3 ms·
Good insight, thanks. I find cutting clock cycles quite gratifying. Admittedly there is less math in that than having a bottom-up understanding of what's going
by whacked_new 18y ago
Good insight, thanks.
I find cutting clock cycles quite gratifying. Admittedly there is less math in that than having a bottom-up understanding of what's going on. But you could also reframe it like any other optimization problem, given some number of inputs of a certain type. You can also prove your solution correct. It is a math problem all over.
Is it safe to say that those that despise programming, also despise certain branches of math?
I should add a little story. I once asked one of my friends who is very gifted in math why he prefers CS instead of pure math. His answer was something like: CS is the only field where mathematical truths can be immediately applied to reality (within the machine). It's a good balance between limitless mental masturbation and unpredictability of nature.
- banned_man 18y agoIs it safe to say that those that despise programming, also despise certain branches of math? Yes. At the graduate level, the various branches of math are quite different, especially between pure vs. applied. A logician would probably not enjoy a course that involved a lot of PDEs, for example.
- TriinT 18y agoThat's quite probable. Honestly, I can't understand why purists tend to dislike PDEs. I mean... Terry Tao does PDEs and he's a Fields medalist! Is it because PDEs are usually associated with Physics, and hence, are not "pure enough"?