4 ms·
>many technical types who aren't really mathematicians can do that because they've read enough popular math books. Well, fizzbuzz doesn't exactly require a mas
by algorias 14y ago
>many technical types who aren't really mathematicians can do that because they've read enough popular math books.
Well, fizzbuzz doesn't exactly require a masters degree either. Proving sqrt(2) is irrational requires at least some understanding of how math problems are approached (unless you do it completely from memory, which is also possible with fizzbuzz), so I would say it's the equivalent.
- TillE 14y agoYeah, the point of fizzbuzz is that it's an extremely simple test that demonstrates basic competence, nothing more. I have a CS degree and took a bunch of math courses and did lots of proofs, but now (several years later) I'd struggle to write any of the suggested proofs.
- tianshuo 14y agoI agree that these could provide only a basic filter like Fizzbuzz, I could solve most problems provided here when I was high school.
- brudgers 14y agoI would say that failing to solve fizzbuzz demonstrates incompetence (excepting perhaps people new to the interviewing process). In other words, it weeds out but doesn't indicate competence.
- SatvikBeri 14y agoLiterally any proof is on the level of FizzBuzz. There is a wide gap between the level of competence it takes to prove anything, vs. not understanding how proofs work-once you know any higher-level Math, you know proofs. That's even a slightly higher level of competence than FizzBuzz-anyone can do FizzBuzz if they know even a modicum of programming. You certainly don't have to be a programmer to do FizzBuzz, and you don't have to be a Mathematician to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational.