Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163800 > unrolled thread

CS instead of math?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-21 00:57 +0000
    Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:13 -0400
      Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-21 11:39 +0000
    Re: CS instead of math? bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-21 13:23 -0700
      Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 22:36 -0400
        Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:00 +0000
          Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-24 20:27 +0200
          Re: CS instead of math? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-05-25 06:56 +0100
            Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-25 07:42 +0100
              Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 09:39 +0200
                Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-25 09:37 +0100
                  Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-25 13:05 +0000
                  Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:07 -0400
                    Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 13:34 +0200
                    Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 14:02 +0100
                      Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:46 -0400
                      Re: CS instead of math? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-26 19:17 -0500
                        Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-27 06:56 -0400
                Re: CS instead of math? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 07:26 -0500
                  Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 14:40 +0200
                Re: CS instead of math? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-25 16:19 -0300
                  Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-25 16:15 -0400
                  Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 22:29 +0200
                  Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-25 21:19 +0000
                Re: CS instead of math? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-26 16:34 -0400
            Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:04 -0400
              Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 13:28 +0200
                Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 14:06 +0100
                  Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 18:57 +0200
                    Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 18:19 +0100
                    Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 18:35 +0100
                    Re: CS instead of math? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-26 22:05 +0000
                      Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-27 15:33 +0000
                        Re: CS instead of math? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-27 15:40 -0300
              Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-26 14:43 +0000
                Re: CS instead of math? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 11:03 -0500
                  Re: CS instead of math? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-26 16:27 +0000
                    Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 17:52 +0100
                Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 16:22 -0400
              Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:27 +0000
                Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-31 20:06 +0000
                  Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 21:08 -0400
                    Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 07:17 +0100
                      Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 05:31 -0400
                        Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 11:56 +0100
                          Re: CS instead of math? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-01 16:00 +0100
                            Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 17:15 +0100
                              Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 19:28 +0000
                          Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
                            Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:03 -0700
                          Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:05 -0400
                      Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 12:48 -0700
                        Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 17:34 -0400
                          Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 07:50 +0100
                            Re: CS instead of math? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-02 10:37 +0000
                              Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 12:33 +0100
                                Re: CS instead of math? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-02 12:08 +0000
                          Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 08:17 +0000
                            Re: CS instead of math? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-06-02 09:49 +0100
                              Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0100
                                Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
                              Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
                                Re: CS instead of math? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-06-02 14:09 +0100
                                  Re: CS instead of math? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-06-02 14:12 +0100
                                    Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-02 19:44 -0700
                                  Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
                                Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-02 15:02 +0200
                                  Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:44 +0000
                                Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:43 +0000
                              Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:42 +0000
                            Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
                              Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 22:18 +0000
                    Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
                      Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 22:03 +0200
                  Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 12:47 -0700
                Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 20:58 -0400
                  Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 07:29 +0100
                    Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 11:59 +0200
                      Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 06:48 -0400
                        Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 12:41 +0100
                          Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:04 -0400
                            Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 07:59 +0100
                              Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 08:18 +0000
                              Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 19:53 -0400
                      Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 12:15 +0100
                      Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
                Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
      Re: CS instead of math? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 11:27 +0100
        Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 07:21 -0400
          Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-22 13:15 +0000
            Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 09:53 -0400
          Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-25 07:18 +0000
            Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 09:42 +0200
              Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
                Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-25 16:15 -0400
                  Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 22:31 +0200
                    Re: CS instead of math? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-26 11:23 +0100
                    Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 11:37 +0100
                Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-26 17:56 +0000
              Re: CS instead of math? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-26 16:36 -0400
                Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:51 -0400
            Re: CS instead of math? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-25 07:43 -0500
              Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-26 17:55 +0000
            Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:14 -0400
              Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-27 17:40 +0000
                Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 18:46 -0400
                  Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:28 +0000
                    Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 16:09 -0400
                    Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 21:07 -0400
                      Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 08:58 +0100
                        Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 05:48 -0400
                          Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 12:06 +0200
                            Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 06:46 -0400
                            Re: CS instead of math? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-06-03 16:05 -0400
                              Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 20:49 -0400
                                Re: CS instead of math? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-06-04 22:29 -0400
                          Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 12:27 +0100
                            Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:07 -0400
                              Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 08:12 +0100
                                Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 19:56 -0400
                                  Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-03 09:17 +0100
                          Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:20 -0700
                            Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:10 -0400
                          Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
                            Re: CS instead of math? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-02 13:57 -0500
                              Re: CS instead of math? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-06-02 17:43 -0300
                            Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:08 -0400
                      Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
                        Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:05 -0400
                          Re: CS instead of math? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 10:38 +0000
                            Re: CS instead of math? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 11:41 +0100
                            Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
                          Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 05:49 +0000
                            Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 19:58 -0400
                              Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:35 +0000
                        Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-02 19:47 -0700

