Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163800 > unrolled thread
| Started by | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-21 00:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-06-02 19:47 -0700 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 136 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
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 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 09:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160603091704.30a843cd459a192d20efed8c@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164369 |
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 19:56:10 -0400 "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In the US high schools that teach calculus are rare and high schools > that teach anything at all _well_ are almost nonexistent. American Hmm - and I only described what was in the ordinary maths A level course, some of us did the 'further' maths A level as well which took things a bit further (by the sounds of things well into American university second year level). > students first exposure to calculus is generally at the university level > and there their first three semesters of math are spent learning how do > do proofs, not how to solve problems. Now you can argue that some Certainly we learned how to do proofs at school - that started well before calculus and the emphasis wasn't on rote memorising proofs but on understanding the importance of correct logic and stated assumptions, ie. mathematical rigor. We were also expected to *understand* the proofs of the various theorems we learned - not memorise them (although no doubt some took that approach). Heck often enough we were shown a theorem and given proving it as homework. Now I did go to the best state school in the county so I saw some of the best school teaching in the country that could be had for free, but the course material and examinations were (and are) national standards. No doubt some schools taught rote instead of understanding, but certainly enough taught understanding to satisfy several very demanding universities. > physicist somewhere is going to make some monumental breakthrough > because he rote-memorized some proof from Freshman calculus if you want > to, but I'm not buying it. Nope, I'm not going to claim that - but a physicist with no appreciation of mathematical rigor is liable to make elementary mathematical mistakes when branching out into new ground. -- 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]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qngukbljigedfvb935b4i7dd7foti055tv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #164218 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:48:26 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <20160601085850.f4f3560d5fd61eac8b38f9cc@eircom.net>,
>steveo@eircom.net says...
[snip]
>> Yes most of it is irrelevant, but the one who remembers the bit
>> that isn't at the right time and sees where it fits gets the Nobel. We
>> should be doing everything we can to ensure that that person exists.
>
>So you're saying that Newton would never have come up with gravitation
>if he had not taken a course in abstract mathematics so that he learned
>about calculus? Sorry, but he invented calculus himself. And in what
>undergraduate math class did Einstein learn about tensor analysis?
The answer to your first question is no. Please stop with the
strawmen.
If there are two paths by which someone can get to some useful
knowledge and you deal in one of those paths, you should be doing your
part on your path. Who knows what those on the other path are up to?
But you can do your part.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 17:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b91962d78a86f698a201@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164278 |
In article <qngukbljigedfvb935b4i7dd7foti055tv@4ax.com>, genew@telus.net says... > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:48:26 -0400, "J. Clarke" > <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > >In article <20160601085850.f4f3560d5fd61eac8b38f9cc@eircom.net>, > >steveo@eircom.net says... > > [snip] > > >> Yes most of it is irrelevant, but the one who remembers the bit > >> that isn't at the right time and sees where it fits gets the Nobel. We > >> should be doing everything we can to ensure that that person exists. > > > >So you're saying that Newton would never have come up with gravitation > >if he had not taken a course in abstract mathematics so that he learned > >about calculus? Sorry, but he invented calculus himself. And in what > >undergraduate math class did Einstein learn about tensor analysis? > > The answer to your first question is no. Please stop with the > strawmen. > > If there are two paths by which someone can get to some useful > knowledge and you deal in one of those paths, you should be doing your > part on your path. Who knows what those on the other path are up to? > But you can do your part. I think you've walked into the middle of a discussion and missed both sides.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <575073c8.11444045@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164218 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:48:26 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >Most schools do not have different courses at that level for math >majors, for engineers, and for physicists. They get one-size-fits-all >and the size that is given is offered is the one for math majors. My experience is that undergraduate courses in calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, and statistics are appropriate for both math majors and students in other disciplines. It might be helpful to hear how your experience was different. I took an introductory physics course specifically for physics majors. The difference between it and the general overview class? More math! My brother teaches at a college that offers a math course for biologists. I doubt its the only school with such a targeted class.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 13:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <drbdsrFcfj7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164342 |
