understanding of the hardware, as all programming was, of necessity, in machine language.

Even with 2nd generation machines, i.e. those constructed with discrete semiconductors, the introduction of relatively large amounts of core memory – 16K words was the considered large – allowed for the introduction of assembly languages. Still, one needed to know a great deal about the architecture of the machine in order to effectively & efficiently use its still limited resources.

With the introduction of 3rd generation machines, those constructed of integrated circuits, and the commensurate increase in resources, which allowed of compilers and formal operating systems, the point was reached where only systems programmers need understand the inner workings and hidden machanisms; applications programmers were now free to deal with the machine as an abstraction.

Today we are at the point where many, if not most, applications can be developed by simply selecting and joining the appropriate pre-built routines in the proper sequence. In a sense, many programmers today are little more than the functional equivalent of operators, in that they merely specify the tasks to be run and in what order.

I don’t know which is more scary

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

The idea of an invisible listbox control to do a sort, or the fact that some poor chump thought it was the right way to do it.

I still pray the hardware types will hit a wall technology wise and in depth knowledge of the basics again becomes generally valuable.

I have different hopes.

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

I don’t want hardware to hit a wall at all. I want it to continue advancing like crazy. I want the technological Singularity to happen, not just in my life time, but before I’m retirement age. I want to be a part of it.

I want the same result as you, though, Tony: I want people to learn to program a little more efficiently again. There’s a better way to get there, though. I’d like that to be achieved through a shift in the software industry away from the Microsoft business model and toward an open source development based business model.

Oh some powerful competition

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

for MS where quality became mandatory in order to survive would do the trick, I’m just not seeing it happen while throwing more hardware at a problem is the get out of jail free card.

I think “business need” is more the question.

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

I have recently had my eyes opened in the process of interviewing for a new job. I have long lamented the lost art of efficiency in resource usage and stuck my tongue out at people who just throw hardware at a problem. I have now seen a place where it makes sense and, if we are lucky, it could have an impact.

In the banking industry, we are heavily dependent on computers. Everything needs to be done fast and so on. Most of the systems are, however, human limited in the sense that one of the links in the chain is a human. People are limited in how fast they can react to a given input so any such system will always be “slow”.

The interesting application that I saw was for [b]programmed trading[/b]. Here, we have a case where a program is looking at data as it comes from the trading floor, checking price trends and, based on the very last trade, deciding to buy, sell or hold a stock (or other instrument).

When stocks were all traded by hand in the trading pits, the human was still an issue. Now, we have crossing networks where clients put their desired trades into the system and the system matches (or crosses) the trades. If the client is a person then their trade can be completed in microseconds and they will see the result a few seconds later when the screen refreshes. If the client is a program then the result will be seen in a couple of microseconds more.

With trading on this speed, and the fact that the big boys can all get their hands on the same kind of hardware, execution speed will, once again, come into the picture. In other words, the system with the most efficient methods and programs will “win”.

We seem to have long since lost the focus on what computers are for (as in why do we want/”need” them). We focus far too much on what neat things we can do with computers (solutions in search of problems) and way too little on why we are doing it in the first place.

The edge of the tech envelope

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

is a place for us with those skills, but
optimisation for footprint or speed is an increase in complexity, which is an increase in cost, which means business will draw the line on good enough.
Lets face it the first thing you should learn about optimisation is when to call it a day.

In reality only experience can

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

Academia can give someone a background to help them to program. Besides, academia can only provide you with knowledge, you have to learn how to use it. I like one quote I heard (I forget who said it), but this is the gist of what he said, “You can live without breathing for a few minutes, live without water for a few days, live without food for a few months, but most people live their entire lives without thinking.” Experience is going to teach you how to program a lot more than any academic course is.

re: academia and learning

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

Formal education doesn’t really teach you anything at all. It’s just one way among many to make information available to you for learning. You still have to actually learn it yourself, whether you get it from a professor, a book, Wikipedia, or divine revelation.

re: re: academia and learning and questions

In reply to Does academia teach people to program

I have often thought that academia is where you learn many of the questions and, more importantly, how to question.

True, some people come out thinking that if they question anything then they look elite; but, I am not referring to them. I am thinking of the folks that learn to spot an assumption and look deeper.