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

#164287

In article <20160601124147.ab49801ea98da5e53414d911@eircom.net>, 
steveo@eircom.net says...
> 
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 06:48:59 -0400
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > You think that's bad, try insurance.
> 
> 	I thought the renewal quote algorithm was trivial, add a random
> amount between $MIN_INCREASE and $MAX_INCREASE.

Hardly.  You have to satisfy insurance commissions (in multiple states), 
accounting practices, actuarial standards, and the board of directors, 
_and_ you have to have a competitive product.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164295

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:04:41 -0400
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <20160601124147.ab49801ea98da5e53414d911@eircom.net>, 
> steveo@eircom.net says...
> > 
> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 06:48:59 -0400
> > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > You think that's bad, try insurance.
> > 
> > 	I thought the renewal quote algorithm was trivial, add a random
> > amount between $MIN_INCREASE and $MAX_INCREASE.
> 
> Hardly.  You have to satisfy insurance commissions (in multiple states), 
> accounting practices, actuarial standards, and the board of directors, 
> _and_ you have to have a competitive product.

	Yet when you get a renewal quote in the post it is always a chunk
higher than the previous year and you can always get a better competing
quote elsewhere, phone back the original company telling them you won't be
renewing because you have a better quote and usually get an offer from them
that matches or beats the one you told them about. Broker or direct IME it
makes no difference to this annual dance.

	Much time and effort could be saved if they would only quote their
real price and stick to it.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164300

On 2016-06-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:04:41 -0400
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <20160601124147.ab49801ea98da5e53414d911@eircom.net>, 
>> steveo@eircom.net says...
>> > 
>> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 06:48:59 -0400
>> > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > You think that's bad, try insurance.
>> > 
>> > 	I thought the renewal quote algorithm was trivial, add a random
>> > amount between $MIN_INCREASE and $MAX_INCREASE.
>> 
>> Hardly.  You have to satisfy insurance commissions (in multiple states), 
>> accounting practices, actuarial standards, and the board of directors, 
>> _and_ you have to have a competitive product.
>
> 	Yet when you get a renewal quote in the post it is always a chunk
> higher than the previous year and you can always get a better competing
> quote elsewhere, phone back the original company telling them you won't be
> renewing because you have a better quote and usually get an offer from them
> that matches or beats the one you told them about. Broker or direct IME it
> makes no difference to this annual dance.
>
> 	Much time and effort could be saved

And much profit lost.

> if they would only quote their
> real price and stick to it.
>


-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 7th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164368

In article <20160602075952.3e4f98c5166bb76f23ebdb7b@eircom.net>, 
steveo@eircom.net says...
> 
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:04:41 -0400
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <20160601124147.ab49801ea98da5e53414d911@eircom.net>, 
> > steveo@eircom.net says...
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 06:48:59 -0400
> > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > You think that's bad, try insurance.
> > > 
> > > 	I thought the renewal quote algorithm was trivial, add a random
> > > amount between $MIN_INCREASE and $MAX_INCREASE.
> > 
> > Hardly.  You have to satisfy insurance commissions (in multiple states), 
> > accounting practices, actuarial standards, and the board of directors, 
> > _and_ you have to have a competitive product.
> 
> 	Yet when you get a renewal quote in the post it is always a chunk
> higher than the previous year and you can always get a better competing
> quote elsewhere, phone back the original company telling them you won't be
> renewing because you have a better quote and usually get an offer from them
> that matches or beats the one you told them about. Broker or direct IME it
> makes no difference to this annual dance.
> 
> 	Much time and effort could be saved if they would only quote their
> real price and stick to it.

Probably.  I'm  not involved with the kind of insurance where there are 
renewals, at least not much--that's a tiny part of our business.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164233

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:59:36 +0200
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:

> In article <20160601072943.f8e8d7cf1380df1066575b48@eircom.net>,
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot  <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 31 May 2016 20:58:07 -0400
> >"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Formal verification" depends on a verifiable specification.  You want 
> >> to tell me how to get a verifiable specification out of the Powers
> >> That Be, go right ahead.
> >
> >	Specification quality varies with application, most business
> >application specifications are certainly not verifiable, consistent is
> >all too often too much to ask for and complete is never going to happen.
> >Things get better as you get closer to accountants (the specifications
> >may seem insane but they are generally pretty complete and internally
> >consistent), and I would like to hope they get much better for things
> >like embedded controllers in dangerous machinery (cars, planes, factory
> >floor gear ...).
> >
> >	It would be nice to think that at least some of the last category
> >have verifiable software specifications, they are after all key
> >components in what should be very well engineered systems.
> 
> The controllers that are certified to be immediatly connected to
> dangerous machinery often have chainable inputs, so they can take
> commands from a non-certified controller; and just validate that it
> does not do anything fatal.

	Nice - and do yu know if the certified controllers have verifiable
specifications for the software and software formally verified to implement
them ? This is about the only niche where this seems to me to be feasible.

> Been doing a lot of work on such uncertified controllers. And even
> if there is a certified one in the chain I still stand back when
> I run a new program on a welder/cutter/bender or even on a 
> knitting machine/robot.

	I would too, it takes more faith than I have in any controller to
put my irreplacable bits in reach of dangerous machinery unless I have to.

> And then there is payroll. Which consists of a few thousand edge
> cases, and no logic.

	Yep, but all those edge cases are documented and if you find one
that isn't or you find a conflict in the documentation someone will give you
a ruling on what to do with it *and* put it in the spec. The logic or lack
thereof is their problem - you have a precise (if hideous) spec to code to.

	Payroll in prolog is an interesting possibility, code all the rules
as prolog clauses and evaluate which ones apply to each employee record
spitting out an exception report for conflicts or falling throught the gaps.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164264

On 2016-06-01, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:

> And then there is payroll. Which consists of a few thousand edge
> cases, and no logic.

Amen, brother.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164239

Questor wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2016 07:04:54 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>In article <dqkt3mFqjklU2@mid.individual.net>, bob.martin@excite.com
>>says...
>>> in 665169 20160524 190052 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> >On 2016-05-22, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> And anybody who has had to debug someone else's code knows that there's
>>> >> also a strong dose of detective skills.
>>> >
>>> >That's not CS, that's the real world.  Different universes.
>>>
>>> See how a plumber or carpenter gets on debugging code!
>>
>>And part of the problem with "CS" in academia is that they seem to think
>>that it doesn't have anything to do with "the real world".  Hence the
>>sort who think that we should "prove code correct" by some kind of
>>mathematical analysis instead of by testing.
>
> Testing cannot definitively prove that code is correct.

<snip>

And then there are the cases where the code has to be
consistent; this is not necessarily correct.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163816

"bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:0c7d2fa2-021e-4ae1-b6d6-bc352dfa2a76@googlegroups.com...
> On Saturday, 21 May 2016 01:55:28 UTC+1, Questor  wrote:
>> Should high school CS coursework be permitted as a substitute
>> for mathematics in college entrance requirements?  Discuss.
>
> People who know something about CS, but not very much, usually
> think that CS is predominantly mathematical.  People who know
> rather more are aware that CS skills are much more akin to
> language skills (especially classical) than to math skills.