"Questor" wrote: > My experience is that undergraduate courses in calculus, linear algebra, > differential equations, and statistics are appropriate for both math > majors > and students in other disciplines. It might be helpful to hear how your > experience was different. > > I took an introductory physics course specifically for physics majors. > The > difference between it and the general overview class? More math! My > brother > teaches at a college that offers a math course for biologists. I doubt > its the > only school with such a targeted class. Based on what I see at garage sales, there is a statistics text book specialized for most any major you can think of. Business majors, biology majors, nursing majors, physics majors, enginaeering majors, ... . I think, not sure, I even saw one once for education majors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 17:43 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <874m9b1fug.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #164344 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: > Based on what I see at garage sales, there is a statistics text book > specialized for most any major you can think of. Business majors, biology > majors, nursing majors, physics majors, enginaeering majors, ... . I think, > not sure, I even saw one once for education majors. Of course. Physics envy. If you can assert a 5% confidence thingy in your papers, your discipline is automagically converted from whatever scholarly or practical thing it was into a science. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 20:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31ba946e50c5b90898a208@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164342 |
In article <575073c8.11444045@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:48:26 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> > wrote: > >Most schools do not have different courses at that level for math > >majors, for engineers, and for physicists. They get one-size-fits-all > >and the size that is given is offered is the one for math majors. > > My experience is that undergraduate courses in calculus, linear algebra, > differential equations, and statistics are appropriate for both math majors > and students in other disciplines. It might be helpful to hear how your > experience was different. Do students of ther disciplines tell you that the courses they took prepared them well for those other disciplines, or is this the view from your butt? > I took an introductory physics course specifically for physics majors. The > difference between it and the general overview class? More math! My brother > teaches at a college that offers a math course for biologists. I doubt its the > only school with such a targeted class. So how many proofs were required in the physics course?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <575073c4.11440310@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164201 |
On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:07:38 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <574dc979.9648864@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... >> >> On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:46:13 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >In article <5748866a.9280975@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... >> >> >> >> On Thu, 26 May 2016 07:14:06 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> You apparently have failed to grasp that pure mathematics, much like pure >> >> research, is engaged in for its own sake. >> > >> >I have quite grasped that. I do not understand why you think it is >> >relevant. >> >> You seem irked by mathematicians who, quelle surprise, want to act like >> mathematicians and do mathematics. > >I don't give a crap what mathematicians do when they are not being paid >to teach future physicists and engineers. But when they are being paid >to teach future physicists and engineers, they should bloody well be >teaching them what they need to know instead of a bunch of stuff that is >interesting to mathematicians but irrelevant to those students. Mathematics professors are supposed to teach mathematics, which includes mathematical theory. Engineering professors are supposed to teach engineering, which includes proper use of whatever mathematical methods are applicable to their specific situations. Perhaps you should provide some specific examples of mathematics courses, some topics that were taught in them, and what you think should have been taught instead. Your position ties back into my original post. The students want to substitute CS instruction for math, in large part because they view it as more useful. Instead of a general education, they want vocational training. You seem to think that colleges and universities should also essentially be vocational schools. >> >All are worthwhile endeavors but none of them put the probe on Jupiter or >> >implement the Dividend Schedule. >> >> It is beyond me why you would pursue a course of study for which you apparently >> have little appreciation, when you would rather send probes to Uranus or perform >> rote arithmetic. > >Mostly because I had some free time in the schedule and no physics or >engineering electives that fit. > >As for performing rote arithmetic, if you think that plotting >interplanetary trajectories is "rote arithmetic" I suggest you try it. Calculating a dividend schedule is rote arithmetic. >> I would not judge either of those activities to be more >> worthwhile or laudable than trying to prove Goldbach's Conjecture. > >You insist on making value judgments. The point is not that any of >these activities is "more laudable", it is that somebody paid to do one >of them needs to have the skills relevant to doing that job, not to >doing some other job. And by refusing to teach them how to solve >problems, mathematicians deprive them of the skills needed to do any >jobs but mathematics. More specifics on what problems for which you think mathematicians are refusing to teach solutions... >But maybe we should just abolish any math-department requirement for >scientists and engineers and instead have the relevant math taught by >other scientists and engineers, since mathematicians have more important >things to do. Apparently you want mathematicians to teach science and engineering in addition to mathematics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 20:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31ba93eb559fec1498a207@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164341 |
