Re: Dumbing down?
- From: Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 May 2007 01:25:25 -0400
"KT" == Ken Tilton <kennytilton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
KT> Suppose I hack up a little finite state machine to help me
KT> come to grips with a hairy little bit of functionality (IPC
KT> over a mechanism where either party can be expected to go
KT> South at the most awkward of times). Is that math? Asking, not
KT> arguing.
The theory of finite state machines was taught by the faculty of
mathematics in the institution I got my first degree from. I have no
objection to calling it mathematics, especially when it's approached
as a formalism involving sets of tuples about which statements must be
proven or disproven.
However, in an introductory text for novices, the word "mathematics"
is likely to conjure up associations of trig identities, conic
sections, and congruent triangles; these are likely to be useful in
some problem domains, but not understanding them is no barrier to
general programming.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Dumbing down?
- From: Jeff Rollin
- Re: Dumbing down?
- References:
- Dumbing down?
- From: Jeff Rollin
- Re: Dumbing down?
- From: Ken Tilton
- Re: Dumbing down?
- From: Jeff Rollin
- Re: Dumbing down?
- From: Ken Tilton
- Dumbing down?
- Prev by Date: Re: I finally understand why I'm not allowed to use Lisp
- Next by Date: Re: Prefer CLOS over closures that modify variables they close over?
- Previous by thread: Re: Dumbing down?
- Next by thread: Re: Dumbing down?
- Index(es):