Math is a useless pseudoscience. A quackery! But programming studies real magic, that you conjure from the memory of your computer. You can fuckin see it with your eyes!
What's that? A retard for whom mathematics is too hard to understand? So he tries to convince himself he doesn't need that to be a programmer? Well ok... it is useless as long as programming is designing a personal homepage in PHP.
It seems clear that Nazi Germany did severely persecute what it defined as “Jewish mathematics”. In his book “History of Mathematics: A Supplement” (Springer 2007) Craig Smorynski said: “… the change of mathematical direction … would reach an extreme in the 1930s with the nazi distinction between good German-Aryan anschauliche (intuitive) mathematics and the awful Jewish tendency toward abstraction and casuistry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Fraenkel
>Fraenkel was a fervent Zionist and as such was a member of Jewish National Council and the Jewish Assembly of Representatives He is known for his contributions to axiomatic set theory, especially his addition to Ernst Zermelo's axioms which resulted in Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms.
Everyone knows that dealing with infinite sets in a too liberal manner eventually leads to contradictions, unless you do it very carefully (and even then, you might still get to get a slap on the back of your head, courtesy of Godel, of course).
Also, nobody said there can only be one interpretation of mathematics. If you feel like working in a modulo n space or whatever the fuck else you feel like so that discrete math doesn't lead to contradictions, go ahead. But once you get to calculus, you're kind of forced to use real numbers and infinitesimals. There's simply no way around defining what \sqrt{2} is.
If you want to just use mathematics to do real life things, I'd say you just use the existing working base. If you want to build Hilbert's program (and slowly become insane in the process of it), well, you'll have to find your own way around Godel. You cannot dismiss "1+1=2" just because of the ethnicity of the person who said it.
>>43
YH, but I like the soothing and sincere tone your post emits.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-02 22:50
>>43 unless you do it very carefully...
Exception that proves the rule. It's like C/C++, where you need to be careful, because of language's bad design.
Idiots who keep arguing whether or not programming "is" or "is not" math need to read this. Call it "scientific commonsense".
There are three kinds of science. Formal science, natural science and social science. Natural sciences (like physics, chemistry, biology, geology and astronomy) and social sciences (like economics, political science, etc.) both rely on the scientific method of gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence to study things -- they rely on an a posteriori knowledge. Formal sciences (like maths, computer science, logic, statistics, systems theory, information theory, control theory, and some aspects of linguistics), on the other hand, rely on a different, a priori method where axioms and inference rules are used to make theorems.
Now let me give you this little brainfuck: To say that computer science "is" math is like saying that chemistry "is" physics. Reality is that mathematics and computer science are two distinct fields of formal science, pretty much like physics and chemistry are two distinct fields of natural science. My analogy is actually accurate. The same way chemistry and physics overlap -- the same way we can say that chemistry exists more or less because of physics -- we can say that computer science and math overlap and that the former has existed because of the latter.
HOWEVER, sadly, that doesn't mean that the two aren't still distinct fields. And it doesn't say that every single thing in computer science requires math in order to be understood deeply. In a sense, computer science and math exist on two different abstraction levels, just like physics and chemistry do. And for that same reason, I cannot deny (and no body can) that people who understand math are better at understanding computer science and meta-linguistics, which all go hand-in-hand in what we call ``intelligence''.
Math is concerned with the ``what is'', whereas programming is concerned about the ``how to''. Contrary to what people think, programming is not unique to computer science. Programming is everywhere in life. But only in computer science will you see programming in such detail.
>>55
That's all fine and dandy, but your post appears to be under the assumption that programming "is" computer science. It's not, you even acknowledge it yourself near the end. All in all, you're confused.
>>56
Actually, I was not under that assumption. I was under the assumption that OP doesn't understand the difference. Ironically, I blurred it in my own post.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-03 10:16
>>55 of gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence to study things
Yep! We do unit testing, because static typing never works and everyone knows that "correctness" is a modern snake oil. We also do prototypes, which empirically measure the problem.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-03 10:22
Programming and Computer Science are two different things.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-03 10:28
>>55 whereas programming is concerned about..
...finite quantities.
Math is concerned with...
...use the infinite to elucidate this world. ... The primary concern of mathematical logic[20] has been to explore the nature of infinity in order to classify and explain its mathematical applications.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-03 10:32
>>55
But only with faith in Jesus will you see programming in such detail. Amen.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-03 15:26
>>55
Good point, but in Computer Science we often do empirical studies to compare two things that, formally, should take the same time, but in practice one takes advantage of locality and cache memory better, thus taking less time. Yes, you can figure this out a priori, but its often easier to just do the experiment.
"Good point, but in Computer Science we often do empirical studies to compare two things that, formally, should take the same time, but in practice one takes advantage of locality and cache memory better, thus taking less time. Yes, you can figure this out a priori, but its often easier to just do the experiment. "
Ahh.... the mind of a person that has been brainwashed by the imperative programming faction.
>>63,65
“
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct
, not tried it.
”
Donald Knuth
Name:
Anonymous2013-11-23 15:08
>─────▄████▀█▄
>───▄█████████████████▄
>─▄█████.▼.▼.▼.▼.▼.▼▼▼▼
>▄███████▄.▲.▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
>███████████████████▀▀
YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT BY THE GATOR OF DOOM! REPOST THIS 5 TIMES OR GET GATORED!!!