/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11382791
>tfw math fag jealous of our 70k median starting salary

>>11382791
>t. retard
t. graduated with engg degree and went into cs

>>11382791
>[guaranteed replies thread]
Don’t you ever get tired of the same conversations?

>>11382960
Most smart CS majors I’ve met are also mathfags lmao

>>11382791
This board absolutely hates engineering until CS is brought up

>>11382791
There's no need for hate, we just need to realize that proper CS is a branch of math which studies abstract computing machine, whereas meme CS is the study of the computing machine you can buy from Amazon with $900

>>11383361
This is true, but neither mathematicians nor computer scientists care about proper CS.

>>11383378
>Mathematicians don't care about CS

>>11382791
why don't you create a love thread about things you love? why are there so many threads about hate? no matter which board. even science. sad.

>>11382791
Honestly true

>>11383491
>Other Engineering
>Engineering

What is the distinction between engineering and other engineering? Also I wasn't expecting Electrical Engineering to be less then Materials Engineering, isn't Electrical Engineering considered one of the hardest Engineering majors?

>>11383437
loving things is gay

>>11383518
Other engineering- niche specialization engineering that some school offer like nanotechnology engineering.
Engineering- general engineering degree that some schools offer

>>11383530
Do schools offer general engineering degrees? Seems kind of stupid, distinctions exist between engineering majors for a reason.

>>11382960
>Median
Top end is NASA tier
Low end is tech support
Which end is more common?
Show me the mean then we'll talk

>>11383378
This is blatantly untrue when you look at any research activity in both these departments

>getting my EE degree
>understand the faculty are pressured to give passes to everyone that isn't blatantly just not even reading the material or can't do basic calculus
>can just wing shit and still get a B while watching the blacks and latinos undergrads struggle like hell
Did not think that science was going to be this bad in the woke era.

>>11383491

This chart isn't IQ, it's only comparing SAT scores based on intended major of highschool graduates.

So not only is it only intended major, but it's also directly using SAT scores to IQ.

CS is such a shite degree these days virtually any employer hiring for anything beyond IT would prefer candidates coming from a more mathematical background as long as they have basic programming skills. Also compsci kids tend to be WAY more autistic than in math

>>11382960
Lol I have a math degree and I got a software dev job 90k starting in a lower cost of living area straight out of college. One less position for the CS cucks. We're better than you at your subject.

>>11384366
yeah, that's definitely not true.

What should i study if i like cars? i would choose ME but them electric cars are fucking us up.

>>11382791
Seething math monkey mad that he can't get a job while CS chads roll in the dough.

>>11385470
you can study ME, EE, or even CS and work on cars.

>>11382791
>engineering
llollololllolol

Is there a reason to study CS over CpE?

>>11382960
Most of the better programmers I’ve worked with have a postgrad math background. Most of the worst usually have either no formal background or are Engineering.

>>11385545
What do you think about Systems Engineering? I would control on pic related.

God damn CS sucks
source: I study CS

>>11382791
>CS hate thread
>that image
Why does 4chinneru have this kind of ban evading autists?
It's a shit topic to start a thread, is not science or math and is not even true.
I'm a mathematician and I respect CS, it's a more interesting career than any engineering on par with electric

>>11384377
This

>>11385653
if you know you want to work on software, why not become a specialist and take more software classes? CpE is 70% hardware focus at a lot of universities. It's closer to EE than CS.

>>11382791

Computer science encompasses engineering, mathematics, and science.

>>11383559
People in tech support don't have degrees, usually.

>>11384366
There are great jobs out there that require mathematical backgrounds (read: cryptosystems and HPC jobs), but those are all overshadowed by the industry asking for base entry level programmers that aren’t good at much but codemonkeying. Employers are looking for barely competent but not too much.
>compsci kids tend to be way more autistic
It’s 50/50. The honors kids in both majors tend to smoke everyone in terms of skill and charisma alike..and most of them double major in both math and CS

>>11382791
Yes we get it, you were good at the word problems in math class now here's the call center.

>>11383491
>CS is "only" at 124 average
>that is with all those "I want to make video games"/"I love computers"/"I want to be a hacker" kids dragging it down
Seems pretty high to me

>>11387777

>>11382791
https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/6356/super-mario-galaxy-problem
https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/2898/applications-of-topology-to-computer-science#comment7056_2898
https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/6528/complexity-of-topological-properties/
https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/1920/examples-of-unrelated-mathematics-playing-a-fundamental-role-in-tcs/
https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/11962/introductory-resources-on-computational-learning-theory

I dunno the field seems fine to me

>>11388863
>no those don’t count! They’re not codemonkeying!

>>11382791
What’s your favorite NP-Complete problem, /sci/?

>>11384377
>>11386007
I mean, a lot of CS majors end up getting said jobs since they’re the majority of people getting software dev jobs. I’ve also seen a good amount of research oriented CS majors get accepted into math programs and do work ranging from the expected combinatorics and number theory to geometry or analysis.
So then it seems CS majors are better than math majors at their jobs, too, so CS majors [math] \geq [/math] math majors. Given from your post that math majors [math] \geq [/math] CS majors, I’d say we can conclude that the number of qualified math majors and the number of qualified CS majors are roughly the same.

Reminder that a few years ago CSfags btfoed mathfags by showing that NNs are much better than SVMs literally without even understanding how they work lmao

>>11382791
too stupid is a relative term, I like CS and programming, I dont really like any other subjects, hard maths and theoretical physics is just meh to meh. I guess that may be a problem for you, but I feel absolutely fine doing what I like. People like Einstein and Maxwell probably thought the same thing about people like you (too stupid).

>>11389930
travelling salesman probably

>>11390246
I thought TSP was NP-Hard but not complete

>>11385653
>>11386041
Yeah at my school at least CpE is just 30-40% of the CS curriculum and like 70% EE

>>11390213
>my 1 person sample is enough to make this assumption
Kys codemonkey faggot

>mfw these threads are just a group of anons trying to cope and make up for their own insecurities
>mfw at the very least CS bother to fix regular problems and do something with their lives
>mfw all mathfags do is mentally masturbate and be arrogant assholes who think they are the genius of the century when in reality they are the real life equivalent of denzel crocker minus the genius
why do you guys are always so pathetic? all you do is pat yourselves in the back, you have a lot to prove and you always run when its time for the truth.
I'm not a CSfag but at the very least they do something productive with their lives and show promising results.

>>11390362
This isn’t across 1 person dumbfuck, and only a moron would take my speculation / commentary as hardline statistical truth.
Kill yourself you pedant.

>>11390397
I mean, TCS is about “mental masturbation” and it still solves hard yet useful problems. The inherent usefulness isn’t the problem here - it’s that many math majors, especially undergrad, see their problems and their work as exclusive when nobody who does research seriously even believes this. A lot of old, unanswered number theory questions found motivation and subsequent answers in TCS papers, and just recently a mathematician released a solution to the sensitivity conjecture from complexity theory. Research is a two way street

>>11384377
>We're better than you at your subject.
I can only dream of the day professional mathematicians embrace type theory. In a sane world, the most intellectually prestigious field would not be afraid of technology. Real mathematicians should be the leaders in programming. Right now though, real mathematicians are about as real as real numbers.