In article <575073c4.11440310@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > > On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:07:38 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> > wrote: > >In article <574dc979.9648864@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > >> > >> On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:46:13 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >In article <5748866a.9280975@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, 26 May 2016 07:14:06 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> You apparently have failed to grasp that pure mathematics, much like pure > >> >> research, is engaged in for its own sake. > >> > > >> >I have quite grasped that. I do not understand why you think it is > >> >relevant. > >> > >> You seem irked by mathematicians who, quelle surprise, want to act like > >> mathematicians and do mathematics. > > > >I don't give a crap what mathematicians do when they are not being paid > >to teach future physicists and engineers. But when they are being paid > >to teach future physicists and engineers, they should bloody well be > >teaching them what they need to know instead of a bunch of stuff that is > >interesting to mathematicians but irrelevant to those students. > > Mathematics professors are supposed to teach mathematics, which includes > mathematical theory. Engineering professors are supposed to teach engineering, > which includes proper use of whatever mathematical methods are applicable to > their specific situations. So you're saying that the engineering department should run its own calculus course and quit bothering the math department? > Perhaps you should provide some specific examples of mathematics courses, > some topics that were taught in them, and what you think should have been taught > instead. Calculus 101, 102, 103. Prove this, prove that, prove the other thing, never once asked to actually apply any of it to problem solving. > Your position ties back into my original post. The students want to substitute > CS instruction for math, in large part because they view it as more useful. > Instead of a general education, they want vocational training. You seem to > think that colleges and universities should also essentially be vocational > schools. If you think that teaching someone to solve problems is "vocational training" you are not in contact with reality. I guess we should just abolish the engineering department and the business school altogether because who needs "vocational training"? > >> >All are worthwhile endeavors but none of them put the probe on Jupiter or > >> >implement the Dividend Schedule. > >> > >> It is beyond me why you would pursue a course of study for which you apparently > >> have little appreciation, when you would rather send probes to Uranus or perform > >> rote arithmetic. > > > >Mostly because I had some free time in the schedule and no physics or > >engineering electives that fit. > > > >As for performing rote arithmetic, if you think that plotting > >interplanetary trajectories is "rote arithmetic" I suggest you try it. > > Calculating a dividend schedule is rote arithmetic. By that logic, calculating a trajectory to Mars is rote arithmetic. > >> I would not judge either of those activities to be more > >> worthwhile or laudable than trying to prove Goldbach's Conjecture. > > > >You insist on making value judgments. The point is not that any of > >these activities is "more laudable", it is that somebody paid to do one > >of them needs to have the skills relevant to doing that job, not to > >doing some other job. And by refusing to teach them how to solve > >problems, mathematicians deprive them of the skills needed to do any > >jobs but mathematics. > > More specifics on what problems for which you think mathematicians are refusing > to teach solutions... ANY problems. > >But maybe we should just abolish any math-department requirement for > >scientists and engineers and instead have the relevant math taught by > >other scientists and engineers, since mathematicians have more important > >things to do. > > Apparently you want mathematicians to teach science and engineering in addition > to mathematics. If you count solving mathematical problems as "teaching science and engineering". The fact is that you exemplify the problem. Your head is so far up your mathematical butt that you can't see where anyone who is not a mathematician is coming from.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <drd50bFmspuU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164370 |
On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 20:05:51 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: > So you're saying that the engineering department should run its own > calculus course and quit bothering the math department? Absolutely, given the right person teaching it. At my PPOE (until last December) CS students were taught maths 'in house' by a maths expert who would teach what was wanted/needed, rather than what they thought was 'right'. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 11:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nirmto$ukv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #164388 |
"Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message news:drd50bFmspuU10@mid.individual.net... > On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 20:05:51 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: >> So you're saying that the engineering department should run its own >> calculus course and quit bothering the math department? > > Absolutely, given the right person teaching it. At my PPOE (until last > December) CS students were taught maths 'in house' by a maths expert who > would teach what was wanted/needed, rather than what they thought was > 'right'. In the first year at Essex, '69 - '72, we did a common study scheme of maths, physics and electronics, each taught by the associated dept, with then the choice of majoring in either of the three subjects. Needless to say, as a budding radio ham, I opted for electronics, specialising in computer and communications engineering in the final year.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005345EBB1EFAFB@aca40481.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164388 |
Bob Eager wrote: > On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 20:05:51 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: > >> So you're saying that the engineering department should run its own >> calculus course and quit bothering the math department? > > Absolutely, given the right person teaching it. At my PPOE (until last > December) CS students were taught maths 'in house' by a maths expert who > would teach what was wanted/needed, rather than what they thought was > 'right'. How can one predict what is "right"? The "right" kind depends on the type of work the CS grad eventually does. Knowing how to do a proof can help developing code for numerical analysis, among other things. A proof can determine the flowchart of a program. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 05:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57590349.8493603@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164370 |
