A Programmer's Introduction to Mathematics • Hacker News Board

Re: A Programmer's Introduction to Mathematics

#101

Post by espeed » Sun, Dec 02, 2018, 4:42 AM UTC

throwawaymath wrote: post #60

marktangotango wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attempting to shoe-horn programming "lingo" into mathematics. This statement is particularly amusing and highlights to me the fact that mathematics are a natural language, and not a programming language. Sussman had a really great presentation on this point; anyone who’d argue this please watch! https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Expression-of-Ideas

Do you mind summarizing Sussman's presentation? I can't view it on the link you provided without making an account. I can't tell from your comment whether you agree or disagree with the parent's point.

Here's a YouTube link of the presentation...

https://youtu.be/iqlxsSrd-M4

NB: The slides aren't visible in the video, but here's the corresponding AI Memo by Gerald Jay Sussman and Jack Wisdom from November 2012...

AI Memo 2002-018: The Role of Programming in the Formulation of Ideas (November 2012) [pdf] https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/6707/AIM-2002...

Re: A Programmer's Introduction to Mathematics

#102

Post by posterboy » Sun, Dec 02, 2018, 4:42 AM UTC

axiometry wrote: post #81

theoh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"wtf is wrong with hn" One thing that's wrong with HN is that perceived "negativity" often gets condemned in exactly the way you have done here. It seems as if a significant number of HN readers have never really participated in a spirited discussion with arguments made from multiple different perspectives. Maybe any kind of apparent conflict scares them, maybe they project their own aggression onto a comment that se…

There are many easy ways to rephrase OP's comment into one that isn't so direct and denigrating. The only thing "apparent" here is that OP has trouble with empathy.

What's the problem, too much empathy? I mean, if the opposite of empathy is appathy, then I don't see that in the OP.

Re: A Programmer's Introduction to Mathematics

#103

Post by mlevental » Sun, Dec 02, 2018, 4:42 AM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #87

axiometry wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many easy ways to rephrase OP's comment into one that isn't so direct and denigrating. The only thing "apparent" here is that OP has trouble with empathy.

"Direct", yes. "Denigrating", how?? I'm genuinely asking so I can fix that in the future, unless you think criticising is offending. >The only thing "apparent" here is that OP has trouble with empathy. Again, I can do without the online pretend-therapy. Amazing how perceptive some people are that they deduce the most profound things from a dozen lines of text!

Maybe you should take a hint huh? If many people are telling you something about yourself (a subject you're inexorably biased on) you think maybe you should reconsider your position?

Re: A Programmer's Introduction to Mathematics

#104

Post by andrepd » Sun, Dec 02, 2018, 4:42 AM UTC

mlevental wrote: post #94

andrepd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>wtf is wrong with hn. I believe you must have mistaken me for someone else. My name is andrepd. Is this "hn" a friend of yours? >you should learn to keep your feelings to yourself when the only function they serve is to denigrate others and derive cruel satisfaction for yourself. It never ceases to amaze me how some people are so perceptive that they can confidently deduce the intentions and personality of a person…

on the internet everyone is a dog and has read all of the volumes and TAOCP and all of the volumes of landau lifshitz (and also peskin and shroeder and read baby rudin at 5). no one cares about /you/ man - it's a public forum so the point is to give advice that is generally relatable.

*>on the internet everyone is a dog and has read all of the volumes and TAOCP and all of the volumes of landau lifshitz (and also peskin and shroeder and read baby rudin at 5). no one cares about /you/ man - it's a public forum so the point is to give advice that is generally relatable.

I am again very sorry to disappoint I've not read TAOCP or Landau or even Peskin from cover to cover. I'm however curious if you can let me know where you got that idea from, cause I scoured my comments and can't for the life of me find anywhere I indicated so.

Seriously though, I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. I shouldn't give my opinion because... it might not be relevant to someone else, is that it? Someone might not agree? If it interests you I've met many people in the past few years who share my view (and also many personalities, again, Lamport, Dijkstra, Knuth, in the field of computer science). I've also met many who don't agree! And that's fine, what works for some might not work for others. Clearly this concept does not sit well with you.

