3 ms·

I just read the outline for volume one, sounds really interesting. Has anyone read V1? What sort of mathematical background is required to understand it? Is it

I just read the outline for volume one, sounds really interesting. Has anyone read V1? What sort of mathematical background is required to understand it? Is it proof heavy and really terse like CLRS?

commandlinefan 8y ago
I've read the first three, and attempted every single exercise (besides the few he marks as "suggested research problems"). It took me four years to finish, and I had a MSCS when I started. The first volume is probably the most math-intensive, but also the easiest, since a lot of the math is review. V1 is split into two parts: a pure math half, and then a programming half. All of the programming examples and exercises are done in a custom assembler that he calls MIX, but you can find emulators online to run your programs. I've read CLRS and Knuth and I definitely enjoyed Knuth a lot more - there's just something about his writing and exposition that makes the books compelling. They dare as well as entice you to understand them. It's not really as proof-heavy as CLRS IMHO, and TAOCP covers different ground that CLRS does; the only real overlap there is that volume 3 covers sorting algorithms.
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  If you like the math in Volume 1, or find yourself having difficulty with it, Concrete Mathematics is a good companion (though also challenging). It goes into greater depth on some of the topics in Chapter 1 of TAOCP and some additional directions. It started as a course aimed at providing the mathematical basis for going into TAOCP.
  - commandlinefan 8y ago
    Yep, that's on my (very long) to-read list.
Koffiepoeder 8y ago
Knuth himself puts it this way: https://i.imgur.com/1czRNCK.png https://i.imgur.com/1czRNCK.png
stan_rogers 8y ago
Literally a good understanding of high school mathematics (or, at least, what was high school mathematics back when I were a wee lad) is all you need. There may be a lot of math, and some of it may be used in ways you haven't encountered before, but none of it is tremendously difficult or impenetrable, and the unfamiliarity mostly boils down to "I didn't know you could do that" rather than "I don't know what's going on here".

I just read the outline for volume one, sounds really interesting. Has anyone read V1? What sort of mathematical background is required to understand it? Is it proof heavy and really terse like CLRS?

commandlinefan 8y ago

I've read the first three, and attempted every single exercise (besides the few he marks as "suggested research problems"). It took me four years to finish, and I had a MSCS when I started. The first volume is probably the most math-intensive, but also the easiest, since a lot of the math is review. V1 is split into two parts: a pure math half, and then a programming half. All of the programming examples and exercises are done in a custom assembler that he calls MIX, but you can find emulators online to run your programs. I've read CLRS and Knuth and I definitely enjoyed Knuth a lot more - there's just something about his writing and exposition that makes the books compelling. They dare as well as entice you to understand them. It's not really as proof-heavy as CLRS IMHO, and TAOCP covers different ground that CLRS does; the only real overlap there is that volume 3 covers sorting algorithms.

Jtsummers 8y ago
If you like the math in Volume 1, or find yourself having difficulty with it, Concrete Mathematics is a good companion (though also challenging). It goes into greater depth on some of the topics in Chapter 1 of TAOCP and some additional directions. It started as a course aimed at providing the mathematical basis for going into TAOCP.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  Yep, that's on my (very long) to-read list.

Koffiepoeder 8y ago

Knuth himself puts it this way: https://i.imgur.com/1czRNCK.png https://i.imgur.com/1czRNCK.png

stan_rogers 8y ago

Literally a good understanding of high school mathematics (or, at least, what was high school mathematics back when I were a wee lad) is all you need. There may be a lot of math, and some of it may be used in ways you haven't encountered before, but none of it is tremendously difficult or impenetrable, and the unfamiliarity mostly boils down to "I didn't know you could do that" rather than "I don't know what's going on here".