Perhaps logical skills expressed in the quasi-languages used to
program computers?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163819

In article <nhs1ca$cav$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid 
says...
> 
> "bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
> news:0c7d2fa2-021e-4ae1-b6d6-bc352dfa2a76@googlegroups.com...
> > On Saturday, 21 May 2016 01:55:28 UTC+1, Questor  wrote:
> >> Should high school CS coursework be permitted as a substitute
> >> for mathematics in college entrance requirements?  Discuss.
> >
> > People who know something about CS, but not very much, usually
> > think that CS is predominantly mathematical.  People who know
> > rather more are aware that CS skills are much more akin to
> > language skills (especially classical) than to math skills.
> 
> Perhaps logical skills expressed in the quasi-languages used to
> program computers?

The thing is, university math is all about proving theorems, not about 
solving problems.  It's not aimed at anything practical--there's a 
separate area, "applied math" that is often taught by physics and 
engineering departments as a reaction to the refusal of mathematics 
departments to teach problem-solving skills.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163823

J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <nhs1ca$cav$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
> says...
>>
>> "bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:0c7d2fa2-021e-4ae1-b6d6-bc352dfa2a76@googlegroups.com...
>> > On Saturday, 21 May 2016 01:55:28 UTC+1, Questor  wrote:
>> >> Should high school CS coursework be permitted as a substitute
>> >> for mathematics in college entrance requirements?  Discuss.
>> >
>> > People who know something about CS, but not very much, usually
>> > think that CS is predominantly mathematical.  People who know
>> > rather more are aware that CS skills are much more akin to
>> > language skills (especially classical) than to math skills.
>>
>> Perhaps logical skills expressed in the quasi-languages used to
>> program computers?
>
> The thing is, university math is all about proving theorems, not about
> solving problems.  It's not aimed at anything practical--there's a
> separate area, "applied math" that is often taught by physics and
> engineering departments as a reaction to the refusal of mathematics
> departments to teach problem-solving skills.

That depends on which calculus text is used.  Thomas is heavy with
theory; the best applied calculus book I've used is by Munum &
Foulis.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163828

In article <PM0005336E15C0A6D8@aca446d8.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com 
says...
> 
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <nhs1ca$cav$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
> > says...
> >>
> >> "bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:0c7d2fa2-021e-4ae1-b6d6-bc352dfa2a76@googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Saturday, 21 May 2016 01:55:28 UTC+1, Questor  wrote:
> >> >> Should high school CS coursework be permitted as a substitute
> >> >> for mathematics in college entrance requirements?  Discuss.
> >> >
> >> > People who know something about CS, but not very much, usually
> >> > think that CS is predominantly mathematical.  People who know
> >> > rather more are aware that CS skills are much more akin to
> >> > language skills (especially classical) than to math skills.
> >>
> >> Perhaps logical skills expressed in the quasi-languages used to
> >> program computers?
> >
> > The thing is, university math is all about proving theorems, not about
> > solving problems.  It's not aimed at anything practical--there's a
> > separate area, "applied math" that is often taught by physics and
> > engineering departments as a reaction to the refusal of mathematics
> > departments to teach problem-solving skills.
> 
> That depends on which calculus text is used.  Thomas is heavy with
> theory; the best applied calculus book I've used is by Munum &
> Foulis.

Munem and Foulis appears to have been been out of print for decades.  
Thomas on the other hand seems to be thriving.  Math departments simply 
do not want to teach applied math.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163955

On Sun, 22 May 2016 07:21:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <nhs1ca$cav$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid 
>says...
>> 
>> "bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
>> news:0c7d2fa2-021e-4ae1-b6d6-bc352dfa2a76@googlegroups.com...
>> > On Saturday, 21 May 2016 01:55:28 UTC+1, Questor  wrote:
>> >> Should high school CS coursework be permitted as a substitute
>> >> for mathematics in college entrance requirements?  Discuss.
>> >
>> > People who know something about CS, but not very much, usually
>> > think that CS is predominantly mathematical.  People who know
>> > rather more are aware that CS skills are much more akin to
>> > language skills (especially classical) than to math skills.
>> 
>> Perhaps logical skills expressed in the quasi-languages used to
>> program computers?
>
>The thing is, university math is all about proving theorems, not about 
>solving problems.  It's not aimed at anything practical--there's a 
>separate area, "applied math" that is often taught by physics and 
>engineering departments as a reaction to the refusal of mathematics 
>departments to teach problem-solving skills.