Going a bit off topic here, outside of academia the focus is usually on “R&R” (Remove and Replace) instead of asking “Why did it break?”. Whilst in the cocoon of university life you have the luxury of learning how to question. If you are very lucky you can learn how to reduce the number of questions to a very focused triage.

It is often a basic understanding of the technology accompanied by a deeper understanding of spotting assumption and topped off with a deep understanding of human nature that leads one to be a better leader.

In theory . . .

In reply to re: re: academia and learning and questions

In theory, that’s what academia is supposed to provide. Generally speaking, it does the opposite, at least these days — it indoctrinates and propagandizes.

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren’t.

How about learning proper English grammar and usage?

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Math is extremely important. A mastery of one’s native language is also very important. I noticed several english usage errors and typographical errors (no space after the parentheses, “its” instead of “it’s”, “their” instead of “there”, etc.) committed by DanLM in his response to the article. I find that many IT people are very weak in this area, and when I see simple mistakes being made in published articles, the author’s credibility in my eyes goes south.

Hear, hear

In reply to How about learning proper English grammar and usage?

cud not agree moor.

The is boogers who car not spell, eh?

Bet they car not add up either.

I’m not 100% sure, and I normally wouldn’t criticize correct spelling…

In reply to Hear, hear

but didn’t you mean to misspell “here, here”? Like I said, I was’nt 100% sure, but I thought that “hear, hear” was actually the correct spelling. So, I Googled it:

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19980304
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear_hear
😀

Damn, got me

In reply to I’m not 100% sure, and I normally wouldn’t criticize correct spelling…

but with a spelling flame…

😀

I am not an author, and I have never claimed to be proficient in writing

In reply to How about learning proper English grammar and usage?

dan

We’re not talking Pulitzer Prize here, just basics

In reply to I am not an author, and I have never claimed to be proficient in writing

No one expects you to be Hemmingway, but the mistakes in your post are totally basic English. Nothing complex. I would never hire anyone who made so many mistakes because I would be terrified about what he/her would do in a program.

Speaking of Basics…

In reply to We’re not talking Pulitzer Prize here, just basics

I agree with you that we should expect people to at least master the basics of English. However, in your post you made a few basic errors yourself. You misspelled the name of the author (it should be Hemingway, not Hemmingway). Your second sentence is not a sentence (requires noun + verb). Lastly your pronoun agreement in the last sentence should be he/she not he/her (one is a subjective pronoun the other an objective pronoun).

Thanks for the catch

In reply to Speaking of Basics…

My apologies to Mr. HeMingway. I was caught out by the pronunciation. My second sentence (Nothing complex.) was in the nature of an interjection, so I stand by it. It was more conversational than literary and may have benefitted by the addition of an exclamation mark. As for the he/her 🙁 … What can I say? My face is bright red and I beg humbly for mercy!

your loss, someone else’s gain

In reply to We’re not talking Pulitzer Prize here, just basics

Everyone I have ever worked for has been completely happy with both my programming and communication skills.

1). My job is not to make you happy. Only the people that pay me. I’m still being paid and I am under no contract or any other binding agreement requiring them to keep me. They could hire anyone else at any time and I would have no legal recourse other then to find another job. In other words, I’m good at my job. Your loss, their gain.

2). I am not interviewing with you, again. I don’t care what you think.

3). Communication skills are used so that others understand what you are presenting. I think I meet that requirement. Your nick picking, and did a bad job at it in that others corrected you. So, again. I’m not worried about what you think.

Dan

Perhaps we should then devote some time to critiquing your missive.

In reply to How about learning proper English grammar and usage?

This is a forum where one is both allowed and expected to [b]not[/b] have the luxury of time for a complete and thorough review of one’s keystokes prior to their being committed to public view.

Here, as long as the intent is unambiguous, close enough is good enough.

“close enough is good enough”

In reply to Perhaps we should then devote some time to critiquing your missive.

Try telling that to a compiler. I still haven’t found the DWIM option in gcc or Visual Studio.

Let’s call a spade a spade and admit that saliva-boy Dan has always had the English skills of a Nigerian 419 scammer, except without all the charm and redeeming qualities. Lazy English reflects lazy thinking and lack of attention to detail. If you don’t have enough pride in yourself to ensure your words look good to the world, why would your work be any different? I doubt it’s a coincidence that apotheon’s (for example) posts are usually both well-written and well-reasoned. One comes from the other.

