Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Like for example consider this equation: -b +(or -) root of b^2 - 4 ac / 2a
Why -b? why not +b? why 4 ac? why not 3 or 2 or perhaps 5 ac? and why 2a? why not 150a?
Obviously someone really smart formed this equation but if i'm not given information as to how someone formed
this equation(so that i can understand why this equation is the way this equation is)it is simply memorizing equations -
which is quite dumb in my opinion.
A similar situation in programming would be - Consider an algorithm that can give you a particular output.We know that
the algorithm works but we don't know what the algorithm is or how it actually works.We are given some unrelated
clues as to what the algorithm is and we are supposed to memorize these clues.But we don't really know what the
algorithm is,we just memorize these clues and we think that we know the algorithm but we really don't.
When i learn a subject i don't like memorizing anything but only like understanding the logic of how stuff works.
In mathematics,i'd memorize numbers and that's as far as i'd go in the memorizing sector,maybe some basic operations too,
but i like figuring out those things all by myself.
If i know all the numbers and all the basic operations then i should be able to do better and more awesome things,i could
do that in programming - i should be able to do it with mathematics too,but i can't and that's why maths sucks.
Furthermore,in mathematics i've encountered more than often situations where the "answer" was right in front of my eyes
but i somehow miss it.Someone will point out that the answer was always right in front of me and it was quite amazing
in the beginning but i grew frustrated quite fast,like that game of shuffled letters and you're
supposed to figure out the word.This experience made me relate mathematics with jigsaw puzzle.I will
have all the pieces to solve the puzzle but i have to figure out where to place the pieces.Whereas i equated
programming with playing chess,where i have to look through all the possible scenarios and what effect a single action
will have on the whole of the system.
I feel like math is based on luck whereas programming is based on a perfectly laid out plan.
(September 2, 2015 at 10:02 am)pool Wrote: Like for example consider this equation: -b +(or -) root of b^2 - 4 ac / 2a
Why -b? why not +b? why 4 ac? why not 3 or 2 or perhaps 5 ac? and why 2a? why not 150a?
Obviously someone really smart formed this equation but if i'm not given information as to how someone formed
this equation(so that i can understand why this equation is the way this equation is)it is simply memorizing equations -
which is quite dumb in my opinion.
A similar situation in programming would be - Consider an algorithm that can give you a particular output.We know that
the algorithm works but we don't know what the algorithm is or how it actually works.We are given some unrelated
clues as to what the algorithm is and we are supposed to memorize these clues.But we don't really know what the
algorithm is,we just memorize these clues and we think that we know the algorithm but we really don't.
When i learn a subject i don't like memorizing anything but only like understanding the logic of how stuff works.
In mathematics,i'd memorize numbers and that's as far as i'd go in the memorizing sector,maybe some basic operations too,
but i like figuring out those things all by myself.
If i know all the numbers and all the basic operations then i should be able to do better and more awesome things,i could
do that in programming - i should be able to do it with mathematics too,but i can't and that's why maths sucks.
Furthermore,in mathematics i've encountered more than often situations where the "answer" was right in front of my eyes
but i somehow miss it.Someone will point out that the answer was always right in front of me and it was quite amazing
in the beginning but i grew frustrated quite fast,like that game of shuffled letters and you're
supposed to figure out the word.This experience made me relate mathematics with jigsaw puzzle.I will
have all the pieces to solve the puzzle but i have to figure out where to place the pieces.Whereas i equated
programming with playing chess,where i have to look through all the possible scenarios and what effect a single action
will have on the whole of the system.
I feel like math is based on luck whereas programming is based on a perfectly laid out plan.
I took a math course in college specifically about proofs and theorems. In high school we were taught to memorize them, but once you get in to upper levels of mathematics, you have to work on proofs and why they are true and why they are what they are. Toughest class I ever took. Homework assignments were easily 10+ pages.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
Hm 3.2 average in high school, then about 2.2gpa for the first 2 years of college, and dean's list after that. Graduated with 3.2 gpa in college in the end because I worked my ass off to kick it back up.