>>11390425
A good amount of mathematicians do embrace type theory, based on the authorship and github credits on the HoTT book. The problem is that the best proof assistants like lean are still a pain in the ass to work with, and both TCS and mathematicians (if there’s any meaningful difference between the mathematicians and TCS researchers who primarily build theory vs research algorithms) realize that type theories tend to go deeper than just having a computer check that a proof is valid. It is the univalent foundations, after all.

The barrier for entry is generally homotopy though, and both CS and math students tend to struggle through their first algebraic topology course.

>>11390342
If we're talking about determining if a graph contains a hemiltonian cycle of price at most k, that quite obviously is in NP.

Also, as long as sci only hates the degree and not the field itself, whatever. But I have no clue why there is a weekly thread dedicated to it.

>>11390425
>>11390397
In the real world all people who study math appreciate CS, it's almost part of regular undergrad math introductory class to learn some computability, complexity, algorithms, like right after constructing real numbers from ZFC and right before introductory Model theory. I've only seen people shitting on CS on this specific site lol

And I dont know where you get the idea that mathematicians dont like type theory when category theory has been their lingua franca for the last 50 years or so, and type theory is the syntax of categorical construction (free cartesian closed category, free topos etc.)

>>11390507
As far as I’ve encountered TSP, the problem of providing the shortest Hamiltonian path among all vertices (aka the search version) is NP-Hard (specifically complete in the class [math] FP^{NP} [/math]). The decision version to determine if a Hamiltonian cycle of at most cost k is trivially NP-Complete since the certificate would just be the path.
/sci/ has become so reactionary towards anything CS-related that you don’t even get any responses other than spite even when discussing pure problems! You can’t discuss rice’s theorem here: you would have to talk about markov’s result that nontrivial properties of groups are undecidable instead. People here
1) associate anything CS with codemonkey without compromise
2) refuse to talk about mathematics even lightly associated with CS over some perceived inferiority, “not real math,” etc.. this place cares way more about the immediate prestige of stem than any sort of passion towards solving problems and building theory, so any exciting discourse is lost among most here when they hear “CS.” That and many people who do listen to you are /g/-tier codemonkeys

Honestly just go to the math and cstheory stackexchanges for good conversations about math and CS. It’s not filled with the same underclassmen circlejerk as this board

>>11382791
programming is legit hard for some people. Only autists are good at programming

>>11390909
Programming and CS are not the same thing. I don’t see how your statement is relevant, since both are difficult one their own respects, when studied / practiced properly

>>11390918
*in

>>11390536
I mean in the real world, TCS and math researchers work on the same problems together. It’s hard to look at something like Mulmuley geometric complexity theory and not think that both camps have their best cracking at it (granted...it’s a behemoth of a conjecture that’s not accessible at all)

>>11383559

any recommmendations for good resources on how to start from the ground up for mathematics? My high school education all the way through college was complete shit and I just want to start over from the beginning with books and practice.

>>11391060
khanacademy

>>11391060
Khan academy to learn calculation heavy mathematics (basic algebra, calculus, etc) and some basic physics (basic mechanics, introductory E&M, etc.). Are you interested in proof based mathematics or more calculation based knowledge? The former will help you in CS, math, and (some) sunsets of physics, while the latter will help you with physics and engineering

>>11390901
Yes, sci isn't a very good community

As for TSP, I honestly don't know very much about complexity classes.
I wanted to say something about decision version implying the same complexity class for the optimization version, but I realized that's not true.
But only decision problems are considered for NP anyway, right?

>>11391613
Typically when discussing NP completeness you only consider decision problems. NP-Hard would be the class that the optimization version of TSP falls under.

>>11391526
the former mostly but honestly I would like a good background in all forms of math if available. I've always had a big interest in physics and want to dig deeper as well so whatever resources there are I'll take them.

t. undergrad

>>11391678
Okay, so you will want to study linear algebra (proof based), and then abstract algebra. Concurrently, study analysis, then topology. If you want an introductory proof course, I suggest reading how to solve it by polya as well as associated notes for proof techniques from MIT opencourseware. They have similarly good courses for proof based linear algebra - I hear axler and the standard Friedman books are good in conjunction. For algebra, I suggest artin to learn groups, symmetry, actions and sylow theorems, representations, rings and baby algebraic geometry, and Galois theory. Aluffi is a good book to read on the side.

For analysis, i suggest going with Abbott’s understanding analysis for learning introductory real analysis, baby Rudin for generalizing to metric spaces, constructing reals formally, and doing practice problems up to integration, and then proceeding measure theory in papa Rudin and folland. For topology, use Willard as reference, munkres up to covering spaces, and then go to Hatcher. Between these, you should go through diestel for graph theory and find a set of online notes / problem sets for combinatorics. These two areas are the type of math that’s super easy in the intro courses but almost unreasonably difficult in anything advanced or harder than undergrad. Do lovasz’s combinatorial problems and exercises to see how hard it can get. Avoid undergrad number theory texts and try to learn from notes and the group / ring theory chapters in artin. Keep in mind that basic modular arithmetic is super handy in many contexts.

This isn’t by any means comprehensive, but it’s a decent primer into the meat of a mathematics degree, and especially one that ends up being useful in many aspects of CS. Algebra and anything combinatorial is fundamental and immediately useful, and analysis and topology have proved insanely useful / important for delving deeper into the subject but it doesn’t get motivated until later.

>>11391678
>>11391934
Oh and uh somewhere in there fit basic differentials, applications of Fourier series to PDE’s, etc. in there. It’s not hard in undergrad since they generally don’t assume any knowledge of analysis, especially since those courses are taken by engineering and physics majors. Differential geometry is probably also a good thing to have under your belt

>>11391934
>>11391941
Thanks anon this was exactly what I wanted in terms of some good detail into text resources. Will definitely take the time do go through thanks for taking the time to help it was hard to look for where to start other than just going through khan academy as everyone seems to mention.

>>11385653
Yes, you'll actually know what you're doing when you graduate unless your goal is something retarded like web frontend.

why does /sci/ hate people who can get jobs outside of academia?

>>11393249
I mean, this is the science and mathematics board, so you’re going to get people who want to do science and mathematics. It’s more like
>I like science
>haha cuck I get paid better to do what you do
The two activities are incomparable. They have their pros and cons.

Either way CS is an academic topic and not codemonkeying shit. Advocate for CS and math, not garbage programmers

>>11383348
>This board absolutely hates engineering
There's many wannabe maths and physics fags on here with engineer envy, who will probably not find a job and are regretting their life choices.

>>11387777
quads of truth

>>11382791
It is interesting that /sci/ has recurring threads that hate on /g/, but nobody on /g/ ever seems to complain about /sci/ or notice /sci/ at all.

>>11393549
/g/ is filled with code monkeys and CONSOOMERS obsessed with computer hardware brand wars. There's no actual computer scientists on /g/.

>>11393523
It's so annoys me how this board hates engineering. Engineering is incredibly diverse and hireable while also having a lot of math and physics. At a Graduate level engineering can be incredibly difficult and you can do anything from research to codemonkeying. It's just the best choice for anyone who likes math and physics.