“I don’t have time to proofread, capitalize, or check for sentence fragments. I’m too busy doing [foo]!” Well, if that’s true, then you don’t have time to post, either.

This is certainly an odd thread. Usually I agree with you, deepsand, and couldn’t disagree more with him. This time, I actually wholeheartedly agree with him.

Dan’s detractor ignored the substance for the style; for that reason, …

In reply to “close enough is good enough”

I took him to task.

Had he addressed the subject a hand, with mention of matters re. writing skill as a gentle aside, I’d have overlooked such. However, not only did he wholly ignore the subject, but his own missive is less than perfect.

In short, he here stepped on the stage, not as a participant, not even as a spectator, but solely as a pedant, i.e. “[i]one who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge[/i].”

chuckle nighthawk, that’s because we aren’t talking politics

In reply to “close enough is good enough”

Not trying to flame in the least. Just an observation. You have to admit though nighhawk. You know what my positions are. That’s communication. Without the style and grace that everyone may wish to see, but you have no doubt where I stand on things.

Dan

An Engineer and a Mathematician are each placed 100 ft. from a …

In reply to “close enough is good enough”

beautiful woman, and told that each minute they may advance half the remaining distance to her.

The mathematician lamented “But, I’ll never get there,” to which the engineer replied, “Yeah, but I’ll get close enough!”

To which the mathematician replied, silently…

In reply to An Engineer and a Mathematician are each placed 100 ft. from a …

with a more precise plan.

The mathematician knows very well how to estimate “close enough”. Such is not a learned skill, but the limit of the engineer’s ability.

“the limit of the engineer’s ability” ?

In reply to To which the mathematician replied, silently…

It is the engineer who brings to realization that which the theorist either cannot or will not.

Bah! It was only a joke.

In reply to “the limit of the engineer’s ability” ?

The engineer brings to realization that which he cannot conceive, but which the theorist can. The theorist can also perform the tasks of the engineer, but instead leaves the simpler mathematical chores to those not overqualified for them, leaving the theorist free to continue advancing theory.

Not [u]all[/u] theorists[/u] can put theory into practice.

In reply to “the limit of the engineer’s ability” ?

And, many engineers [u]can[/u] do theoretical work, but find the application of such to be the more challenging and rewarding.

No?

In reply to Not [u]all[/u] theorists[/u] can put theory into practice.

The theory generally subsumes the knowledge employed in the engineering tasks guided by it.

No doubt many engineers understand theory very well, but your joke still depends on acceptance as generally true of something that is not.

TR [u]forced[/u] this to be misplaced; can’t respond to my below post.

In reply to “the limit of the engineer’s ability” ?

To quote you, Absolutely, “it was only a joke,” one not authored by me, but one that certainly got the point across quite well. The author’s assumption, an obviously correct one, was that the listener(s) would quickly and easily understand it.

Although deep, you have not [u]really[/u] “reached your max message level”

In reply to TR [u]forced[/u] this to be misplaced; can’t respond to my below post.

Punch the “View All” hyperlink, and reply as [i]deeply[/i] as you wish!

“The author’s assumption, an obviously correct one, was that the listener(s) would quickly and easily understand it.”

I understand. I do not agree. “Therefore, what?”

I found the View’s bug too late for that post.

In reply to “the limit of the engineer’s ability” ?

And, I’ve better things to do with my time than switch back & forth between views just to compensate for TR’s having screwed up this view.

That’s

In reply to An Engineer and a Mathematician are each placed 100 ft. from a …

Xena’s Paradox

is it not.

7 steps to paradise if you are the bragging type.

No fingers, do it in your head.

No the math!

For most of us, 8 steps.

In reply to That’s

I’d already done the math before posting this.

It’s one of the several paradoxes of Xeno of Elea; specifically, The Dichotomy Paradox.

A valuable description of the unachievable

In reply to For most of us, 8 steps.

Xena, standing still while I’m heading towards her with a thirsty grin.
😀

Xena, most definitely yes.

In reply to For most of us, 8 steps.

Xeno, probably not, if our understanding of [u]him[/u] is correct.

