5 ms·
Modern Mathematics (Pre-Print) Cutting-edge math for today's coder
- p1esk 2y agoOne can argue that today’s coder needs to understand how code-generating LLMs work. Which means learning a bit of linear algebra, calculus, and probability/stats.
- Pamar 2y agoNot sure I agree. "A bit of linear algebra, calculus and probability/stats" would make you better equipped at leveraging LLM? Or do you mean that having "a bit" of those you would be able to implement/train you own custom LLM to write code for you?
- p1esk 2y agoI just meant that if you want to understand the tools you use as a SWE you will need to learn the relevant math to understand LLMs. Not sure if that would help with “leveraging”. Similar to any practical benefits of learning something like lambda calculus.
- Pamar 2y agoI know a few people that are already using LLMs in their own professional fields. I can assure you that none of them needed to learn (or recall) "the relevant math". Just like the majority of MS Word users do not need to know that the paragraphs are internally represented as XML encapsulated in <x:p> tags. You seem to conflate the idea of "building models from scratch" together with "using a model created by others to do meaningful work. We are discussing "tools" here, you do not need to know much about physics or metallurgy or woodworking to use a hammer. And hammer users will outnumber hammer makers by various orders of magnitude. Same applies to LLMs, IMHO.
- jebarker 2y agoI agree that most coders would be well served to learn some linear algebra and probability theory as those are ubiquitous. Calculus and stats are also useful depending on your specialty. LLMs don't really change any of this.
- bee_rider 2y agoI don’t think that’s the case really; if you go in the HPC/scientific computing direction and learn a bunch about linear algebra, how much does it teach you about LLMs? I did some linear algebra stuff… but LLMs just look like oddly shaped GEMVs.
- masters3d 2y agoThere is another book by the same author but it seems out of print https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/faculty_books/459/ https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/faculty_books/459/ Similar title: A brief course in modern math for programmers
- vpatryshev 2y agoThat was the first edition of this book.
- simne 2y agoCongratulations!
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoWhy is the title so generic? It seems the subtitle is the real title…
- fiforpg 2y agoYes, the title is comically non-specific. It is also mildly misleading: the table of contents/abstract mention boolean logic (after John Boole, 1815–1864), set theory (Georg Cantor, 1845–1918), Curry-Howard correspondence (middle 20th century), etc. It does say "This book is not for mathematicians" — or the nit-picking historians of mathematics I imagine... Plus one should not judge a book by its cover or anything written thereon.
- _aavaa_ 2y ago> Plus one should not judge a book by its cover Why not? The cover and that things that go on it are as much a part of the book as any other page. This saying is so outdated and comes from a time when all book covers were essentially the same.
- kqr 2y agoThat makes no sense on either point! > The cover and that things that go on it are as much a part of the book as any other page. Indeed, and a book should not be judged by any single page alone. Not the cover, nor page 39. > This saying is so outdated and comes from a time when all book covers were essentially the same. If all covers were the same, there would be no temptation to judge the book by it, and thus no reason to invent a saying cautioning against it, so I doubt this history.
- vpatryshev 2y agoIt so happened. Also, there was a book, "Mathematiques Nouvelles", by Robert Faure, Arnold Kaufmann, and Maurice Denis-Papin
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]