/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15843842
>the instantaneous slope of that curve at any given point, given that it is continuous
>Actually thinking that continuity necessarily implies differentiability

I recently started reading le meme computer book. It's good stuff if you're starting from the basics

>>11683972
go back to your discord and dilate, tranny

learn SCHEME instead

>>11313117
>math (includes linguistics)

>>10687723
>no sicp
>no dragon compiler book

are....are they just memes?

>>10211016
>it's exactly the same as English sign language.

Who the fuck is Katsuko Saruhashi?

>>9261613
>>9261735

>If women don't use logic to reason

>implying people in general use logic in any kind of systematic way in daily life
>Implying the use of emotional intuition doesn't provide distinct social advantages for a given community or that it doesn't frequently provide a good approximation to Bayesian reasoning

>>9083898
Nevermind I'm fucking retarded, Halmos NST, I get it.

So why would you recommend Lang over A&O after Halmos and Landau?

Given the abundance of JavaSchools with dumbed down introductory CS courses these days, what do you guys think is the correct introductory course sequence for computer science/engineering? By "correct", I mean a comprehensive, thorough, rock-solid treatment of the fundamentals without any hand-waving or unnecessary magic whatsoever, and in a pedagogically logical sequence or connected manner.

I started thinking about this after seeing CS students flounder in a class requiring knowledge of recursion or pointers after having an intro class in Java, and then reading this essay by Dijkstra titled "On the cruelty of really teaching computing science".

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036.html

In the same class however, I noticed the CEs had no difficulty with pointers in C for some reason, even displaying knowledge of relatively esoteric features of C like function pointers. Well, it turns out their intro class is in what is virtually assembly, and they go from a bottom-up approach rather than top-down. They used that book "Intro to Computing Systems" by Yale N. Patt, which basically goes from moving electrons to CMOS to digital logic to finite state machines to assembly and C. So memory addressing and the von Neumann architecture were pretty much implanted firmly in their minds at that point.

I've read that book myself and I have to say that it's better than any shitty Java or Python course that simply goes through semantics and paradigms like OOP. As far as an introduction to computer architecture goes, that book is an instant classic. So what exactly is, or should be, the analog for computer science?

The closest thing I've seen resembling that book for pure CS is SICP, but it has since been depreciated virtually everywhere for some reason. Some people say that book is overrated, but seeing as to how functional programming is making a resurgence, does that book still deserve to be the one true CS book now just as it was then?

>>8327294

>>8201210
Yeah, if you're doing this freely, in your own time, you may as well jump into the wizard book head on and learn shit properly. Bjarne has his own opinions and ways of doing things and C++ is a horrible language to start with.

https://xuanji.appspot.com/isicp/

>>6686498