>>11393552
This. Half the threads on /g/ are amd vs nvidia, Intel vs amd, Windows vs Linux, etc.

>>11393590
based /g/ discussing the viability, pros, and cons of different types of software and hardware

>>11393523
>>11393586
On the flipside, there are a lot of engineering majors who come to this board and go "how do you do, fellow mathematicians?" For example
>having a lot of math and physics
at the undergrad level? No not really. You're exposed calculus and its applications, some applied linear algebra, and that's more or less it for the mathematics. For physics, you'll usually go through the basic mechanics and basic E&M, but it reduces down into "you need to learn how to algorithmically perform solutions to well studied problem instances" rather than "you need to learn how to solve problems,. in their fundamental nature," which is why engineering majors end up knowing dramatically less math and physics than their counterparts in other fields. Hell, even good theory CS programs prepare you more in that regard
>At a Graduate level engineering can be incredibly difficult
This is certainly true, since graduate stem is hard, period
>you can do anything from research to codemonkeying
certainly you get a lot of options, but you don't get the options that people do math and physics degrees holders get their PhD for. Thinking that you do get them off the bat is the sign of an undergrad trying to justify their choice of major
>It's just the best choice for anyone who likes math and physics.
Not even? Engineering is going through a period of oversaturation where you need to move out to less popular places to get competitive prices. Power is solved, mech E is full, civil is fine, petrol is going to burst, chemical is fine but high barrier to entry, and aero has like 4 major employers that are really hard to get into. The rest of the engineering majors end up doing finance or basic codemonkeying since their skills give them enough to pass technical interviews but not enough maturity to, again, solve the hard whiteboard questions in CS.

(cont)

>>11393523
>>11393586
(cont)
The best degree you can get with both rigor and immediately hirability out of undergrad is math + CS double major. CS hits the keywords, math gives you the rigor and exposure to difficult problems and useful theory, as well as giving you a strong background to talk about in interviews. There are always software jobs around or within 1-2 hours of where you live. Furthermore, especially if your programs are good / great, you learn how to solve problems across all shades of pure and applied in their fundamental form AND how to apply those solutions. Now, software isn't CS, but if we're talking industry hirability guarantee vs. degree, math + CS double majors are likely the strongest case, and you'll always have an edge in cryptosystems, HPC, industry research, etc. I have a friend who got an embedded job with his systems CS + math degree like 2 years ago over a lot of ECE competition just because of his research interests / activity in undergrad.

So it's not really engineering that's hated as much as it is the bravado and aggressive sense of rationalization and braggadocio from engineering majors. Your jobs haven't been guaranteed since the mid 2010s due to the second tech boom of the 2000s, and it's actually really hard to get anything that sticks, especially since so much ground infrastructure is laid down and there's a need for even MORE specialization. Just accept that liking engineering for its own sake is totally fine and fulfilling, but liking it either because it 'dunks' on academic careers or because of muh salary is always going to be made fun of, so you should either revise your reasons for doing engineering or accept the ridicule of having to constantly mention jobs in order to put engineering into the same conversation

>>11393249
Vicious jealousy. You make way more money in industry, and if you're good you work on the most interesting projects too.

>>11393751
see >>11393720
>
So it's not really engineering that's hated as much as it is the bravado and aggressive sense of rationalization and braggadocio from engineering majors. Your jobs haven't been guaranteed since the mid 2010s due to the second tech boom of the 2000s, and it's actually really hard to get anything that sticks, especially since so much ground infrastructure is laid down and there's a need for even MORE specialization. Just accept that liking engineering for its own sake is totally fine and fulfilling, but liking it either because it 'dunks' on academic careers or because of muh salary is always going to be made fun of, so you should either revise your reasons for doing engineering or accept the ridicule of having to constantly mention jobs in order to put engineering into the same conversation
replace 'engineering' with 'CS'

>>11393751
see >>11393720 (You)
>So it's not really engineering that's hated as much as it is the bravado and aggressive sense of rationalization and braggadocio from engineering majors.
>Just accept that liking engineering for its own sake is totally fine and fulfilling, but liking it either because it 'dunks' on academic careers or because of muh salary is always going to be made fun of, so you should either revise your reasons for doing engineering or accept the ridicule of having to constantly mention jobs in order to put engineering into the same conversation
replace 'engineering' with 'CS'

>>11393699
>>11393720
>at the undergrad level? No not really. You're exposed calculus and its applications, some applied linear algebra, and that's more or less it for the mathematics
At my school we also took probability, ODE's, PDE's, and an Intro to complex variables. This does vary but most schools take ODE's for their engineering disciplines.
>For physics, you'll usually go through the basic mechanics and basic E&M, but it reduces down into "you need to learn how to algorithmically perform solutions to well studied problem instances" rather than "you need to learn how to solve problems,. in their fundamental nature,"
While EE's did just take basic mechanics class you're right about that. We took the same EM class as the physics students and we took a modern physics class which I will concede was just basic quantum mechanics. You are definitely down playing the knowledge engineers have in physics though.
>engineering majors end up knowing dramatically less math and physics than their counterparts in other fields. Hell, even good theory CS programs prepare you more in that regard
Something tells me you are a CS major. No, CS majors even a good theory CS major does not have more knowledge on math and physics in an undergrad level then an Engineer. Most CS majors don't take past Calculus 2 and intro to physics 1 and 2.
>This is certainly true, since graduate stem is hard, period
No opinion on this all graduate stem courses are hard I agree.
>but you don't get the options that people do math and physics degrees holders get their PhD for. Thinking that you do get them off the bat is the sign of an undergrad trying to justify their choice of major.
Engineering PhD's work with Physic PhD's all the time. Engineers and physicists work together all the time. You also don't get them off the bat, Idk how you think my post implied that obviously you need to have a PhD to work with the cool shit.

>>11393699
>>11393720
>Engineering is going through a period of oversaturation where you need to move out to less popular places to get competitive prices
Engineering degrees are incredibly employable what are you talking about? Physics and math degrees have a way higher unemployment rate then engineers. You do more math and physics then most majors while also being employable how does this not make it the best choice for people who like math and physics?
>The best degree you can get with both rigor and immediately hirability out of undergrad is math + CS double major
Fuck off with this retarded meme. I shouldn't have to take a double major just to be employable with a math degree.
>So it's not really engineering that's hated as much as it is the bravado and aggressive sense of rationalization and braggadocio from engineering majors
I agree with this engineering majors tend to be really arrogant. I don't think it's rationalization though also they same can be said for any stem degree.
>Your jobs haven't been guaranteed since the mid 2010s due to the second tech boom of the 2000s, and it's actually really hard to get anything that sticks, especially since so much ground infrastructure is laid down and there's a need for even MORE specialization
Fuck off with this meme, no major guarantees a job, some majors just have a higher chance of getting a job then others.
>liking it either because it 'dunks' on academic careers or because of muh salary is always going to be made fun of, so you should either revise your reasons for doing engineering or accept the ridicule of having to constantly mention jobs in order to put engineering into the same conversation
What are you even talking about here? Employability will always be a huge merit to majors. It's why CS majors bring it up all the time. You are fucking delusional if you think it's ridiculous that I want my degree to help me get a job.