This is being an uninteresting conversation which is only serving to irritate me (and you, it seems). I will stop replying now.

Re: A Programmer's Introduction to Mathematics

#105

Post by mlevental » Sun, Dec 02, 2018, 4:44 AM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #99

mlevental wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are zero "arguments" in the post I responded to outside of argument from authority. there's nothing about /why/ precise definitions are better than meandering, nothing about simplicity etc just proclamation that it is

I have not one single time invoked any kind of authority to make the points I'm making. It was only below, after you've (ironically) invoked the writer's credentials and insultingly proclaimed I never should be allowed to ever teach anything, that I let you know my qualifications. I do justify why simplicity and succinctness are better than meandering. More superfluous information obscures the "nugget" or the essence…

The comment of yours that I responded to only has an allusion to a quotation and nothing else substantiating any of your points. Yes if you're going to proclaim and critize on something material (like the best way to teach someone something) I expect you to have scientific trials.

Re: A Programmer's Introduction to Mathematics

#106

Post by andrepd » Sun, Dec 02, 2018, 4:45 AM UTC

twtw wrote: post #96

andrepd wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not one single time invoked any kind of authority to make the points I'm making. It was only below, after you've (ironically) invoked the writer's credentials and insultingly proclaimed I never should be allowed to ever teach anything, that I let you know my qualifications.

Erm... > Like Leslie Lamport says Pretty clear appeal to authority, IMO.

20 lines of reasoning and one quote that I think conveys what I mean. I think if you can't honestly engage with that besides accusing me of "appeal to authority" there is nothing to be gained from continuing a discussion.

Btw it's actually Lamport quoting Spivak.

Re: A Programmer's Introduction to Mathematics

#107

Post by andrepd » Sun, Dec 02, 2018, 4:47 AM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #93

andrepd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>wtf is wrong with hn. I believe you must have mistaken me for someone else. My name is andrepd. Is this "hn" a friend of yours? >you should learn to keep your feelings to yourself when the only function they serve is to denigrate others and derive cruel satisfaction for yourself. It never ceases to amaze me how some people are so perceptive that they can confidently deduce the intentions and personality of a person…

Is there any way we can keep this somewhat civil?

You're totally right. Apologies for my part. I should know better than to engage with

"next time think twice before posting this kind of lowbrow mean shit".

It was meant to attack and irritate and I fell for it.

Re: A Programmer's Introduction to Mathematics

#108

Post by j2kun » Sun, Dec 02, 2018, 4:49 AM UTC

wainstead wrote: post #49

Please tell me you wrote it in LaTeX. It would be another reason to buy it.

Of course!

Re: A Programmer's Introduction to Mathematics

#109

Post by dang » Sun, Dec 02, 2018, 4:53 AM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #99

mlevental wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are zero "arguments" in the post I responded to outside of argument from authority. there's nothing about /why/ precise definitions are better than meandering, nothing about simplicity etc just proclamation that it is

I have not one single time invoked any kind of authority to make the points I'm making. It was only below, after you've (ironically) invoked the writer's credentials and insultingly proclaimed I never should be allowed to ever teach anything, that I let you know my qualifications. I do justify why simplicity and succinctness are better than meandering. More superfluous information obscures the "nugget" or the essence…

Please stop now. Regardless of who's right, and you probably both are, this is the kind of tedious spat we don't need.

Re: A Programmer's Introduction to Mathematics

#110

Post by dang » Sun, Dec 02, 2018, 4:53 AM UTC

mlevental wrote: post #105

andrepd wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not one single time invoked any kind of authority to make the points I'm making. It was only below, after you've (ironically) invoked the writer's credentials and insultingly proclaimed I never should be allowed to ever teach anything, that I let you know my qualifications. I do justify why simplicity and succinctness are better than meandering. More superfluous information obscures the "nugget" or the essence…

The comment of yours that I responded to only has an allusion to a quotation and nothing else substantiating any of your points. Yes if you're going to proclaim and critize on something material (like the best way to teach someone something) I expect you to have scientific trials.

Please stop now. Regardless of who's right (which you probably both are) this is the kind of tedious spat we don't need.