Utter bilge, and wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start.

Yes, there is "applied" and "pure" math.  But it's wrong to say that pure math
is all about proving theorems, or that it isn't about solving problems,  More
accurately, the problems of concern in pure math are of a different class
those in applied math.

I was a pure math major, and I had to leave my field of study in large part
because classes such as topology and advanced number theory at my college were
cancelled due to insufficient enrollment.  That school no longer offers a degree
in mathematics.  Courses in basic calculus, differential equations, statistics,
and linear algebra are still offered, and as they are in most other colleges,
they are taught by the mathematics department.

Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical history.
Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number theorists
for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography.
The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were developed
before any practical applications were discovered.  It is a bit broad to say
that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has
happened repeatedly throughout history.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163957

In article <57455187.10218673@nntp2.rawbw.com>,
Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 May 2016 07:21:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>In article <nhs1ca$cav$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid 
>>says...
>>> 
>>> "bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:0c7d2fa2-021e-4ae1-b6d6-bc352dfa2a76@googlegroups.com...
>>> > On Saturday, 21 May 2016 01:55:28 UTC+1, Questor  wrote:
>>> >> Should high school CS coursework be permitted as a substitute
>>> >> for mathematics in college entrance requirements?  Discuss.
>>> >
>>> > People who know something about CS, but not very much, usually
>>> > think that CS is predominantly mathematical.  People who know
>>> > rather more are aware that CS skills are much more akin to
>>> > language skills (especially classical) than to math skills.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps logical skills expressed in the quasi-languages used to
>>> program computers?
>>
>>The thing is, university math is all about proving theorems, not about 
>>solving problems.  It's not aimed at anything practical--there's a 
>>separate area, "applied math" that is often taught by physics and 
>>engineering departments as a reaction to the refusal of mathematics 
>>departments to teach problem-solving skills.
>
>Utter bilge, and wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start.
>
>Yes, there is "applied" and "pure" math.  But it's wrong to say that pure math
>is all about proving theorems, or that it isn't about solving problems,  More
>accurately, the problems of concern in pure math are of a different class
>those in applied math.
>
>I was a pure math major, and I had to leave my field of study in large part
>because classes such as topology and advanced number theory at my college were
>cancelled due to insufficient enrollment.  That school no longer offers a degree
>in mathematics.  Courses in basic calculus, differential equations, statistics,
>and linear algebra are still offered, and as they are in most other colleges,
>they are taught by the mathematics department.
>
>Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical history.
>Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number theorists
>for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography.
>The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were developed
>before any practical applications were discovered.  It is a bit broad to say
>that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has
>happened repeatedly throughout history.

Mathematics (the pure theory part) has also had an uncanny ability to
have the solutions ready just in time for the practical need for it. 
E.g. Riemann and the relativity theory of gravity. 