>>11393776
I bet you could finally get that PhD by publishing this new technique in cope.

>>11393787
>At my school we also took probability, ODE's, PDE's, and an Intro to complex variables.
The probability you take isn't really a full probability theory course as much as it's applied techniques and some basic theory. ODE's and PDE's fall under calculus, since engineering students don't have the analytic chops to do highly nontrivial DE's in undergrad. Complex variables is nice but it isn't an analysis course
>You are definitely down playing the knowledge engineers have in physics though.
not really, since it's apparently that engineering majors have knowledge that carries them through applications. I'm saying that knowledge isn't very useful or deep by construction because it's about doing things with readily available knowledge
>Something tells me you are a CS major.
I'm math and EE double
>No, CS majors even a good theory CS major does not have more knowledge on math and physics in an undergrad level then an Engineer.
This is plain untrue. Engineering students do not take proof classes, they don't go deeper into any combinatorics, and they don't actually learn any of the theory about all the discrete time methods they end up using.
>Most CS majors don't take past Calculus 2 and intro to physics 1 and 2.
this is the standard for admission into the major, but again, calculus is not 'real' mathematics. Now, at less than good schools, they don't do well, but at any program worth a damn, their mathematical requirements are not only higher than just calc 1 or 2, but they have to do multiple proof based classes down the theory track. No, engineering majors do not know math at all - they know the application of basic results, but again I would say even the CS major from a decent school 'knows' more math than any given engineering major
>Engineering PhD's work with Physic PhD's all the time
yes, in the same way that CS PhD's work with math PhD's.
(cont)

>>11393787
>>11393817
>>11393985
(cont)
At the PhD everyone can do each other's work given the time, but nothing is readily given to you based on the title of PhD alone, which already indicates that this idea of the "best" route for anyone interested in math and science is sort of a bullshit claim
>Engineering degrees are incredibly employable what are you talking about?
read again what I said about oversaturation
>Physics and math degrees have a way higher unemployment rate then engineers
at undergrad, sure, and I'm not contesting this
>Fuck off with this retarded meme. I shouldn't have to take a double major just to be employable with a math degree.
Not really, it's that in getting a true CS degree, you end up going through a math major with the concentration in CS of your choice, which at many schools translates to a double major. In any other program, it's like a big overloaded single program,
>no major guarantees a job, some majors just have a higher chance of getting a job then others.
then stop pedaling engineering as being the answer to employment. The reality is that engineering IS insanely oversaturated and we don't have the same demand for jobs as we did in the 90s.
>Employability will always be a huge merit to majors
you missed my point - this is the math and science board that discusses math and science, primarily its pursuit and its research. Employability is an artifact of conversation due to the fact that this board is filled with 20 somethings who want a career, but in and of itself has no place on the math and science board.

Like dude, we get it you did engineering but it's not special. Doing 'more math and science that most' doesn't mean much when it's surface level or heavily removed from its original contexts. Engineering itself is fine, but it's not the hail mary of employability nor of those who want careers in math and science

>>11383853
SAT scores are well correlated to IQ scores though. It's not a stretch to use that as an estimate for IQ.

For most people SAT is an aptitude test as well. The knowledge you need to know prior is well known by most people in good schools.

>>11391678
https://web.evanchen.cc/napkin.html

>>11393985
>>11394005
>The probability you take isn't really a full probability theory course
It was the same probability course the math majors took in undergrad
>ODE's and PDE's fall under calculus
I thought you were talking about classes like calc 1 - 3 and things like that, because ODE's and PDE's are taught in there own separate classes. It was also the same classes taught to math and physics majors so...
>Complex variables is nice but it isn't an analysis course
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_analysis
>Complex analysis, traditionally known as the theory of functions of a complex variable
Are complex variables class is a complex analysis class.
>not really, since it's apparently that engineering majors have knowledge that carries them through applications
You said that engineers know drastically less physics then their counterparts, drastically less sounds like you are massively downplaying it considering engineers work with their counterparts all the time.
>This is plain untrue. Engineering students do not take proof classes, they don't go deeper into any combinatorics, and they don't actually learn any of the theory about all the discrete time methods they end up using.
You're kidding me, you think CS students do more math then engineers? you think they do proof classes? Most CS students don't take proof classes. And no one combinatrics class in undergrad doesn't equal ODE's and PDE's. CS students take calc 1-2, a applied linear algebra class, a combinatorics class, and a discrete math class. They don't take as much math as an engineer (in undergrad, it's hard to compare these majors in grad school) unless your school had a shitty engineering program.
>calculus is not 'real' mathematics
This is such a fucking stupid take I'm not going to argue it.

>>11393985
>>11394005
>at any program worth a damn, their mathematical requirements are not only higher than just calc 1 or 2, but they have to do multiple proof based classes down the theory track.
Most schools don't have their CS majors take proof based classes until grad school. It's why the CS field is over saturated with bachelors degree holders. You're absolutely delusional if you think cs majors take more math classes then an engineering major.
>nothing is readily given to you based on the title of PhD alone, which already indicates that this idea of the "best" route for anyone interested in math and science is sort of a bullshit claim
No one is given anything just because of the title of PhD, this doesn't disprove my claim of engineering being one of the best routes. Not everyone is going for a PhD.
>read again what I said about oversaturation
CS as a major is even more over saturated so this point is moot
>it's that in getting a true CS degree, you end up going through a math major with the concentration in CS of your choice, which at many schools translates to a double major. In any other program, it's like a big overloaded single program,
>true CS degree
This is literally a cope, for your CS program to have more math than an engineering major you had to double major in math.
>The reality is that engineering IS insanely oversaturated and we don't have the same demand for jobs as we did in the 90s.
Engineering is more employable then most other stem majors, disagreeing with this is just ridiculous.
>we get it you did engineering but it's not special. Doing 'more math and science that most' doesn't mean much when it's surface level or heavily removed from its original contexts
Fuck off you just tried to tell me that CS does more math than an engineering major when this entire board makes fun of CS undergrads for doing no math.

>>11393985
>>11394005
My issue with your entire post is that you try to act like an undergrad in CS does more math than an undergrad in Engineering when a CS undergrad doesn't even take past Calc 3. CS students take a shitty algorithms class, a watered down combinatorics, a discrete math class, and linear algebra class.

>>11394541
I don't know a single CS program where calc 3 isn't mandatory and where the math classes aren't the same as the ones taken by the math student (as opposed to engineers who do generally take watered down versions).

>>11394739

calc 3 as in vector calculus? i don't think it was mandatory for mine, although i took it anyway.

>>11383491
>religion 121

>>11394739
https://www.reddit.com/r/computerscience/comments/8vot51/why_isnt_calculus_3_required_for_computer_science/

Engineers take the same calc courses that math and physics majors took.

>>11394862
>reddit spacing
>reddit linking
>reddit
credibility lost.

>>11382791
CS and Maths double major comming through

>>11394877
>You can't use reddit because I don't know 4channel and 4chan hate it
I don't care

Thanks for the thread, OP.
I'm majoring in chemistry and am doing stellar.
I took a comp-sci class because it'd fill one of my math requisites and allow me to finish my degree sooner.
I assumed it would be mostly math related, and that's fine. No, it's just autistically memorizing all of these little nitpicky grammatical rules. It's truly just learning a language. It's rote memorization at its finest.