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 20:05:51 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <575073c4.11440310@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... >> On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:07:38 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >In article <574dc979.9648864@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... >> >> On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:46:13 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <5748866a.9280975@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... >> >> >> On Thu, 26 May 2016 07:14:06 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> You apparently have failed to grasp that pure mathematics, much like pure >> >> >> research, is engaged in for its own sake. >> >> > >> >> >I have quite grasped that. I do not understand why you think it is >> >> >relevant. >> >> >> >> You seem irked by mathematicians who, quelle surprise, want to act like >> >> mathematicians and do mathematics. >> > >> >I don't give a crap what mathematicians do when they are not being paid >> >to teach future physicists and engineers. But when they are being paid >> >to teach future physicists and engineers, they should bloody well be >> >teaching them what they need to know instead of a bunch of stuff that is >> >interesting to mathematicians but irrelevant to those students. >> >> Mathematics professors are supposed to teach mathematics, which includes >> mathematical theory. Engineering professors are supposed to teach engineering, >> which includes proper use of whatever mathematical methods are applicable to >> their specific situations. > >So you're saying that the engineering department should run its own >calculus course and quit bothering the math department? I think you're being deliberately obtuse. The math department should teach calculus. Engineering departments should teach how to use calculus to solve the problems specific to their field. When I took algebra, I learned about complex numbers. I was taught what they were, how they were derived, and the methods to manipulate them arithmetically and algebraically. No mention was ever made of electronic circuits. When I took beginning EE courses, such as basic circuit analysis, I was taught how inductors and other circuit elements are modelled using complex numbers. It was expected, as a prerequisite for taking these courses, that I already knew what complex numbers were and how to use them. I was subsequently taught how to use them to solve EE problems. >> Perhaps you should provide some specific examples of mathematics courses, >> some topics that were taught in them, and what you think should have been taught >> instead. > >Calculus 101, 102, 103. Prove this, prove that, prove the other thing, >never once asked to actually apply any of it to problem solving. Proofs ARE problems -- they are mathematical problems. Being able to generate correct proofs demonstrates an understanding of the underlying concepts. In addition, proofs require the ability to start with a set of initial conditions, and by using logic and other previously generated tools (i.e., theorems), step through a series of valid transformations to reach a desired end state. The elements may be abstract, but the process is similar to solving engineering problems. So yes, proofs help teach problem-solving skills. >> Your position ties back into my original post. The students want to substitute >> CS instruction for math, in large part because they view it as more useful. >> Instead of a general education, they want vocational training. You seem to >> think that colleges and universities should also essentially be vocational >> schools. > >If you think that teaching someone to solve problems is "vocational >training" you are not in contact with reality. To the extent that you teach someone to solve specific problems instead of general problem-solving methods, or without the theory that underlies the solution, then yes, I regard that as a form of vocational training. Without an adequate theoretical foundation, how does someone solve a completely novel problem? How does the state of the art get advanced if all that is taught is rote solutions to existing problems? >I guess we should just abolish the engineering department and the >business school altogether because who needs "vocational training"? And where do you propose to teach engineering or business theory? There is theory, and there is practice. The obvious place to teach theory is in the classroom. One can learn theory on the job or in the field, but it is often not the appropriate place, and the cost can be high. I don't ignore the need for practical experience. One way to gain it is through internships. Another is through explicit project work in a lab or workshop, supervised by a faculty member, and for which the student gets academic credit. >> >But maybe we should just abolish any math-department requirement for >> >scientists and engineers and instead have the relevant math taught by >> >other scientists and engineers, since mathematicians have more important >> >things to do. >> >> Apparently you want mathematicians to teach science and engineering in addition >> to mathematics. > >If you count solving mathematical problems as "teaching science and >engineering". No, I count that as teaching mathematics. Learning how to solve engineering problems should be taught in engineering classes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 19:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31c3cca5246ce5c598a234@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164830 |
In article <57590349.8493603@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > You don't seem to be able to keep your argument straight anymore, so not wasting more time on you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 03:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57637018.4941946@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164865 |
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:58:15 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >You don't seem to be able to keep your argument straight anymore, so not >wasting more time on you. I accept your concession that you do not have a cogent argument supporting your position.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 19:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pqr1lbhke4t1f5lqamjsnq9j42gms6gtv8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #164341 |
On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 17:58:29 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
[snip]
>Your position ties back into my original post. The students want to substitute
>CS instruction for math, in large part because they view it as more useful.
>Instead of a general education, they want vocational training. You seem to
That was my experience at uni (compsci degree). A course on
professional ethics did not get the required enrollment.
>think that colleges and universities should also essentially be vocational
>schools.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web