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163966

Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <57455187.10218673@nntp2.rawbw.com>,
> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>On Sun, 22 May 2016 07:21:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>In article <nhs1ca$cav$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>> "bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0c7d2fa2-021e-4ae1-b6d6-bc352dfa2a76@googlegroups.com...
>>>> > On Saturday, 21 May 2016 01:55:28 UTC+1, Questor  wrote:
>>>> >> Should high school CS coursework be permitted as a substitute
>>>> >> for mathematics in college entrance requirements?  Discuss.
>>>> >
>>>> > People who know something about CS, but not very much, usually
>>>> > think that CS is predominantly mathematical.  People who know
>>>> > rather more are aware that CS skills are much more akin to
>>>> > language skills (especially classical) than to math skills.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps logical skills expressed in the quasi-languages used to
>>>> program computers?
>>>
>>>The thing is, university math is all about proving theorems, not about
>>>solving problems.  It's not aimed at anything practical--there's a
>>>separate area, "applied math" that is often taught by physics and
>>>engineering departments as a reaction to the refusal of mathematics
>>>departments to teach problem-solving skills.
>>
>>Utter bilge, and wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start.
>>
>>Yes, there is "applied" and "pure" math.  But it's wrong to say that pure
math
>>is all about proving theorems, or that it isn't about solving problems,
More
>>accurately, the problems of concern in pure math are of a different class
>>those in applied math.
>>
>>I was a pure math major, and I had to leave my field of study in large part
>>because classes such as topology and advanced number theory at my college
were
>>cancelled due to insufficient enrollment.  That school no longer offers a
degree
>>in mathematics.  Courses in basic calculus, differential equations,
statistics,
>>and linear algebra are still offered, and as they are in most other
colleges,
>>they are taught by the mathematics department.
>>
>>Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical
history.
>>Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number
theorists
>>for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography.
>>The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were developed
>>before any practical applications were discovered.  It is a bit broad to say
>>that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has
>>happened repeatedly throughout history.
>
> Mathematics (the pure theory part) has also had an uncanny ability to
> have the solutions ready just in time for the practical need for it.
> E.g. Riemann and the relativity theory of gravity.

Yup.  It's so uncanny that there must be a basis for the math
and physics types working together.  Calulus and integration
also showed up JIT.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163981

jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <57455187.10218673@nntp2.rawbw.com>,
>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 May 2016 07:21:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In article <nhs1ca$cav$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
>>>> says...
>>>>> 
>>>>> "bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:0c7d2fa2-021e-4ae1-b6d6-bc352dfa2a76@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Saturday, 21 May 2016 01:55:28 UTC+1, Questor  wrote:
>>>>>>> Should high school CS coursework be permitted as a substitute
>>>>>>> for mathematics in college entrance requirements?  Discuss.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> People who know something about CS, but not very much, usually
>>>>>> think that CS is predominantly mathematical.  People who know
>>>>>> rather more are aware that CS skills are much more akin to
>>>>>> language skills (especially classical) than to math skills.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps logical skills expressed in the quasi-languages used to
>>>>> program computers?
>>>> 
>>>> The thing is, university math is all about proving theorems, not about
>>>> solving problems.  It's not aimed at anything practical--there's a
>>>> separate area, "applied math" that is often taught by physics and
>>>> engineering departments as a reaction to the refusal of mathematics
>>>> departments to teach problem-solving skills.
>>> 
>>> Utter bilge, and wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start.
>>> 
>>> Yes, there is "applied" and "pure" math.  But it's wrong to say that pure
> math
>>> is all about proving theorems, or that it isn't about solving problems,
> More
>>> accurately, the problems of concern in pure math are of a different class
>>> those in applied math.
>>> 
>>> I was a pure math major, and I had to leave my field of study in large part
>>> because classes such as topology and advanced number theory at my college
> were
>>> cancelled due to insufficient enrollment.  That school no longer offers a
> degree
>>> in mathematics.  Courses in basic calculus, differential equations,
> statistics,
>>> and linear algebra are still offered, and as they are in most other
> colleges,
>>> they are taught by the mathematics department.
>>> 
>>> Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical
> history.
>>> Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number
> theorists
>>> for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography.
>>> The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were developed
>>> before any practical applications were discovered.  It is a bit broad to say
>>> that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has
>>> happened repeatedly throughout history.
>> 
>> Mathematics (the pure theory part) has also had an uncanny ability to
>> have the solutions ready just in time for the practical need for it.
>> E.g. Riemann and the relativity theory of gravity.
> 
> Yup.  It's so uncanny that there must be a basis for the math
> and physics types working together.  Calulus and integration
> also showed up JIT.
> 

