4 ms·
Taking the sarcasm out, your point is that such thing exists. Agreed. But usually it is just a single course, it does not cover everything. And why it is a sepa
by dunkelheit 10y ago
Taking the sarcasm out, your point is that such thing exists. Agreed. But usually it is just a single course, it does not cover everything. And why it is a separate course at all? Why should you study some field with pencil and paper and then (possibly, after a couple of years) study a subset of that field "numerically"?
As an example of what I am talking about, the book "Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics" (a cousin to SICP) tries to teach classical mechanics with the help of computer programs. But this approach remains unconventional.
- davidivadavid 10y agoI should probably not have been sarcastic, especially when I agree completely about the importance of looking at math with a more constructive/computational point of view. Now, I'm not a mathematician or a scientist of any kind, merely a dilettante textbook reader, but I'm not sure that approach is sufficient, or even most efficient to teach all subjects. I think it arises naturally when you approach subjects where it's directly relevant: engineering, complexity theory, type theory, etc. and people who will need those insights will get them in due time. But yeah, broadening the audience could help people get a better appreciation of the connections between pure and applied math.