It's the only class where if I'd ask for help on how to write something they would just tell me what the program should do and that's it because anything more would be considered plagiarism. It's literally just some memory game for asocial troglodytes.

>>11382791
What if I never bothered with CS, but just studied logic in my everyday life, and taught myself to program? I know C and C++. And MS batch.

>>11394508
>It was the same probability course the math majors took in undergrad
Oh, so you went through measure theoretic probability?
> ODE's and PDE's are taught in there own separate classes. It was also the same classes taught to math and physics majors so...
yes, and it's standard that these classes are lower level since they require no proof classes to actually take. All these calculus, ODE, and PDE classes are easy as shit and end up being rote "massage the solution out of the equation / form" because there's no rigor they can expect out of people with no proof background.
>Are complex variables class is a complex analysis class.
No, it isn't. A complex analysis class is a proof based mathematics class about the complex numbers as a field extension of the reals. I know for a fact you didn't take that
>You're kidding me, you think CS students do more math then engineers?
How many fucking times do I have to repeat that mathematics that is considered *actual* hardline mathematics is proof based and builds fundamental reasoning. I have my beef with the CS program, but they do in fact opt to have mathematics in their core that starts with discrete mathematics typically. No, it isn't about 'loading knowledge bro.' Most places, as watered down from a math major as it may be in your lower than average program, do actually still teach basic proof reasoning. Engineering math is not mathematics in the sense that it doesn't teach how to solve problems in this manner. CS follows from the math department's tradition
> no one combinatrics class in undergrad doesn't equal ODE's and PDE's
dude undergrad DE's isn't shit, you literally don't know what you're missing until you've had to do actual DE's or DE research with analysis injected into the study

>>11394508
>>11394538
> students take calc 1-2, a applied linear algebra class, a combinatorics class, and a discrete math class.
I've seen (and been around) programs that have beefier requirements. In my experience calc 1-3, linear, and one semester of a discrete out of a year long sequence, data structures, and intro CS are what you need just for admission into the major. The major has its problems, but you're underselling it while hoisting up the mediocre mathematical involvement in engineering
>They don't take as much math as an engineer
Engineers do not take math lmao. Your calculus, DEs, and applications of probability theory classes are not mathematics classes. They are classes where you learn algorithms to solve well studied problems. Mathematics classes are where you learn to reason using theory and using that reasoning to study deeper and deeper subjects related to mathematical structures. You learn how to fit word problems into integrals, evaluate based on constraints, etc., which isn't mathematics. which is why your "this is a stupid fucking take" reeks of salt that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
>Most schools don't have their CS majors take proof based classes until grad school.
This is blatantly untrue. even shitty CS programs usually have a watered down intro to proofs class
>You're absolutely delusional if you think cs majors take more math classes then an engineering major.
you're absolutely delusional if you think engineering majors actually take any math. With CS, it's a toss up between taking actually hard math classes or watered down reasoning classes, but they end up being at the very least mathematics classes
>this doesn't disprove my claim of engineering being one of the best routes.
It does, since math and physics PhD research is generally locked away from engineering researchers by culture, qualification, etc. Yes there are collabs with physics PhDs, but those ride almost entirely in applied sides

>>11394538
>for your CS program to have more math than an engineering major you had to double major in math.
No, my beef with CS is that it's watered down in many areas to be a software dev degree, but the CS degrees I'm advocating for are generally much stronger mathematically and of course on their own terms in their department. My personal interest in theory is what makes me think CS + math is a complete degree, but I hold my assertion that CS does more "actual" math than engineering since for at least one class they actually have to get off their asses and reason through a problem instead of applying algorithm X for problem Y in class
>Engineering is more employable then most other stem majors
how many times do I have to repeat that engineering is oversaturated lmao. The funny part is that it's starting to approach the camp of being less employable than software devving / CS but more than math, and this drives a lot of engineering majors up the wall
>Fuck off you just tried to tell me that CS does more math than an engineering major when this entire board makes fun of CS undergrads for doing no math.
This board is not to be taken seriously. Go to most math generals and people don't know how to do basic abstract algebra. Go to most CS threads like this and it devolves into shitflinging and "my major is better than yours." Go to any engineering general and it's people bitching about having no jobs, about no internships, and how it wasn't worth it. On the flipside, go read any post on cstheory stackexchange, math exchange, IEEE papers, etc, and you'll see the actual research and industry activity for all of these groups is high and valuable, and they bleed into each other. So this idea that this board's hangups over muh prestige and muh most math has little to no foot in the actual reality of the matter. If we didn't have mathematically talented CS majors, we would have Erickson's topology papers or Mulmuley's algebraic geometric approach to lower bounds.

>>11394541
> CS does more math than an undergrad in Engineering when a CS undergrad doesn't even take past Calc 3.
To summarize: calculus and DE's aren't hard classes nor are they 'math' classes because they all involve applying algorithmic methods to well studied problems. A mathematics class, applied or not, will be heavy on reasoning, and calculus and DE's isn't heavy on any of that, especially since the main audience is physics and engineering majors. A CS undergrad runs the risk of having a bad program, but even bad programs teach them a year of intro to proofs and how to utilize probability theory in computational theoretic perspectives. So in that sense, they do in fact learn more mathematics than an engineering major. Engineering students have this habit of sorting a major into a surface level set of knowledge / labels. No, having some equations on your belt doesn't mean you've learned any mathematics. In any event, many programs require calc 3 just for admission into the major
>CS students take a shitty algorithms class, a watered down combinatorics, a discrete math class, and linear algebra class.
on the flipside, engineering students take the basic bitch calc sequence, watered down DE's (ie, not any grad DE's with analysis which most math students take their 3rd or 4th year as an elective), watered down linear systems, a shitty architecture class with baby programming labs proctored by TA's who give them the answers instead of real large scale projects, circuit analysis which takes E&M theory and turns it into a series of tabling and arithmetic tricks, and so on. We can continue to be as reductive as we are. For every shitty CS major out there, there's a shitty EE major that's still ABET accredited, and we shouldn't forget basic linear algebra isn't needed for the accreditation credentials

>>11395082
you're taking an intro to programming class. You don't learn CS unless you get to complexity, algorithms, etc.
you fail to realize the class you're taking is designed so every monkey from every major could pass it and put it on their resume.

>>11395337
>would have Erickson's
*wouldn't have Erickson's

>>11395134
Programming isn’t CS. If you want the latter you should study more math

>>11395304
>Math is easy therefore it isn't math
Nice cope, calc 3 is easy I agree, so easy that cs majors can't take it haha.
>CS majors take proof based courses
No they don't, most cs programs don't have proof based math classes. You're literally delusional if you think cs majors take proof based classes.
>engineers don't do math
hahahahahaha sure bro, engineers don't do math.
>"actual" math
Pfft hahaha.
>undergrad DE's isn't shit
neither is undergrad combinatorics what's your point?
>you're underselling it
If I'm underselling CS by saying it doesn't take as much math as an engineer I wonder what you're doing by saying engineers don't take math.
>oversaturation
Engineering while being oversaturated is still more employable then other majors. Wonder why you ignored me saying that? Also do you think CS isn't oversaturated?
>CS undergrads do a lot more math than engineers
They don't even take calc 3 ha
>in a sense, they do in fact learn more mathematics
HAHAHAHAHA In a sense engineers learn more math by taking more math classes.

