4 ms·

> With math, there are no docs, no playground, no explanations, no nothing. Either you are the part of mathematical community and can hope for explanations and

> With math, there are no docs, no playground, no explanations, no nothing. Either you are the part of mathematical community and can hope for explanations and knowledge transfer, or you are not what's the difference to CS here, where did you get that coding sample you mentioned? The playground is your mind, pebbles or pen and paper, maths are a projection of the real world. Mathematics is not inconsistent. Isn't this the premisses of rigor? Math has mathematical consistency and that's not the same as literal consistency, but maybe that's a problem in semiotics and language. The language and the literature is inconsistent.

atemerev 11y ago
> where did you get that coding sample you mentioned I learned programming by reading books and trying samples from there, then, step by step, beginning to understand how parts play together and why some things are faster than another. I could _feel_ loops and recursion, tinker with them, before trying to understand them theoretically. I can't do that in learning math (yet; Wolfram Alpha is changing it). It's either I understand the exact meaning of symbols, or I don't. There are no intermediary steps. And being rigorous is not the same with being consistent. (There isn't much consistency in programming, either, but this is a minor problem).