3 ms·
> Programming is, literally and unambiguously, "doing math". They are not separable activities. Notably the authors of SICP, no mathematical slouches, would d
by internaut 10y ago
> Programming is, literally and unambiguously, "doing math". They are not separable activities.
Notably the authors of SICP, no mathematical slouches, would disagree with you, in the first few pages they explain the difference between using symbols to mean what from symbols used to mean how.
- ulucs 10y agoEven if I didn't disagree with that statement, won't having only the knowledge of how and no knowledge of what leave you in a bad place when you move on to non-trivial problems?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- internaut 10y agoI wrote a complicated reply, then deleted it. I think it resolves to this: having formal descriptions for what matters a great deal in defining limits and algorithms resolving into calculation. That is important because you could waste your time. We see creatures in nature like Julia Galef's Sphex which follow simple algorithms but because they don't understand their terminal goal they cannot alter a suddenly ineffective algorithm. Clearly understanding limits has the capacity to limit stupidity. However we also know that practically many non-trivial problems are solved before we can put them into a mathematical framework. It applies to Geoffrey Hinton and the neutral network's effectiveness with a small number of layers. According to many mathematicians that should have been implausible and Hinton was toiling in barren fields and yet today we see it works. So the limit existed in their model rather than reality. Physical examples of the same phenomenon include useful atomic power and heavier than air powered flight. Sometimes the theory leads the practice. Other times the practice outstrips the theory. So in answer to your question, I wouldn't have much confidence either way.