Undergrad cs is a breeze thats why there is a shit ton more cs majors graduating with a bachelors then their are engineers.

>>11396907
>>Math is easy therefore it isn't math
No, math that’s plug n chug + algorithms for DE forms isn’t math. It’s a bank of knowledge made literally just for calculation. You keep bringing up calc 3 - a good amount of schools require it for admission into the major, and vector calculus isn’t hard to learn or self study. It’s more fundamental when learning classical mechanics in a physics major than than say algorithms, where the analytic flavor skews to function behavior in undergrad. All I’ve been repeating is that the instances of the heat equation they give you in DE’s isn’t tough at all to work with, and it doesn’t have immediate relevance to CS since it’s closer to physical models more than anything
>No they don't, most cs programs don't have proof based math classes.
LMAO yes they do, and it’s always the ones shitty CS majors complain about too. I’ll complain to hell and back about CS, but the majority of programs have at least one proof based discrete mathematics / intro to proofs class that discusses basic techniques, number theory, graph theory, lattices and partial orders, and applications. Where do you think the shitty Rosen’s discrete math meme came from - it’s literally a proof textbook
>You're literally delusional if you think cs majors take proof based classes.
Dude it’s clear you have little idea what you’re talking about and want to reduce undergrad CS to codemonkeying. You responded to half of my argument, and only the ones you could do so with a punchy “hahaha” because the real meat of the response is too hard to question
>hahahahahaha sure bro, engineers don't do math.
Yes bro, engineers don’t do math. Doing calculations isn’t math. You do engineering, but doing the calculations in service to it isn’t mathematics..

>>11396907
>>11397061
>neither is undergrad combinatorics what's your point?
Lmao undergrad combinatorics comes after intro to proofs, and given how series convergence and basic summation manipulation slay engineering students in calc 2, I really don’t see how proofs with generating functions and the much more difficult combinatorics questions which query novel problem solving are less difficult than “just look at the sturm-Louisville for your PDE form, bro.” Most engineering students couldn’t even reasoning through simple perfect matching problems that show up in engineering manufacturing problems anyway
>I wonder what you're doing by saying engineers don't take math
Dude you can’t accept that calculation classes aren’t math lmfao. Again they help get the engineering done but they’re not math.
>Wonder why you ignored me saying that?
You literally ignored every word after oversaturation that actually went into my beef. Can’t expect engineering students to read or write well, I suppose
>Also do you think CS isn't oversaturated?
I think software dev is oversaturated with incompetent people. I think CS, as in research in academia and industry, is generally fine since it’s more niche.
>They don't even take calc 3 ha
You really like calc 3 that much? It’s a requirement for many CS programs..and it’s not fundamental for many stem programs that don’t piggyback off of the physics tradition. It’s not hard either
>more math classes
Again, not really at all lmfao. Calculation courses aren’t math.

>>11396907
>>11397061
>>11397139
Dude have you seen the numbers for the EE and mechE degree holders lately? They give it out literally to any mouth breather who can shut up and calculate, and I’ve heard horror stories about capstone projects where only 1-2 out of 5 people have to do all the work. Engineering truly is a breeze compared to math and science, with labs providing the curveball for time constraints making the major tedious but not hard . I personally don’t think CS is much harder at most schools since they shy away from making a fully rigorous degree, but I think at a decent school its math is true to real math in principle and application

Serious question:
What is currentyear SAT in USA like?

Back when I did them in 2002, always scored very high in math, decent in composition, but severely dragged down by vocab. Not the wisest move, but I seriously couldn't naturally give a fuck about learning those words. The only ever times I would come across those words were when unsuccessfully trying to interact with females that allocated reading fiction as their favorite hobby.

>>11394861
We're talking about people who study different types of religion, not religious people.

>>11396907
>>11397061
>>11397139
Ok bro nice 3 huge posts, can I get some fries with that?

>>11397207
>I no longer have an argument: the post
Ah yes, the engineering student falls back to the same joke every time

>>11397297
Face it Computer Science is for people TOO STUPID for engineering, mathematics, and real science.

>>11387777
You could say the same for bio and engineering which are the other two most common intended majors for incoming freshman. These averages are reflective of the general stratification between the fields, CS is better than most but far below the most demanding fields like mathematics and physics, the quality of the various posters on this board reflects this chart quite well.

>>11397467
based

>>11397467
>Face it Computer Science is for people TOO STUPID for engineering, mathematics, and real science.
Face it Electrical Engineering is for people TOO STUPID for engineering, mathematics, and real science.

>>11382791

>>11398166
>>Face it Computer Science is for people TOO STUPID for engineering, mathematics, and real science.
>Face it Electrical Engineering is for people TOO STUPID for engineering, mathematics, and real science.
>Engineering is for people TOO STUPID for engineering
Ha! CS Students are so stupid they don't know Electrical Engineering is Engineering.

>Love physics
>Cant for the love of God wrap my head around programming
It's just a bunch of gibberish, like blip {blop_blipblopping ### 5}5

I can't be the only one that has this

>>11399624
people like you run these threads.
no offense

>>11399624
If you think basic programming doesn’t make sense, you’re actually a brainlet

>>11382791
>csniggers are such effeminate cum sucking faggots they’ve internalized the hatred they experience on this board and labeled their veiled general in like manner
LMAO

Programming is easy.
It's just that every time I even consider learning a language I fall asleep on the spot.

>not incorporating computing into your field of study and instead choosing to be a fucking purist and missing out on sweet automation cash
you can be the one to start the revolution anon.
do you want to own the machines or be owned by them? it's your choice.

>>11399778
Nah this is a hate thread, look at the replies
>>11399858
You know there are purists in CS that study math alone right

imagine actually reading this thread

>>11382791
I agree, I'm pretty dumb. That's why I work on AI, to solve problems I'm too stupid too.

>>11400847
BASED AI CHAD

>>11400812
Imagine

>>11383491
Based Econchads

>>11395348
>To summarize: calculus and DE's aren't hard classes nor are they 'math' classes because they all involve applying algorithmic methods to well studied problems.
And yet CS majors get absolutely destroyed by them and can't even do high school "math"

>>11402568
Literally everyone in that thread complaining is a codemonkey who foes software dev and not CS.

>>11402568
>>11403581
It's hard for me to imagine that even a codemonkey could not understand 8th grade algebra, but maybe I'm wrong.

>>11403756
Codemonkeys are literal brainlets who want the prestige of being in CS without any of the actual rigor, so they’re usually the ones advocating for more codemonkeying classes in the CS major

>>11403823
I took CS classes and I would have been very surprised if anyone in those classes couldn't graph a linear equation

>>11382791
It's good to hate CS.
We faggots are a selective bunch. And you have to past our test. I can feel your seething of jealousy. You fucking robot. :)

>>11382791
I’ve found it’s always engineering students and not math and science students who try to incite this argument

>>11386214
This desu. My Associate's is fucking worthless, but so would be a Bachelors in """Cybersecurity"""

>>11383348
From my experience this board used to hate engineering but not so much anymore. Electrical engineering is the biggest circlejerk currently.

