3 ms·

I certainly don't think programmers need to learn math. The vast majority of programming requires no math, and there are tons of out of the box theorems and alg

by j2kun 14y ago

I certainly don't think programmers need to learn math. The vast majority of programming requires no math, and there are tons of out of the box theorems and algorithms that can be used successfully by programmers to do wonderful things. I am just pointing out why math can scare programmers away. The first step in overcoming that fear is to identify it. And the fact is that programmers do need to tweak the algorithms they use. Your analogy with a car works perfectly: can you expect someone who only knows how to drive a car be able to convert a sedan into something that can go off road? Then how can you expect someone who only knows how to call a function to alter its contents to suit their particular application? I also think that I haven't set a high bar. The basic four methods of proof is quite a low bar (this could, and should be taught in high school mathematics, and it baffles me why it's not). Learning common syntax will come as you learn.

aangjie 14y ago
> The basic four methods of proof is quite a low bar +1. Am just a programmer, but have always regretted my falling out with math during my college... Have never heard of proof by contrapositive, and looking up, i am still baffled as to significance or point of separating it from proof by contradiction. I look forward to more posts and hope you decide to write about basic methods of proof sometime in the future.
nborwankar 14y ago
It's true you may have set a low bar re: proofs, I just don't think any formal proofs are needed at the first step. Learning about numerical convergence and computer arithmetic so you can understand why your MATLAB Linear Algebra program is not giving a useful result is far more valuable and doesn't need any proofs. It needs a knowledge of how to use theorems and results and what the conditions are for a result to be applicable. But there is no need to do the proof. Especially since many many proof sare quite idiosyncratic and give no help in suggesting how one thinks like that. Using the analogy of the car I am talking about teaching someone who rides a bike to drive a car. My explicit non-goal is being a mechanic of any kind. So your example of modifying your car is a strawman. That's exactly what I assert a student-driver doesn't need and *shouldn't have to do. It is going to be pretty much useless in actually learning how to steer and how to follow traffic rules. One is about proper usage, the other is about understanding internals. Sorry I still disagree and reassert that proofs are no use at all and a huge distraction for programmers trying to learn math. There is so much valuable and useful work a programmer can do even using existing mehods without ever modifying them. Especially with special purpose languages like R and MATLAB - the underlying algorithm are very mature and a first time user is not expected to modify them. Quite separately I think it's extremely valuable to learn/relearn the foundations of math but this is for anyone and not specific to what a programmer needs to do useful things with math. Yes and it should be taught in high school math. It's not taught bec the teachers didn't learn it that way and so it goes ...

by j2kun 14y ago

aangjie 14y ago

> The basic four methods of proof is quite a low bar +1. Am just a programmer, but have always regretted my falling out with math during my college... Have never heard of proof by contrapositive, and looking up, i am still baffled as to significance or point of separating it from proof by contradiction. I look forward to more posts and hope you decide to write about basic methods of proof sometime in the future.

nborwankar 14y ago

It's true you may have set a low bar re: proofs, I just don't think any formal proofs are needed at the first step. Learning about numerical convergence and computer arithmetic so you can understand why your MATLAB Linear Algebra program is not giving a useful result is far more valuable and doesn't need any proofs. It needs a knowledge of how to use theorems and results and what the conditions are for a result to be applicable. But there is no need to do the proof. Especially since many many proof sare quite idiosyncratic and give no help in suggesting how one thinks like that. Using the analogy of the car I am talking about teaching someone who rides a bike to drive a car. My explicit non-goal is being a mechanic of any kind. So your example of modifying your car is a strawman. That's exactly what I assert a student-driver doesn't need and *shouldn't have to do. It is going to be pretty much useless in actually learning how to steer and how to follow traffic rules. One is about proper usage, the other is about understanding internals. Sorry I still disagree and reassert that proofs are no use at all and a huge distraction for programmers trying to learn math. There is so much valuable and useful work a programmer can do even using existing mehods without ever modifying them. Especially with special purpose languages like R and MATLAB - the underlying algorithm are very mature and a first time user is not expected to modify them. Quite separately I think it's extremely valuable to learn/relearn the foundations of math but this is for anyone and not specific to what a programmer needs to do useful things with math. Yes and it should be taught in high school math. It's not taught bec the teachers didn't learn it that way and so it goes ...