35 ms·
Doesn't surprise me. I spent my youth thinking math was impenetrable, and only when I started programming later in life I realized that mathematicians shouldn't
by kusmi 10y ago
Doesn't surprise me. I spent my youth thinking math was impenetrable, and only when I started programming later in life I realized that mathematicians shouldn't be naming things.
- goldenkey 10y agoMathematics is a lot more rigorous than programming. But considering I'm learning Group and Ring Theory with the 1999 textbook 'Learning Abstract Algebra with Mathematica [Library]' I don't exactly disagree. Working with abstract structures in a more concrete way is a crystal-shattering way to intuit them -- I don't know if it will be an ultimate downfall though yet. As a programmer it just seemed natural to me to be able to manipulate these structures as if they are instances of an abstraction -- of a type. If it peels out for me, I will have a unique perspective among mathematicians. I just see a large sect between those who appreciate the abstractions, and those who bastardize them for utility. I didn't have love and enigmatic affinity for mathematics until I realized that even up to Calc II, the number-crunching utilitarian bastardization of mathematics was conveyed and taught to me -- not the beauty or philosophy of mathematical approach and thinking. Unfortunately, when only results and empirical justifications fill a programmers' mind, the beauty is lost. I feel there is definitely a more mastered perspective by being both a programmer and an inspired mathematician that is lost by being in exclusively one camp or the other. Until education reform is had, this unique perspective will just be for those who incidentally stroll down the path.