This seems the closest to cs thread so I'll ask for advice here:
I have two options for PhD topic/advisor. One is in the area of applied algorithms (think SAT solvers) and I already have two publications in it. The other is in TCS, where I have no publications and I'm less confident in my skills, but more interested in it.

>>11382791
Electrical engineering or computer engineering?

>>11403823
I see too many people in CS and computer engineering have this codemonkey attitude.

"hurr, why do I need to know this math. I just want to code, durrr"

Real CS is respectable but the attitude of some the undergrads is appalling and universities are catering to them as well as to the employers because they want codemonkeys and not actual CS.

>>11405714
Depends on the program
>>11405754
Yes this exactly. It’s annoying because you generally have to accept being associated with or at least adjacent to these stereotypes, even if you double major, have relevant research experience, etc..

>>11405828
CE’s are usually super watered down in both their EE principles and they take only 2-3 codemonkey classes and not actual theory, systems, etc.

>>11405754
Fuck niggers, fuck chinks, fuck poos, and most importantly fuck codemonkeys

nobody in this thread has gone through the published books/fascicles of The Art of Computer Programming

>>11406174
AoCP is alright but it’s more classic knowledge related to computational theory and implementation of algorithms than anything that keeps you to date with current research. For example, you’ll learn more from erickson’s topology papers how to do novel graph algorithms for current hard problems than from AoCP

That being said it’s a good reference and concrete mathematics is a fantastic sophomore-junior math text

>was a physics major
>got bachelor's degree
>started master's degree
>realized am stupid
>dropped out
>found computer science program that would let me start a master's degree after taking only a few undergrad courses to catch up
>got master's degree in computer science

I mean, I guess OP's image isn't wrong. On the other hand, however, I'm making money now, whereas I don't know what the fuck kind of job I would have had as a person with a master's degree in physics. I have serious doubts that I would have gotten a Ph.D. so I don't know what the fuck I was doing in a graduate physics program anyway.

>>11406171
You sound like a schizo

>>11406256
Lmao dude a CS masters is literally for people like you to learn2code with some technical knowledge. Come back when you’ve done a CS theory PhD and had to do actual math

>>11382791
Well at least I’m stupid and happy :/

>>11405714
EE

>>11385653
No.

I just got talked down to by some CS major, he called me a loser and went on and on... Christ, why do CS major have this superiority complex? Pretty sure CS will get outsourced to India and China in the future, last I heard they where teaching kids how to code in middle school too.

>>11383491
This table was made by sub 115iq.
Opinion disregarded

>>11405833
Even some double majors still have this problem. In my university, pretty much all of the double majors in CE and EE are like this. They're shit at math, shit at EE, only good at coding 'maybe'.

Hell, even EEs have this problem. For their senior year projects, almost none of them bother to design their own circuits or learn the CAD tools associated with them. They just buy the electronics, hook them up to an arduino and let the code do all the heavy lifting.

>>11406662
Well, it’s a good thing CS isn’t about software, writing code, or the industry :)

>>11405836
>CE takes less EE classes than EE
wow we got a genius over here. that's the whole point

>>11406726
it's the professors faults for letting them get away with it. my profs would never have allowed arduino.

arduino is a great learning tool unless what you're trying to learn about is ECE

>>11407023
No, you missed the point where CE doesn’t really get meaningful exposure to any CS (it’s just codemonkey + compiler construction classes, with a splash of systems programming) while skimping out on more EE classes

What is computer science if it isn't about programming?

>>11407571
Mathematics and systems / engineering. It’s a really wide field that’s about studying topics related to computation, so you can really fall on either side. Complexity, domain theory, computational topology, proof theory, computational learning theory, language theory, etc. are part of theory. Architecture, operating system design, compiler design, embedded, distributed systems, etc. are part of the systems camp. Algorithms is sort of in the middle. Of course there’s intersection everywhere, but this is the rough overview on some topics.
CS was never about programming

>>11407601
Aren't things like operating systems and compilers software related though?

>>11406468
Sorry for insulting your major I guess.

But almost none of my CS masters courses were actually about learning to code. There was a web programming course that I took, and my AI course had a project that involved coding. Otherwise it was mostly all theory, and other practical but non-coding stuff. I probably wrote 2 or 3 actual programs in total.

>>11406468
this is a bad take. masters programs are almost all theory unless its a shit state school. maybe yours is.

>>11407625
I mean, you’ll use code to implement one and perhaps study one, but the thing you’re studying isn’t the code or tied to code.
OS primarily talks about systems, organization, consensus, user vs kernel permissions, security, memory, etc., which can all be studied with a blackboard. Hell, many results for priority inversion and addressing deadlock go trough proofs of correctness. Compilers have a lot of aspects to them: for theory, they’re based heavily on CFG’s, lambda expressions / church’s logic, abstract algebra, etc., and then design has to do with problems such as register allocation, staging, preprocessing, polymorphism and inheritance, optimization, etc etc. Again, all these things can be studied on the board and from papers. The programming projects are there to examine the system moving around, but the objects of study are primarily abstract and agnostic to code

>>11407629
No, I meant it in the sense that masters courses and PhD courses are sorted out and stratified. Yes, I’m sure you learned theory to some extent, but it’s not theory that represents the research level or any meaningful level or CS, and especially not in a 2 year masters degree. Like, I’m fairly certain you didn’t go into anything about domain theory, lifting results from nullstellensatz, homology and homotopy, etc.. I’m even fairly certain you don’t know basic abstract algebra like introductory ring theory.

>>11407635
Nah, as far as I’ve seen, the masters courses are stratified and kept away from the PhD courses, which is apparent if you look at any masters level thesis / project vs actual PhD work in theory
The masters is either a stepping stone for okay students or it’s a “I want more technical knowledge for the industry and my company is paying for it” type deal

>>11407645
How much do computer scientists actually understand about how the hardware works?

>>11407664
In systems? Quite a lot. I’ve never someone in networking who wasn’t a ham radio nut with other EE professors, and their solutions at low level usually take advantage of the hardware profile. For example, there’s a pretty common story about bus channels and read / write speeds where the bus with the significantly lower hardware credentials was able to churn out more work because the bus policy written by the systems researcher was way higher quality. I know a bunch of people in parallelization who work directly on CPU and FPGAs.

>>11407674
Thanks for answering my questions. So they end up learning about hardware in grad school?

>>11407695
Sure, if that’s what they want to specialize in. Keep in mind it’s not just a knowledge base - people usually have this misconception that all useful knowledge is overloading on facts. Systems researchers focus on building systems, and there are a lot of people who go bare metal or close to the hardware, which necessitates understanding hardware design.

>>11405833
>depneds on tihe program
How do i know what program is Good?

>>11402568
Link to this thread? I'd love to read it

>>11409064
not >>11402568 but I found it
https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8k3s6g/google_provides_free_machine_learning_course_for/dz5kshf/?context=3

>>11409174
lmao'ing at these "engineers"

>>11409309
These software "engineers" don't even know high school math haha.