OTOH you could look at it as advances in mathematics enabling the advances
in science.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163983

In article <906926279.485899935.389735.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Morten Reistad wrote:
>>> In article <57455187.10218673@nntp2.rawbw.com>,
>>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 May 2016 07:21:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <nhs1ca$cav$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
>>>>> says...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:0c7d2fa2-021e-4ae1-b6d6-bc352dfa2a76@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> On Saturday, 21 May 2016 01:55:28 UTC+1, Questor  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Should high school CS coursework be permitted as a substitute
>>>>>>>> for mathematics in college entrance requirements?  Discuss.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> People who know something about CS, but not very much, usually
>>>>>>> think that CS is predominantly mathematical.  People who know
>>>>>>> rather more are aware that CS skills are much more akin to
>>>>>>> language skills (especially classical) than to math skills.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Perhaps logical skills expressed in the quasi-languages used to
>>>>>> program computers?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The thing is, university math is all about proving theorems, not about
>>>>> solving problems.  It's not aimed at anything practical--there's a
>>>>> separate area, "applied math" that is often taught by physics and
>>>>> engineering departments as a reaction to the refusal of mathematics
>>>>> departments to teach problem-solving skills.
>>>> 
>>>> Utter bilge, and wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, there is "applied" and "pure" math.  But it's wrong to say that pure
>> math
>>>> is all about proving theorems, or that it isn't about solving problems,
>> More
>>>> accurately, the problems of concern in pure math are of a different class
>>>> those in applied math.
>>>> 
>>>> I was a pure math major, and I had to leave my field of study in large part
>>>> because classes such as topology and advanced number theory at my college
>> were
>>>> cancelled due to insufficient enrollment.  That school no longer offers a
>> degree
>>>> in mathematics.  Courses in basic calculus, differential equations,
>> statistics,
>>>> and linear algebra are still offered, and as they are in most other
>> colleges,
>>>> they are taught by the mathematics department.
>>>> 
>>>> Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical
>> history.
>>>> Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number
>> theorists
>>>> for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography.
>>>> The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were developed
>>>> before any practical applications were discovered.  It is a bit broad to say
>>>> that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has
>>>> happened repeatedly throughout history.
>>> 
>>> Mathematics (the pure theory part) has also had an uncanny ability to
>>> have the solutions ready just in time for the practical need for it.
>>> E.g. Riemann and the relativity theory of gravity.
>> 
>> Yup.  It's so uncanny that there must be a basis for the math
>> and physics types working together.  Calulus and integration
>> also showed up JIT.
>> 
>
>OTOH you could look at it as advances in mathematics enabling the advances
>in science.

Yes, but the mathematics has had a knack for being JIT with the advances, 
just a decade or so before the science needs it.

It is the case in econimics too. Quadratic programming, monte-carlo simulation
etc. has been invented just as we needed them.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163999

