Programming Interviews

So in my job search I've learned something important - I'm really really really bad at programming tests and interviews. Actually, I'm pretty decent at standard algorithms/data structures-related questions that come up on phone screens, but I'm awful when it comes down to ironing out the details and dealing with edge cases. Just now I horribly failed a take-home test and I feel like total shit right now.

I realize I need more practice, and I've heard from a lot of people that TopCoder's practice rooms are a great way to do it.

Here's the problem:

I find the problems, even the lower-point ones, to be WAY too fucking hard. Is there a similar place with problems that are easier, or at least less math-heavy?

>>35
Different kind of probability here, I'm talking about my confidence in a particular theory given the evidence that I've observed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
Yes. Because these numbers are meaningless and useless. You wont find them in actual programs or other engineering designs.
Really now? Have you actually looked at such designs or programs? A compiled program can be represented/encoded as a concrete number. As for engineering, do you think they don't rely very heavily on applied physics?
Ther no other meaning, besides that simple meaning supplied by the evolution, which looks very deterministic.
You're oversimplifying things and are missing the big picture here, and I'm too lazy to write more longposts describing it.
Equivalence is meaningless, when things are "abstract"
Only because of how you define "abstract" and "meaning". Your definition is different from other people's.
>>37
Do you mean enumerate or define? To define some infinite set is easy. To fully enumerate is impossible by definition. That doesn't mean that there isn't an infinity of natural numbers.