No so

In reply to Perhaps we should then devote some time to critiquing your missive.

I disagree entirely. A programmer lives by his keystrokes. If you can’t type English (or whatever your native tongue is) correctly, how can you achieve any speed in programming?

I recall a story about Henry Royce, the engineer behind the perfection of Rolls-Royce. A machinist once took a part out of his lathe and commented, “There, that’s good enough.” He was fired on the spot. Royce’s comment was that he couldn’t tolerate anyone thinking that they could get away with less than their best.

Speed?

In reply to No so

Do you actually believe that much code is still typed character by character? And, without benefit of an error checking editor?

TR has [b]no[/b] such tools here.

Human speech allows of a great ability for understanding despite wide variations in spelling & punctuation, pronunciation & cadence.

True, Language Matters a lot.

In reply to How about learning proper English grammar and usage?

It would be absurd to project the lack of English grammar mastery to over-indulgence in matters technical.
It is a fact that many IT pros have problems with languages.
I actually find it irritating reading posts with endless grammatical errors.
Actually, polishing the language skills is as important as learning new technical skills.
At the end of the day, communication skills supersede the capability to churn out marvelous code.
I think a course in Communication skills should be a must for CS students.
But away from that, we should not prejudge other people’s English knowledge just because they made typo errors here.
That is insufficient evidence to prove deficiency of grasp.
And still you can ignore some petty lexical errors such as hazy, inconspicuous prepositions misfits.Especially when they originate from some of us whose primary language is not English!
Cheerz!

I agree about the communication skills

In reply to True, Language Matters a lot.

However from the coding side of the job that should be writing readable code, which is mandatory for writing maintainable code.

Neither of these things are taught either.

Couldn’t fit them in the course after the time allocated for calculus.

Mathematical skills a must for any CS Major

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

This discussion is not new.When I was in campus, most of my course mates used to question why we had to do a lot of mathematics units.We did a lot of Maths.Basic mathematics,Linear Algebra, Discrete mathematics, Scientific computing/Numerical analysis,Calculus-to mention but a few.
To this end, I concur that mathematics is to a CS major what language is to a Lawyer.
This is the language for programmers.
Let me qualify this proposition.
One, you can never code except you can reason logically.Discrete mathematics comes in handy.How will you write conditions if you cannot interpret them logically?
Next, every programmer knows that he/she must think.The thinking required for solution of mathematical problems in college prepares you for this.
Think about it….How do you even understand Data Structures without some mathematical skills? The many concepts in Data structures and Algorithms require mathematical-logical intelligence.
You do not need to consult a mathematician when writing a function to compute the compound interest earned by a given principal amount also.
Still, what will differentiate you from Word specialists?
Computer Science is a Science.I do not want to say it is not an art.
No student should ever be admitted to any CS class if he/she is weak in mathematics.
You may never user the Euler’s method or the Jacobi’s method in your entire life as a developer.
But the bare fact that you can understand these is emblematic of programming capability.

The real issue

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

The real issue is not whether there should be a math requirement, but how much and what kind of classes.

I avoided the math department in high school (after the required algebra and geometry) by taking German, French, and Spanish. Russian and Latin where taught the same periods as German, so I couldn’t take them.

Then after getting a History degree, I took COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC, SNOBOL, LISP, PASCAL, and several other languages I have forgotten because it has been a quarter century since using them.

I could substitute “language” for “math” in most of the arguments. How can you understand programming without understanding syntax, nouns, verbs, direct objects, indirect objects, etc.?

When I taught college classes I used to tell the students that the job of a systems analyst is to know everything about everything. Math isn’t the only discipline that computer scientists need to be proficient in to do their job right.

And the Other Skill Programmers Don’t Need

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

My God Dan, did you also decide not to learn how to express yourself correctly in the English language because you write code?

Go work for the Teacher’s Union

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

I didn’t attend formal education after 8th grade, so maybe I really missed something. I wouldn’t hire a programmer that wasn’t trained as a scientist. I don’t remember the exact methods for Schroedenger wave equations, but I remembered learning it – I understand it. I hate accounting – I understand it.

Math? Shouldn’t one be proficient in that BEFORE high school, by graduating HIGH SCHOOL, if you are going into a scientific DISCIPLINE, you better have calculus and the four laws down.