On 25/05/2016 21:31, Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <906926279.485899935.389735.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> In article <57455187.10218673@nntp2.rawbw.com>,
>>>> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 22 May 2016 07:21:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <nhs1ca$cav$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:0c7d2fa2-021e-4ae1-b6d6-bc352dfa2a76@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 21 May 2016 01:55:28 UTC+1, Questor  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Should high school CS coursework be permitted as a substitute
>>>>>>>>> for mathematics in college entrance requirements?  Discuss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People who know something about CS, but not very much, usually
>>>>>>>> think that CS is predominantly mathematical.  People who know
>>>>>>>> rather more are aware that CS skills are much more akin to
>>>>>>>> language skills (especially classical) than to math skills.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps logical skills expressed in the quasi-languages used to
>>>>>>> program computers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thing is, university math is all about proving theorems, not about
>>>>>> solving problems.  It's not aimed at anything practical--there's a
>>>>>> separate area, "applied math" that is often taught by physics and
>>>>>> engineering departments as a reaction to the refusal of mathematics
>>>>>> departments to teach problem-solving skills.
>>>>>
>>>>> Utter bilge, and wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there is "applied" and "pure" math.  But it's wrong to say that pure
>>> math
>>>>> is all about proving theorems, or that it isn't about solving problems,
>>> More
>>>>> accurately, the problems of concern in pure math are of a different class
>>>>> those in applied math.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was a pure math major, and I had to leave my field of study in large part
>>>>> because classes such as topology and advanced number theory at my college
>>> were
>>>>> cancelled due to insufficient enrollment.  That school no longer offers a
>>> degree
>>>>> in mathematics.  Courses in basic calculus, differential equations,
>>> statistics,
>>>>> and linear algebra are still offered, and as they are in most other
>>> colleges,
>>>>> they are taught by the mathematics department.
>>>>>
>>>>> Disdain for pure math only demonstrates an ignorance of mathematical
>>> history.
>>>>> Prime numbers, factoring, and divisability were all studied by number
>>> theorists
>>>>> for hundreds of years before their modern-day application to cryptography.
>>>>> The mathematics of complex numbers, matrices, and quaternons were developed
>>>>> before any practical applications were discovered.  It is a bit broad to say
>>>>> that the pure math of today is the applied math of tomorrow, but that has
>>>>> happened repeatedly throughout history.
>>>>
>>>> Mathematics (the pure theory part) has also had an uncanny ability to
>>>> have the solutions ready just in time for the practical need for it.
>>>> E.g. Riemann and the relativity theory of gravity.
>>>
>>> Yup.  It's so uncanny that there must be a basis for the math
>>> and physics types working together.  Calulus and integration
>>> also showed up JIT.
>>>
>>
>> OTOH you could look at it as advances in mathematics enabling the advances
>> in science.
>
> Yes, but the mathematics has had a knack for being JIT with the advances,
> just a decade or so before the science needs it.
>
> It is the case in econimics too. Quadratic programming, monte-carlo simulation
> etc. has been invented just as we needed them.
>
> -- mrr
>
If we did not have the mathematics the firms would have had to use trial 
and error. Some inventions may never of happened.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164002

On Wed, 25 May 2016 22:31:32 +0200
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <906926279.485899935.389735.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >OTOH you could look at it as advances in mathematics enabling the
> >advances in science.
> 
> Yes, but the mathematics has had a knack for being JIT with the advances, 
> just a decade or so before the science needs it.
> It is the case in econimics too. Quadratic programming, monte-carlo
> simulation etc. has been invented just as we needed them.

	I think Peter has it the right way round, once the tools are
available and become known to (some) scientists	the insight that
they fit a problem becomes possible and the related science can be
developed, until then it is stalled or just impossible to conceive. When
looked at from a historical perspective it looks like the mathematics was
invented just in time to be ready when the science took off.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164027

On 25 May 2016 13:11:29 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>Yup.  It's so uncanny that there must be a basis for the math
>and physics types working together.  Calulus and integration
>also showed up JIT.

Uh, no.  Newton and Leibnitz are widely considered to have independently created
calculus, and both were investigating how to model the instaneous rate of change
through the use of "infinitesimals."  Newton in particular was studying physics
and formulating his laws of motion.  So I would say that calculus, as did
geometry centuries earlier, arose out of a practical need.  Both were later
abstracted, which led to discovering more properties and relationships that
in turn could be applied to real world problems.

This is to be contrasted with studying prime numbers or inventing the square
root of negative one, simply to satisfy some self-imposed mental challenge
without any connection to a specific situation, and then discovering a practical
application decades or centuries later.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164041

In article <vk1g1d-df3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
Morten Reistad  <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>
>Mathematics (the pure theory part) has also had an uncanny ability to
>have the solutions ready just in time for the practical need for it. 
>E.g. Riemann and the relativity theory of gravity. 

well, levi-civita and tensor calculus, which einstein didnt use, and
had to reinvent 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web