>>11402568
>>11409174
>>11409309
>>11409517
I don't understand how these people even have any interest in a topic like ML if they have no interest in knowing basic math. I'm guessing they just look at ML as a skill to put on their resume and have no real interest.

>>11409702
First and foremost, this is r/programming, so you’ll get way more brainlets, “whatever werks,” and circlejerking about tricks more than first principles. Places like cstheory stackexchange or even r/compsci are way better (not to mention they actually discuss actual math than this place does).
Again, they want to be part of the whole science / tech craze, and ML is the hot new meme. Problem is that they’re literal codemonkeys given they go specifically for the subset of jobs writing software that doesn’t take any command of mathematics, so they don’t have the background, motivation, or even basic competency to do anything more than query a few set research / commercial libraries and call that “knowing ML.”
So it’s a mix of entitlement of the stem prestige pie - surely if the software world tolerates them, then surely there ought to be resources that cater to their less than 8th grade knowledge right?

>>11387777
Quads don't lie.

The only real difference between CS and pure math or physics is just that people only go pure math if they really like it (because why else would you) whereas CS is chock full of people who are just in it because they believe it's easy money
Engineering is this way too but people only respect engineering more because they don't really know anything about it and just assume it's harder

>ITT: Mathfags seethe at CS grads with jobs, while CS grads don't even think of them

>>11402568
I'm a CS guy who got an A in all of these classes. Also pursuing math though.

>>11410747
basically this yeah

>>11407026
I had to ban the use of arduino in my project and forced my teammate to design his own circuit. Otherwise, his work would've been done in just 2 days.

>>11409702
You would be surprised at what people consider "machine learning" these days. Had a CE prof tell me that reading the output of a sensor and what amounts to flipping a switch based on that output counts as machine learning.

AI and machine learning is full of snake oil.

For undergrad study:
Physics at math school > math at math school >= CS at math school >> average EE >>>>> average CS

>>11412924
>hey guys these are my favoritest fields and anyone who doesn’t like muh watered down undergrad physics is settling man
Your bias is showing

shut up
its like a cooler pencil youre just mad because you cant use it right

>>11413608
??

>>11411814
I feel like CE professors usually feel like they have ML down since computer vision is also commonly taught in the CE departments, but even though a good amount of ML came out of information theory, I’d say a lot of it ends up being outside the scope of EE/CE study. So it’s pretty funny seeing these people trying desperately to tie their current work with a hot new meme

>>11410747
This
Engineering students have also started to eat up their own marketing. Not to say engineering isn’t a good major, but it really isn’t the all encompassing “best options” major they make it out to be

>>11383491
big dick econ

>>11413683
What’s funny is that data from an Econ PhD site suggests that when you filter out all the stupid undergrad and masters students, CS PhD’s generally perform in the top 3 as far as competition among stem.
http://econphd.econwiki.com/guide.htm

>>11385730
Systems Engineering is a cool grad school major, I wouldn't do it undergrad because you basically need grad school to do anything valuable in systems anyways so having a bachelor's alone in it isn't really worthwhile if you end up bailing 3 years into a PhD or something. Do your bachelor's in EE or ME and focus on control systems if you want to do that.

>>11383554
Eh, the distinctions often aren't as important as you'd think. Most cutting edge work in electrical engineering is essentially either materials science or applied mathematics. My degree was in control systems engineering but my work involves primarily QM simulations for a biotech company. It's all the same shit. Fourier analysis is fourier analysis whether you're looking at heat dissipation or communication systems.

>>11413727

>>11409174
This is pathetic

>>11382791
r/gatekeeping

>>11414027
Not even. It’s just plain wrong if we restrict our attention to any program worth a damn (ie, anything within stop 25ish). The subject itself is fine

>>11413730
Would you say the same thing for Aerospace versus mechanical?

Mathematicians suck at CS. CS has made me better at math than my math major friend. Cope harder.

This is the worst board in existence IMHO. Not even a CSfag.

>>11414027
r/lostredditors

>>11413730
Lmao a CS major could way more easily do ME than an ME could easily do CS.

>>11414651
It's like the worst intersection of /x/ and /pol/. Only started coming here about a week ago and I'm not impressed. Those that do know what they're talking about are your typical academia dick sucks who think that all they've been taught is all there is. For example it amazes me that 90% of the Quantum Physics field and any discipline sufficiently delves into the subject is completely unaware of the fact that a) Bohmian mechanics even exists, and b) is in perfect agreement with experimental results.

This is purely because Bohr was more or a hard ass and had more political clout back when this mattered. Now all that's taught is the Copenhagen interpretation and the alleged "randomness" of results has poisoned the science to the point we may never recover.

>>11382791
If you think anything else matters than better, more comfortable hours, benefits, location and pay, you're a retarded redditor and deserve for your gf to get raped and unintentionally killed by a blue whale

>>11414645
You dumbfuck, CS is a part mathematics and sometimes a part of engineering based on the subdiscipline. It has no bearing on how you write software. Concrete math by knuth is CS. Your locks Barnes and noble “dummy’s guide to X language” is not

>>11414985
The original post is wrong but you’re just giving in to the premise that CS is lesser or that it’s software engineering

>>11382791
How do you count without a computer? Seriously I highly recommend computers for running certain computations, and without them running on computer, half of math is quite unusable?

I love how EE faggots think they know anything about programming. Classical "mount stupid". Had to deal with those kinds when I was an "intern in "infrastructure"".

>for the fourth time, the proprietary software you work with has a well-known bug that the version you are using doesn't have any patch for, you'll have to upgrade to get rid of it, that's even what they tell everyone should do at their tech support forums
>HUURR DUURR ME NO UNDERSTAND, YOU BE LYING, ME PROGRAMMED A LOT IN COLLEGE, ME KNOWS SOFTWARE CAN'T JUST STOP WORKING
>respectfully, I don't believe you programmed a lot, in fact programming for arduinos is quite different than shipping software for millions of different computers
>HUR DUR, YOU ARE LIAR, WHY DO WE PAY YOU IF YOU DON'T SOLVE PROBLEMS

Shit's pathetic.

>>11415013
Cope, EE's are better at programming then CS students.

>>11415369
except not lmao
not even at systems level shit

>>11414735
Sure, and with my EE major I pretty regularly designed circuits and logic systems which would simulate mechanical systems as a mechanism to predict and control them (i.e. junior level undergrad EE stuff). This is much less common for mechanical engineering majors to pursue but that doesn't mean there are an insignificant number of mechanical engineers who do systems engineering. Control systems is the third most commonly pursued specialization for mechanical engineers in America behind manufacturing and automotive engineering (with aerospace being the fourth most commonly pursued ME subdiscipline nationwide). While ME majors are probably less likely to do classical computer science, there are plenty who do good work in developing automated manufacturing systems and heavily computational biotech work.

>>11414569
I'm sorry man but aside from the opinions of people I've known from undergrad who went to work in Aerospace, I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground on that topic. Generally heavily interdisciplinary fields are better to do for grad school than undergrad, but if you know a good school with strong industry connections then doing an undergraduate program in Aerospace might very well be worth it.

>>11415403
I guess it depends on what you're doing and who you are as a student. