3 ms·

I mean, you certainly should learn arithmetic before using a calculator, right? But a calculator is more of a library than a framework, anyway, so your attempt

• chongli 3y ago
  Calculators do a lot more than arithmetic these days. Without knowledge of calculus, most people think of a calculator as a magic “black box” that outputs square roots and cosines.
  • saurik 3y ago
    FWIW, I am willing to believe that I have misunderstood the comment I responded to, and that they are not making a sarcastic proof that people should not have to learn calculus to merely use a tool like a calculator, but that they in fact should do so, and I'd actually be willing to get on board with that? (But, as anti-framework as I am, I think that might be going a bit far.) I frankly still can't tell as that's use of "fallacy" to describe "people picking up frameworks without fundamental understanding" is apparently extremely confusing to me as it isn't in the form of a fallacy--like, is the fallacy that this happens? that this is a problem? is it the thought which leads people to do that? etc.--so I automatically added stuff to the sentence to make it work and maybe I did it wrong.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • hajile 3y ago
    Roots were calculated at least as far back as 1800BC thousands of years before calculus existed. Trig functions were indirectly messed with since around at least 300BC and was definitely discovered by Indians around 600AD. Meanwhile Calculus wasn't published until the 1700s.
    • chongli 3y ago
      Those techniques were precursors of calculus. They're often taught in introductory calculus courses (at the university level). I consider them part of the field of mathematics we now call calculus. Indeed, if you study the history of mathematics you'll find that calculus isn't just something Newton invented out of whole cloth, as he himself was well aware: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
      • hajile 3y ago
        You could argue that algebra was a precursor of calculus and that basic operations were precursors of algebra. This is a rather reductionist argument. They hadn't even invented zero or algebra when they found ways to produce square roots or that you could make interesting ratios from the sides of a triangle (yes, I know about the history of zero and that is a slight exaggeration, but no symbol for zero existed in Mesopotamia when they were calculating inverse proportion roots). My real point is that these thing don't require calculus (though calculus does require them). Most people who take trigonometry (or "precalculus" as they usually call it today) couldn't tell you anything about limits let alone derivatives, integrals, and the fundamental theorem of calculus. As to Newton inventing calculus, he was a vehement antagonist to Leibniz claiming that his work on calculus had been stolen. That's no the attitude of a man who believed calculus was obvious from looking at previous works.
        • chongli 3y ago
          Most people who take trigonometry (or "precalculus" as they usually call it today) couldn't tell you anything about limits let alone derivatives, integrals, and the fundamental theorem of calculus. And to those people, the calculator is a magic “black box” that spits out cosines. My original point stands: if you are using a tool professionally you should understand how it works, at least on a basic level. For a calculator, that means calculus, Taylor series, Newton’s method, etc.
          • hajile 3y ago
• ekianjo 3y ago
  This is a good example. You dont need to learn number theory and operations in n dimensions to be able to effectively use arithmetics in your daily life. A lot of CS courses feel like stuff thats purely theoric for that purpose only.