(September 1, 2015 at 11:26 am)Alex K Wrote: Such an underrated profession. When I was with the red cross I often worked with both male and female nurses, often awesomely competent people who were looked down upon by some asshole doctors...
Yeah, and sometimes shit slides downhill. It's not right.
(September 2, 2015 at 10:02 am)pool Wrote: Like for example consider this equation: -b +(or -) root of b^2 - 4 ac / 2a
Why -b? why not +b? why 4 ac? why not 3 or 2 or perhaps 5 ac? and why 2a? why not 150a?
Obviously someone really smart formed this equation but if i'm not given information as to how someone formed
this equation(so that i can understand why this equation is the way this equation is)it is simply memorizing equations -
which is quite dumb in my opinion.
A similar situation in programming would be - Consider an algorithm that can give you a particular output.We know that
the algorithm works but we don't know what the algorithm is or how it actually works.We are given some unrelated
clues as to what the algorithm is and we are supposed to memorize these clues.But we don't really know what the
algorithm is,we just memorize these clues and we think that we know the algorithm but we really don't.
When i learn a subject i don't like memorizing anything but only like understanding the logic of how stuff works.
In mathematics,i'd memorize numbers and that's as far as i'd go in the memorizing sector,maybe some basic operations too,
but i like figuring out those things all by myself.
If i know all the numbers and all the basic operations then i should be able to do better and more awesome things,i could
do that in programming - i should be able to do it with mathematics too,but i can't and that's why maths sucks.
Furthermore,in mathematics i've encountered more than often situations where the "answer" was right in front of my eyes
but i somehow miss it.Someone will point out that the answer was always right in front of me and it was quite amazing
in the beginning but i grew frustrated quite fast,like that game of shuffled letters and you're
supposed to figure out the word.This experience made me relate mathematics with jigsaw puzzle.I will
have all the pieces to solve the puzzle but i have to figure out where to place the pieces.Whereas i equated
programming with playing chess,where i have to look through all the possible scenarios and what effect a single action
will have on the whole of the system.
I remember deriving the quadratic formula in 10th grade. It's really a pretty straightforward algebra II exercise:
Once a student understands how to complete the square, they can then derive the quadratic formula.[1][2] For that reason, the derivation is sometimes left as an exercise for the student, who can thereby experience rediscovery of this important formula.[3][4] The explicit derivation is as follows.
Divide the quadratic equation by a, which is allowed because a is non-zero:
x^2 + \frac{b}{a} x + \frac{c}{a}=0.
Subtract c/a from both sides of the equation, yielding:
x^2 + \frac{b}{a} x= -\frac{c}{a}.
The quadratic equation is now in a form to which the method of completing the square can be applied. Thus, add a constant to both sides of the equation such that the left hand side becomes a complete square:
are solutions of the quadratic equation.[5] There are many alternatives of this derivation with minor differences, mostly concerning the manipulation of a.
Some sources, particularly older ones, use alternative parameterizations of the quadratic equation such as ax2 - 2bx + c = 0[6] or ax2 + 2bx + c = 0,[7] where b has a magnitude one half of the more common one. These result in slightly different forms for the solution, but are otherwise equivalent.
Quote:I feel like math is based on luck whereas programming is based on a perfectly laid out plan.
This seems like a restatement of Clarke's Third Law ("Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic"). What exactly do you mean that math is based on luck? Like, I don't even know how to respond to that. Also, don't programmers constantly tell everyone how their work is one big long series of trial and error?
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Math is anything but luck, and programming is certainly not about a perfectly laid plan. Even with my limited experience in coding, I know enough to know that programming is trail and error, over and over.
Pool, if you like the the application of logic as opposed to cold memorization, you should look into proofs and theroms like lkingpinl said. It's a branch of mathematics that's quite different from everything else.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(September 2, 2015 at 12:58 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Math is anything but luck, and programming is certainly not about a perfectly laid plan. Even with my limited experience in coding, I know enough to know that programming is trail and error, over and over.
