Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

CODING

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 12:36

This is what happens when you try to make programming available to the general public

http://deanzchen.com/computer-science-education-and-math

That calculus class made me seriously consider dropping the economics major.

I don’t understand why our comparatively tiny computer science department has such an intimidating course as a major requirement. [b]Calculus[/b] is not useless in computer science; rather, one does not need to excel in calculus to apply computer science knowledge.

It’s interesting how the debate centers around the importance of calculus, since that’s the class I took the first semester of my freshman year that caused me to promise myself to never take a math class again

How many of them [computer scientists] could teach a good course in cloud computing or multi-core systems or software engineering or any of the many other topics that the graduates will find useful when they graduate?
Isn't that what SE and IT degrees are for?

What the fuck do these niggers think of CS? math is useless for a javascript apper XD might be true, but how are you going to read a paper on abstract bullshit if you don't even know how to differentiate functions?

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 12:43

We need to work harder at replacing these people with automation.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 12:44

Programmers literaly cannit.understand what = is

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 13:06

You don't need calculus to do Boolean algebra.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 13:46

Calculus is cool and all but I forgot everything about differential equations already, which is a bit frustrating.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 13:50

>>1
I'm not going to disagree with you, but I think mathematical concepts should be introduced in the second/third year. The first year should serve to excite people. Show them quickly how much can be done with, say, Perl.

Then, after they're hooked, you tell them "yes all this is nice, but you also need to learn maths, so, suck it up".

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 14:32

>>6
In my first semester we have four chairs: Object Oriented Programming I, Fundaments of Discrete Math, Digital Circuits, and Calculus A.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 15:05

Those people are totally confused. Computer science is neither about computers and it is not a science. Computer science is not a programming course or game development course. Computer science is about the theory of computation and information. Mathematics is the most efficient way to teach and describe the theory of information.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 15:47

Why don't they just go to a trade school?

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 16:20

>>9
Because they heard CS is where all the money is at!!11! And they also think they're computer prodigies, because the can perform simple tasks like putting slot A in slot B. Soon the market will be flooded with record amounts of CS graduates, it's a fake gold rush sweeping up idiots.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 16:38

>>8
Mathematics is the most efficient way to teach and describe the theory of information.

Mathematics is the only way* to teach and describe the theory of information as the ``theory of information'' is a mathematical field. You must be one of those non-platonist retards, kill yourself.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 16:42

>>8
Why do you think that computer science is not a science?

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 16:49

>>8
Small correction: computer science is a science. It's a formal science, like mathematics, not a natural science, like chemistry, but it is science nonetheless.

These people want a programming course, not CS. Nothing wrong with that, but they should enroll into what course they want instead of complaining a different course, with different objectives, teaches what it is meant to teach instead of what they want it to.
I blame all the campaigns to lower the salary of programmers. Instead of telling people to go to a trade school they send them into CS courses for some reason.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 16:54

>>13
Stupid fuckin' pseudointellectual atheist.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 17:23

>>14
Stupid fuckin' shotgun cocking cretin.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 17:41

>>13
Mathematics is mathematics, not ``a science''. Fuck off with your muh empiricism and falsification nonsense. That only works with trivial physical things.

Name: KFC 2014-06-04 17:43

>>15
Finger lickin' good.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 17:48

>>16
Fuck off with your ``muh'' meme.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 20:27

>>16
empiricism > natural science
empiricism ¬> formal science
math > formal science

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 20:34

>>6,9,12,14
back to /g/, shitpiles

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 20:34

>>19
Math and philosophy (including CS) are empirically informed, though not pervasively.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 20:47

originating in or based on observation or experience
Exactly what am I observing (other than the observation of me thinking) or what experience am I experience (other than the experience of thinking) when I do math or ``philosophy'' (don't get started about that you fuckin pseudo-intellectuals). Yes in science you observe two bugs fucking and gather data and then go from there etc.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 21:13

>>1

Calculus has infinitesimals, which are really hard to understand, because there is no real world foundation behind them.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 21:15

>>22
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█ ___ █
█ // 7 █
█ (_,_/\ WORSHIP THIS █
█ \ \ YOUR THROBBING GOD █
█ \ \ █
█ _\ \__ █
█ ( \ ) █
█ \___\___/ █
█ █
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 21:15

>>1
[b]Calculus[/b] is not useless in computer science
calculus is useless, because real computers have finite amount of memory.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 21:31

>>25
You have it backwards, that's precisely why calculus is useful at all.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 21:43

>>26
How come? Calculus studies computations requiring infinite amount of memory, so calculus won't help you understanding finite computations.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 21:51

>>27
Sure, but the steps to perform such calculations are finite.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 22:15

>>27,28
No idea about what the fuck you are talking about.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 22:16

>>23
real world foundation
This and the fact you have trouble understating such simple things as infinitesimals shows you have to have a low intelligence and should be euthanized for that.

Name: IHBT 2014-06-04 22:23

>>27
That's the point. Calculus works in case you haven't noticed, yet no infinite stores are required. That's what it's for.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 22:24

>>29

I'm talking about reality.

You should deal with reality, not what you wish reality was. "pi = 3.14" is (a) infinitely faster than the "correct" answer and (b) the difference between the "correct" and the "wrong" answer is meaningless. And this is why I get upset when somebody dismisses performance issues based on "correctness". -- Linus Torvalds

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 22:25

>>31

Talk is cheap. Show me the code. -- Linus Torvalds

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 22:28

>>32
You don't know what reality is and linus is a fucking retard who cant program for shit. plan 9, minix, freebsd, only somewhat good operating systems in current existence for home desktop use

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 22:45

>>29
He (>>27) is talking about limits at infinity, infinitesimals and other infinite kike shit, which presumably take infinite memory if you were to store every single infinitesimal in its own memory address.

The calculations to get those results are performed in a finite amount of operations, though. (>>28, 31)

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 22:47

>>33
http://google.com
htpp://wolframalpha.com
https://www.wolfram.com/language/

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 23:46

>>36

Where is teh C/C++? Where is "for(i = 0.0; i<1.0; i+= INFINITESIMAL)"??? Shalom, Hymie!!!

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 23:47

>>34

It's what I call "mental masturbation", when you engage is some pointless intellectual exercise that has no possible meaning. -- Linus Torvalds

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 23:53

>>37
Very astute, += infinitesimal is indeed not present.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-04 23:55

>>39

By the definition of calculus, there must be a limit, which prescribes existence of "infinitesimals".
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode + RSS -