/prog/ - Programming Interviews

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 18:57

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?

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 10:10

>>40
Evidence = fact.
Circular reasoning? Again?

we all have some initial/a priori beliefs, examples could be:'I exist', 'I am thinking', 'Mathematical induction is a sound principle', 'There is a reality and I'm embedded in it' and so on.
You're thinking about wrong things in a wrong way. Believers call such thoughts "mystical feeling".

If I'm to take the term 'religious' to mean having 'provably unprovable' beliefs
You should stop now and ask yourself question "what is proof?" and then "circular reasoning? again?"

Partially, I just can't find the interest to continue the discussion.
The discussion is pointless from the beginning.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 10:28

Circular reasoning? Again?
I don't see where. There are some a priori beliefs, without them NOTHING CAN BE DONE. No science, no technology, nothing. And if you see something working, you can't make any judgements as to how or why.
You're thinking about wrong things in a wrong way. Believers call such thoughts "mystical feeling".
Haha. If more seriously, 'mystical' is more close to refusing to define things. I'm all for having a few a priori beliefs as long as they match up with observable reality. I'm not absolutely against unfalsifiability though, because any final theories that we'll have will be like that (the limitations of philosophy of science, not that even science itself doesn't require a few such beliefs).
You should stop now and ask yourself question "what is proof?" and then "circular reasoning? again?"
Proof is following rules which we find sound and acceptable and such rules have proven themselves to work. As I said before, some a priori beliefs are required, it's impossible to get anywhere without some. If they're well-chosen (as matching observable facts) and are not self-protecting (such as bad epistemologies of popular religions), you'll likely be fine with them. It's not exactly circular reasoning as one can choose ANY RULES and see what they give you, then pick those that you think match best with observation. You may even go meta and decide on heuristics about how to better pick the rules. I don't consider it 'circular reasoning' as I recognize exactly the starting premises which cannot be falsified (or if they can, have they been?), nor do I have any absolute beliefs (my beliefs are updatable and probabilistic).

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 14:18

>>42

It's not exactly circular reasoning as one can choose ANY RULES and see what they give you, then pick those that you think match best with observation

Okay, after reading this, I've come to the conclusion that you're a fucking moron. I would give you a link to some of my old notes from set theory at UC Berkeley that address what you're confused about, but I don't think you have the mental capacity for such reading.

I don't consider it 'circular reasoning' as I recognize exactly the starting premises which cannot be falsified (or if they can, have they been?), nor do I have any absolute beliefs (my beliefs are updatable and probabilistic).

Now I see why you don't work as a software engineer at place like google or facebook

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:59

>>43
I would give you a link to some of my old notes from set theory at UC Berkeley that address what you're confused about, but I don't think you have the mental capacity for such reading.I'm not confused about anything in that particular disgussion, and my statement wasn't even about set theories at that point, it was about trying to mathematical structures which can be encoded in finite definitions and enumerated. I would like some papers that show how this is done, if you were not a troll (judging from your post record).
Now I see why you don't work as a software engineer at place like google or facebookNice pasta, filtered.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:11

>>44
Go scrub another toilet you mental midget.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:16

>>45
Go scrub another midget you mental toilet.

Name: >>44 2011-09-20 15:30

I'm not confused about anything in that particular discussion, and my statement wasn't even about set theories at that point, it was about mathematical structures which can be encoded in finite definitions and enumerated. I would show you some papers that explain how this is done, if you were not a troll (judging from your post record).Fixed, I should sometime edit my posts before posting, not that I think you read any of them.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 15:39

>>47
You have no clue what you are talking about. On top of that, you come off as a total dumbass.

With that...

mathematical structures which can be encoded in finite definitions and enumerated.

That makes no sense. For example, a set can be described by enumeration. But there are some cases enumeration can't describe the set. In that case...

Never mind, you're a fucking moron.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:28

>>48
If something cannot be described symbolically, we cannot talk about it (or if the description is infinite and has no finitely compressable version).

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 16:37

>>49

If something cannot be described symbolically, we cannot talk about it

That is incorrect you mental midget. I can think of several examples where something can't be described symbolically and yet we can still talk about it.

Now, are you trolling? Or are you just plain stupid? Either way, you're a fucking moron.

In the even that you aren't trolling, I would suggest that you get a math tutor, and then take some math classes up to and including Discrete Math.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:12

>>50
If that wasn't clear, I'll write it in a language you can understand:
If putting something into words is literally impossible, why bother talking about it?

I'm done responding to you, you're boring and you try to compensate for your stupidity by acting smug and trying to insult people.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 17:16

>>51
>If putting something into words is literally impossible, why bother talking about it?

It's called abstraction you fucking uneducated jew.

I'm done responding to you, you're boring and you try to compensate for your stupidity by acting smug and trying to insult people.

I'm not the one making the stupid statements. Go run off and screw another toilet. You have no future as a programmer. And given your limited mentality, I seriously doubt that you have any kind of real future doing tech support for an IT department.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:17

>>51
I would like to thank you for the thankless task of responding elaborately to the elaborate trolls who lurk (not enough, unfortunately) on /prog/. Also, do you have some suggested readings?

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:25

>>53
"The C Programming Language" by K & R.

"Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment" by Stevens and Rago

TCP/IP Illustrated, vol 2 and 3 by Stevens

SICP

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:50

>>53
Also, do you have some suggested readings?
You'll have to be more specific about what you'd want to read about. Standard /prog/ required readings tends to be: SICP, K&R, TAoCP. If you were to ask about some branch of math, some specific programming language (such as the Lisp families or Prolog or ML or ...), physics, philosophy, and so on, then there would be some specific books one could recommended.
Since I cannot give an exhaustive list here, I'll just mention something relevant to the ~~current~~previous troll at hand: lately I've been reading Boolos' books about provability, set theories and computability. They've proven to be quite interesting, although a bit dense, but that's expected of math books.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:53

>>53
1) Why functional programming matters by John Hughes
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/courses/cs345/whyfp.pdf

2) The Typeclassopedia by Brent Yorgey
http://www.haskell.org/wikiupload/8/85/TMR-Issue13.pdf

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:54

3) Goedel Escher Bach and other crazy shit from Hofstadter

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 18:43

>>56
I already knew the first paper, but damn!, the second one is just what I need right now to dive into Haskell again!

Thanks, man! ^{! ^{! ^{! ^{! ^{! ^{you're awesome!}}}}}}

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 20:11

fuck types.

Programming Interviews

1 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-19 18:57

41 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 10:10

42 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 10:28

43 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 14:18

44 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 14:59

45 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:11

46 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 15:16

47 Name: >>44 2011-09-20 15:30

48 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 15:39

49 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 16:28

50 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 16:37

51 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:12

52 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-09-20 17:16

53 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:17

54 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:25

55 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:50

56 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:53

57 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 17:54

58 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 18:43

59 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 20:11