Gee, that second law comes up quick in life.

Deity help whoever you recruit for then

In reply to Go work for the Teacher’s Union

Personally I think it’s a good idea to hire trained programmers for programming jobs.

Most of the scientists I’ve met think they can program, evidence suggests they don’t know crap about it. They are actually worse at it that engineers and business types.

We are talking about the people who take out option explicit from VB or use implicit in Fortran here.

I don’t give a crap how good at calculus you are or which four laws you know, if you don’t know it’s a good idea to declare your variables and give them sensible names.

1st law of Coding is Murphy’s Law.

Here is a tiny sample from someone who probably…

In reply to Deity help whoever you recruit for then

…knows math very well:

f := a[i,i];
g := -sign(sqrt(s),f);
h := f * g – s;
a[i,i] := f – g;

This goes on for pages. This is a piece of Delphi code downloaded from the Web and I can tell you that this kind of code would not go very well through a code review by me.
A programmer should be a good programmer first and good at math second (or third because civilized might be second…or first?).
JS

Actually that’s quite good

In reply to Here is a tiny sample from someone who probably…

I’d have expected it to be all on one line
🙁

Including the worst of it might have given you a heart..

In reply to Actually that’s quite good

attack or made you throw up on your keyboard. I would not want that.
😉
JS

I doubt that would happen

In reply to Including the worst of it might have given you a heart..

As much as I find that sort of thing annoying the worst code / designs I’ve seen have been by computer science ‘professionals’.

How about a look up table keyed by varchars, read them into memory, just the keys !
Loop through a file, read in the lookup key, find it in the memory list, call a function , to query another field out of the look up table using the key value in the list.
Five fields + the key in that table, so that five queries per record in the file, plus the existence check, yes he queried the look up table to see if the key he’d queried out was still in there !

He was consistent though did the same thing on another table 20 + fields in that.

So effectively 30 ish select Field from Table where key = ” per record in a file.

What a muppet !

Math is a Must … and Spelling … and Grammar

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

I agree wholeheartedly that Math is essential for the programmer. I am an application developer for a division of a large company, and I use Math much of the time. There are many calculations that must be carried out in even mundane programs and I am often called on to create reports or views requiring complex calculations. Don’t rely on others to write the formulae for you. Usually they have no idea how to get what they want and, if they do, they often get it wrong. Without Math I would have put out many innacurate business reports.

Also, I am appalled at the pathetic spelling and grammar seen in posts by those who are presumably well educated, for example, “its math” for “it’s math” or “georges columns” for “George’s columns” or “their” for “there”. Programming is an exact science. It is unforgiving in the extreme. Minor typing errors can either cause the program to fail altogether or, even worse, run but produce innacurate information.

Having a good grounding in your native language is invaluable preparation for the precision of computer languages. Sloppiness in writing will be carried over to sloppiness in programming.

That is odd, isn’t it?

In reply to Math is a Must … and Spelling … and Grammar

The keyboarding skills here exhibited by many — not quite all — participants are more consistent with the type of computer user known as “script kiddie” than with the type of computer user known as “IT professional”.

Weird…

I agree

In reply to Math is a Must … and Spelling … and Grammar

polynomials, eigenvalues, asymptotic functions all essential to business reports.

Even basic arithmetic you must keep the axioms of commutation and association firmly in mind.

Natural language is incredibly useful. You can use your extensive vocabulary to come up with lots of meaningful names for the same function.

You can make you code richer and more expressive with alliteration and allegory.

You can lay it out so it matches the iambic pentameter, code as poetry.

Programming is an exact science? X-(

What planet are you from?

I’m surprised at you, Tony! :0

In reply to I agree

Have you not seen the wonders
of writing good code?
How to overcome blunders
of a lost pointer’s node?
There is only one way
for the cat to be skinned!
If you don’t do it proper
you have certainly sinned!
Polynomials rule!
Eigenvalues, supreme!
Oh, the asymptotic functions
of which I have dreamed.
It’s the math that is making
my heart go a-flutter
and the beauty of limits
keeps my mind from the gutter.
If you malloc some time
then you, too, will ‘C’
that the way to Nirvana
and true freedom will be
in your deep understanding
of intercepts and slopes
which will better prepare you
to learn all the ropes.
After all, most the jobs
for programmers this minute
are for physics and science
and space travel, isn’t it?
Visual Basic or Java or even Excel
aren’t for real programmers,
anybody can tell!
The real programmers
are using assembly
and then calculate
with their slide rules, quite nimbly.
So, you see, my friend Tony,
how mistaken you are
there is only one way
(search you near or search far)
to solve any small problem,
big ones then even more-so,
’cause programming’s exacting!
No room for a floor show.
Just because Perl provides
many ways to solutions
there’s no reason to follow
such vague revolutions.
Your mind it too varied,
your thinking too scattered!
There’s only one way to do it
unless you’re mad-hattered!

You missed your calling

In reply to I’m surprised at you, Tony! :0

You should have been a poet.

10 / 10 for effort

In reply to I’m surprised at you, Tony! :0

See you can get your English right when you put a bit of effort in.

😀

?:|

In reply to 10 / 10 for effort

I don’t remember being one of those who receives complaints on my English. Did I miss something?

Clarification – English Lesson

In reply to ?:|

I believe Tony intended to use “you” as an indefinite pronoun, which caused the confusion. I will usually attempt to use “one” instead, so as to avoid confusion where a reader interprets a statement as directed at that reader. Go back and reread Tony’s post replacing “you” with “one” and I believe it will come across as a light-hearted comment rather than a personal attack.

My advice to a speaker or writer, try to use “one” in place of “you”, unless specifically speaking to an individual. My advice to a listener or reader, try to interpret the use of “you” as meaning anyone in general.

Tying back into the main theme, I usually find understanding ambiguities in language to be a far more important skill for a software developer than anything related to mathematics.

But mathematics isn’t ambiguous !

In reply to Clarification – English Lesson

Sorry, couldn’t help it.
😀

Well put by the way.

Sound advice. Unfortunately, there are those who take offense at such!

In reply to Clarification – English Lesson

Some think that such use of “one” is naught but an attempt on the writer’s or speaker’s part to make himself seem more educated than the reader, and thus feel offended.

Sad, but true.

oops

In reply to ?:|

Mistook you for DanLM

Programming Does not Require Diff Eqns or Statistics

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

If all you are going to do is program using Canned Routines, or perform basic Database operations then no advanced matematics is required. I can tell you that most of what I learned in attaining my MAster’s in Chemical Engineering, or Applied MAthematics has never been used. But I also work with image processing, and have needed to use some of that knowledge to develop specialized routines. I have also needed my knowledge of statistics just to write and present decent reports on Sales database information.
My advice to anyone going into software development is learn statistics, matrices, vectors, and how to use them. The rest you can learn along the way. But be aware this type of atitude will limit you in the long run. How many candidates can go into a job interview and spout off about ANOVA, regression, trending, and time series analysis. This kind of info can put you over the next candidate.

Wouldn’t get you a job where I work

In reply to Programming Does not Require Diff Eqns or Statistics

They want you to know transisolation, polymorphism, aggregation, referential integrity, transaction boundaries, coupling, cohesion, reference vs value, joins …..

I’ve used all the math you mentioned and more, never mentioned it in an interview once.
Image processing, signal processing, and high level stats are all niche skills.

They are obviously valuable where you’ve plied your trade, and you would whup my ass interview wise where they were valued.

None of them make you a better programmer though, just a more effective one in that area of the market.

Am I a ‘better’ programmer because I’ve done time in the manufacturing industry?

No math worth mentioning in that, but I helped save over ?100,000 pounds a year by the estimation of the manager who tasked me.
Simply knowing C & learning VMS saved a firm 80k a year in one job, I was there for six years.

You are talking problem domains.

no doubt,no question

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

thats on the spot,actualy in everyday life u need maths,even to park a car u need maths.understand maths n de rest are details.i promise you you will enjoy life.

thanks

Absolutely get Math skills!!!

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

A man who claims to be a programmer without advanced math skills won’t leave his initial interview with a job, unless the job he is applying for is Janitor, dishwasher, or other unskilled positions.

Unless he can demonstrate his math abilities to the interviewer(s), they will politely dismiss him immediately(after all, they will be professionals, unlike such a prospective “programmer), and will all have a huge laugh once he is out of the room.

If all one wants to do is dink around in GWBASIC, he will at the very least need High School math to write any program more complicated than displaying “Hello, World!” on a text display.

Windows/graphics programming REQUIRES Advanced math abilities, as well as advanced programming knowledge, knowledge of the CPU/computer architecture, and at least 2 year of college-level English, as well as the Math necessary for his projects.

Everyone wants to “write programs”, but they forget that modern programming languages are quite a bit more advanced than the BASIC we learned on our Atari’s and Apple’s.

Wanna be a “programmer?”
1) Finish H.S, and concentrate on Math, Science, Business, English, and Programming skills while there.
2) Get a BS in Science in University, with heavy emphasis on Math (Higher Math is better) and Applied Computer Theory
3) Take lots of Business courses, lots of English, and lots Math and Science
4) Finish with a 3.5 GPA or above

Do those, and you will be assured of a bright future as a programmer.

Donald McDaniel

I have.

In reply to Absolutely get Math skills!!!

🙂

Try as I might, I still can’t find a “comma” in his post.

In reply to I have.

I see “Absolutely get …,” rather than “Absolutely, get …”

Though, it could just be my eyesight.

😉

I work with the materials available to me.

In reply to Try as I might, I still can’t find a “comma” in his post.

You’re correct, of course. There was no comma, but it was close enough for corporate work.

:^0

Close enough for non-profit work as well.

In reply to I work with the materials available to me.

I am, of course, assuming that your work here was [i]pro bono[/i].

[u]Everything[/u] is close enough for unpaid work.

In reply to Close enough for non-profit work as well.

No pay = no expectations of quality, as we can plainly see from the recent flood of ‘need help password crack’ posts.

No pay [u]should[/u] = no expectation of quality.

In reply to [u]Everything[/u] is close enough for unpaid work.

In reality, unrealistic expectations abound.

OK, no rational expectation of quality, if you want to be so specific!

In reply to No pay [u]should[/u] = no expectation of quality.

“In reality, unrealistic expectations abound.”

Agreed, and that abundance is directly responsible for the vast majority of the abundance of disappointment. Granted, that there is some bad luck, but the chronic, widespread dissatisfaction of welfare statists for example is the result of collective irrationality, not of bad luck. The application of that observation to the question of mathematics’ importance to programmers is left as an exercise for the readers.

Exercise? You want us to exercise?

In reply to OK, no rational expectation of quality, if you want to be so specific!

What’s the going rate; and, how much are you paying?

No, I don’t WANT you to do anything.

In reply to Exercise? You want us to exercise?

But it’s available to those who want to exercise. It’s no Socratic Method I’ll admit, but perhaps better than nothing.

Glad you cleared that up.

In reply to No, I don’t WANT you to do anything.

Mowing the lawn in this H & H is tiring enough.

There are plenty of commas in his post.

In reply to Try as I might, I still can’t find a “comma” in his post.

There were three in the first sentence alone.

Just borrow one of those.

Need to check with the Shop Stewart on that.

In reply to There are plenty of commas in his post.

Union rules may prohibit their being summarily reassigned.

Learn some English while you’re at it, please.

In reply to I Just Want to Program! Don’t Make Me Learn Math!

Dan,
How ironic is it that you have deemed it important to point out the requirement for math skills, yet you seem incapable of maintaining proper punctuation and spelling throughout your article?

The argument could easily be turned against you, stating that if you are a technical person, what’s the point of learning English? After all – you might only end up writing technical articles that get posted to millions of viewers.

Converting Hex to Decimal might have been a useful skill before the advent of multi-function scientific calculators, but it sure does nothing to improve your grammar.

You will note that English is also a mandatory to get a degree or diploma.
By your own example you’ve made it apparent that you don’t have to have great English skills to be a writer, so it stands to reason that the non-mathematical people out there could easily be more than prepared for technical careers.

Sorry Dan, I’m not trying to flame you. I’m just pointing out the irony behind your posting. I know a lot of techs out there that have no college or university education who are more than capable of figuring out complex formulae *and* writing about them using proper English.

This matter has already been addressed elsewhere in this discussion.

In reply to Learn some English while you’re at it, please.

And, as has been noted, written and spoken communications are much more flexible & forgiving by nature than is mathematics, as evidenced by the fact that you understood Dan’s post.

Furthermore, that one may not commit the requisite time for closely editing a particular post or posts prior to such being here commited to publication is not necessarily a reliable measure of their language skills. Heaven knows that, on more than one occasion, I’ve later viewed one of my own posts and been less than pleased.

Best here to avoid critiquing the writing skills of another, lest you yourself be so judged. If you are certain that you understand the writer’s intent, let that be sufficient; if not, inquire.

Absolutely!!

In reply to This matter has already been addressed elsewhere in this discussion.

You said it in much fewer words than I, bonus points.

Yet another satisfied customer!

In reply to Absolutely!!

The bill’s in the mail; personal checks & cards not accepted.

Going Too Far Off

In reply to Learn some English while you’re at it, please.

Why the attack on Dan?s grammar, punctuation and spelling, is this not pedantic nitpicking?

Have you ever looked over the comments in some German programmer?s code intended for English speaking people? The grammar is usually terrible but you still get the idea and the programs are usually good, now do that with the code or the mathematics, if any, in the program. It is a trifle conceited to suggest that the two carries the same weight in this regard, I would very much prefer, or at least, have more respect for the programmer that writes good clever code and accurate mathematics and the odd grammar or punctuation error in documentation, than a kludge monger (or even a clever one) with mathematical errors and pristine journalistic capabilities,

That said though, a good command of English is important in conveying ideas and opinions, and is useful in impressing potential hirers and feeling good about ones? self, what we must understand is that even repeated misuse of words and bad or missing punctuation in the posts here does not have to mean that such individuals would do the same in a resume or an official report, posts are usually done in a careless hasty fashion compared to formal writing. From the general idea is conveyed, and you understand it why go off in this direction?

A lot of us here are guilty of making English mistakes in our posts, all we have to do is point out a mistake that would throw off the understanding or move on if that is not the case.

You seem to be missing the point, you do not have to go to college to understand mathematics, even advanced mathematics, you could very well train yourself. Dan did not suggest that self taught people cannot learn mathematics and hence, can not increase their possibilities, what he is suggesting is that if you are already in school learning programming then they should be teaching you mathematics as well because so many problems in the field of business requires mathematical solutions, I do not gather from what he wrote that you cannot be a programmer without mathematics. It just depends on the kind of programmer you want to be.

The same applies for other professions, you are taught a subject that is not a core part of your field but is of such usefulness that the subject in question is mandatory, such is English in the U.S., he is suggesting that college courses in programming should have mathematics as mandatory,this is not a bad idea at all.

delete

In reply to Learn some English while you’re at it, please.

chuckle, my reply would have highly offended. No point in offending, it’s the weekend. Cheers.

Dan

What the hell – it’s the weekend; go for it.

In reply to delete

]:)

well………. chuckle

In reply to What the hell – it’s the weekend; go for it.

I was going to tell him to f.o.a.d. And ask him if that example of communicating via the English language was acceptable. That it met the requirement of communicating both my intent and my feelings on the specific subject. And if he understood both my intent and feelings by that choice of words?

Language is first communicating of ones feelings, intent, and ideas. I feel that everyone understood what I was trying to communicate even if it wasn’t grammatically correct. It was quite obvious that everyone understood my argument that mathematical skills should be a requirement in any formal education with regard to Comp Sci was met. My evidence being the number of replies that have occurred. I feel that I met the primary requirement of any communication. The understanding by the recipient(s) of what I was saying.

Chuckle, just as my choice and phrasing of f.o.a.d. communicates my lack of care about what he thinks. Wonder if the primary requirement was met again?

;o)

Dan

Ya know, all things aside. I’m sick of dick weeds like this twit busting my balls. I’ve about had it with posting here because of it. I try to research everything that I post about. I also try to listen to both sides of any discussion that occurs on this site. I feel both of those qualities are missing in a lot of posts that occur here. But, because I do not have firm control of written communication. I am constantly at the mercy of twits like him. Screw it, if I wanted my balls busted constantly I would go back with the x wife.

Well, if it’s change you’re looking for, …

In reply to well………. chuckle

you might try [b]my[/b] ex!

[Author]

Replies