Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 192 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#181

Post by starcraft2wol »

mayd wrote: post #180
stylepoints wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's like the principia mathematica equivalent for computer programming

It continues to surprise me that Principia Mathematica (PM) still gets mentioned so regularly in discussions related to computer science topics. As far as I can tell, PM was one of the least influential works in any branch of mathematics or logic or philosophy or computer science. It is must be one of the least-read books (3 volumes, 1994 pages) ever written. PM's sole claim to fame is that it was mentioned in Kurt G…

Apparently its well marketed (Russel is good at that), because it's one of the only math related books HN knows.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#182

Post by starcraft2wol »

stylepoints wrote: post #50
svat wrote: post #30

A little bit of history about the book series may help understand what is in it. In 1956, Knuth graduated high school and entered college, where he encountered a computer for the first time (the IBM 650, to which the series of books is dedicated). He took to programming like a fish to water, and by the time he finished college in 1960, he was a legendary programmer, single-handedly writing several compilers on par wi…

So it's like the principia mathematica equivalent for computer programming

Nope. Principia is purely logical theory. This is practical book, although foundational.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#183

Post by starcraft2wol »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #127
svat wrote: post #30

A little bit of history about the book series may help understand what is in it. In 1956, Knuth graduated high school and entered college, where he encountered a computer for the first time (the IBM 650, to which the series of books is dedicated). He took to programming like a fish to water, and by the time he finished college in 1960, he was a legendary programmer, single-handedly writing several compilers on par wi…

I really hope at some point he stops writing and speed sketches the rest of the "book" so that it can be completed after his inevitable passing at the level of his vision. --- PS- not to be "that guy" but I do think that a future edition should port the MMIX to RISC-V because it'll be actually runnable and I'd bet money that RISC-V is the educational standard going forward for the next 50 years.

MMIX has educational qualities that RISC-V does not.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#184

Post by starcraft2wol »

adastra22 wrote: post #140
varjag wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's hardly a chance that one would both (a) read through all of TAoCP and (b) not extract any value from that. The attention required to wade through the books can't be sustained if you have no interest.

Well, I did read through it all and got zero value.

So what do you do with your combinatorics, math, and logic skills that you got from reading?

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#185

Post by starcraft2wol »

coolThingsFirst wrote: post #165
DonHopkins wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're looking for a shortcut, read Peter Norvig's "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years". https://norvig.com/21-days.html

Here's the reason why this is totally wrong advice: 1) Time is important, there's ageism in tech and you need to plan your career wisely - no one is going to do it for you. The best way to learn is to get hired ASAP and get professional experience. 2) College degree is very important. In this market, people are struggling to get jobs with experience & degrees. You just have much less likelier chance of success withou…

Let's imagine there was a 20 year old who dropped out of CS and spent the next 2 years reading Knuth and entered the work force at 22. Can you see any way that student would not be succesful?

I know someone who did something very similar (but in math) and jumped into a grad math program at age 17.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#186

Post by dwheeler »

dmvdoug wrote: post #163
dwheeler wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe the big advantage of Principia Mathematica was that it starts with a very few axioms and then manages to formally and exactly prove many things, then MPE is a worthy successor. I'm in that camp. However, if you think the main point of Principia Mathematica was the very specific set of axioms that they chose, then that's different. The PM authors chose to use a "ramified" theory of types, which is compl…

Although N.B.: it’s still an open question whether NF is consistent.

Strictly speaking that's true for any system that can handle arithmetic (as proved by Goedel). You can show an inconsistency, but you can't prove consistency. No one's found an inconsistency.

There are pros and cons for both systems.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#187

Post by adastra22 »

starcraft2wol wrote: post #184
adastra22 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I did read through it all and got zero value.

So what do you do with your combinatorics, math, and logic skills that you got from reading?

I’m not sure what you’re asking? I do a fair amount of algorithm development in my work. I’ve implemented C++ containers before.

I just learned what I needed for that from sources other than Knuth, and those sources did a better and more thorough job explaining it.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#188

Post by dmvdoug »

dwheeler wrote: post #186
dmvdoug wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although N.B.: it’s still an open question whether NF is consistent.

Strictly speaking that's true for any system that can handle arithmetic (as proved by Goedel). You can show an inconsistency, but you can't prove consistency. No one's found an inconsistency. There are pros and cons for both systems.

Yes, I was too loose with me words again. I was gesturing at relative consistency (especially, at least, when compared to the lack of serious doubt about ZF/C’s consistency), as well as the work of folks like RB Jensen and Randall Holmes.

The biggest problem NF has is, as usual, a social one: there just ain’t a lot of people working on, or interested in working on, NF compared to other set theories.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#189

Post by coolThingsFirst »

starcraft2wol wrote: post #185
coolThingsFirst wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the reason why this is totally wrong advice: 1) Time is important, there's ageism in tech and you need to plan your career wisely - no one is going to do it for you. The best way to learn is to get hired ASAP and get professional experience. 2) College degree is very important. In this market, people are struggling to get jobs with experience & degrees. You just have much less likelier chance of success withou…

Let's imagine there was a 20 year old who dropped out of CS and spent the next 2 years reading Knuth and entered the work force at 22. Can you see any way that student would not be succesful? I know someone who did something very similar (but in math) and jumped into a grad math program at age 17.

They would be at a significant disadvantage over students that completed their degree.

Reading TAOCP is the least efficient way to learn about algorithms. Just because something is harder doesn't mean it's better. Can't even put TAOCP in resume without appearing cringe.

>I know someone who did something very similar (but in math) and jumped into a grad math program at age 17.

Can you share more about this, even IMO medalists go to undergrad first.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#190

Post by starcraft2wol »

coolThingsFirst wrote: post #189
starcraft2wol wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's imagine there was a 20 year old who dropped out of CS and spent the next 2 years reading Knuth and entered the work force at 22. Can you see any way that student would not be succesful? I know someone who did something very similar (but in math) and jumped into a grad math program at age 17.

They would be at a significant disadvantage over students that completed their degree. Reading TAOCP is the least efficient way to learn about algorithms. Just because something is harder doesn't mean it's better. Can't even put TAOCP in resume without appearing cringe. >I know someone who did something very similar (but in math) and jumped into a grad math program at age 17. Can you share more about this, even IMO m…

> Reading TAOCP is the least efficient way to learn about algorithms

"Learning the algorithms" isn't a binary checkbox. It's a gradient of thinking and math skills, ranging up to a researcher in the field. TAOCP is the only book I know if that will give you that depth.

Learning those skills is not for everyone, but can be extremely valuable, and open a lot more doors than graduating with a class of 10,000 other CS students.

> Can you share more about this, even IMO medalists go to undergrad first.

He was an "undergrad" whose first math class was graduate real analysis.

Post reply on HN