Pool, if you like the the application of logic as opposed to cold memorization, you should look into proofs and theroms like lkingpinl said. It's a branch of mathematics that's quite different from everything else.
It was the one class that I truly dreaded in college. I would spend more time on the homework in that class than any other by far. It was sort of fun, because I love a good intellectual challenge, but some of that was ridiculous. I remember on the final, our professor put a bonus question for extra credit and by that time it had already taken me 4 hours, I just wrote down, "You've got to be kidding me". He gave me 5 points for making him laugh.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
September 2, 2015 at 1:45 pm (This post was last modified: September 2, 2015 at 1:50 pm by Alex K.)
(September 2, 2015 at 10:26 am)lkingpinl Wrote:
(September 2, 2015 at 10:02 am)pool Wrote: Like for example consider this equation: -b +(or -) root of b^2 - 4 ac / 2a
Why -b? why not +b? why 4 ac? why not 3 or 2 or perhaps 5 ac? and why 2a? why not 150a?
Obviously someone really smart formed this equation but if i'm not given information as to how someone formed
this equation(so that i can understand why this equation is the way this equation is)it is simply memorizing equations -
which is quite dumb in my opinion.
A similar situation in programming would be - Consider an algorithm that can give you a particular output.We know that
the algorithm works but we don't know what the algorithm is or how it actually works.We are given some unrelated
clues as to what the algorithm is and we are supposed to memorize these clues.But we don't really know what the
algorithm is,we just memorize these clues and we think that we know the algorithm but we really don't.
When i learn a subject i don't like memorizing anything but only like understanding the logic of how stuff works.
In mathematics,i'd memorize numbers and that's as far as i'd go in the memorizing sector,maybe some basic operations too,
but i like figuring out those things all by myself.
If i know all the numbers and all the basic operations then i should be able to do better and more awesome things,i could
do that in programming - i should be able to do it with mathematics too,but i can't and that's why maths sucks.
Furthermore,in mathematics i've encountered more than often situations where the "answer" was right in front of my eyes
but i somehow miss it.Someone will point out that the answer was always right in front of me and it was quite amazing
in the beginning but i grew frustrated quite fast,like that game of shuffled letters and you're
supposed to figure out the word.This experience made me relate mathematics with jigsaw puzzle.I will
have all the pieces to solve the puzzle but i have to figure out where to place the pieces.Whereas i equated
programming with playing chess,where i have to look through all the possible scenarios and what effect a single action
will have on the whole of the system.
I feel like math is based on luck whereas programming is based on a perfectly laid out plan.
I took a math course in college specifically about proofs and theorems. In high school we were taught to memorize them, but once you get in to upper levels of mathematics, you have to work on proofs and why they are true and why they are what they are. Toughest class I ever took. Homework assignments were easily 10+ pages.
I took the same stuff at the beginning of uni. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it was one of the most profoundly transformative experiences of my life. I've never learned completely new modes of thinking over the course of just two semesters the way I did then. And yes, 10+ pages, that often took as many hours to create...
But pool is right, constructing a proof often has much to do with creativity, intuition and a bit of luck. It is an art form, not a set of recipes.
But then, isn't finding algorithms the same?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
![[Image: cute-kitten-3.jpg?w=500&h=308]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=shechive.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F02%2Fcute-kitten-3.jpg%3Fw%3D500%26amp%3Bh%3D308)
![[Image: dc52deee8e6b07186c04ff66a45fd204.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i585.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss295%2Faaliyahqin%2Fcat%2Fdc52deee8e6b07186c04ff66a45fd204.jpg)
This seems like a restatement of Clarke's Third Law ("Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic"). What exactly do you mean that math is based on luck? Like, I don't even know how to respond to that. Also, don't programmers constantly tell everyone how their work is one big long series of trial and error?
