4 ms·
You and I read the article very differently. Based on your comment, it sounds like you interpreted the article as implicit advocation for the idea that mathemat
by throwawaymath 7y ago
You and I read the article very differently. Based on your comment, it sounds like you interpreted the article as implicit advocation for the idea that mathematics should be represented in a programmatic (i.e. computable) way.
I didn't pick up any ideology in my reading. My interpretation of the article is that the author wanted to provide tips on how to implement mathematics, for two reasons:
1. People have to implement nontrivial mathematics from time to time, and
2. Most mathematics doesn't concern itself with obstacles to implementation, because it doesn't have to.
- yters 7y agoThat's true, and numerical analysis can be quite helpful for mathematical insight. However, I've never found the math to code part to be tricky. It's mostly an after thought compared to the conceptualization itself. So the emphasis on coding math suggests a reversal of priorities. In my experience, focusing on the coding part becomes very inefficient, especially with combinatorial problems. No matter how tricky I get with the implementation, a combinatorial explosion is still a combinatorial explosion. Coming up with a neat analytic solution ends up being super efficient in comparison.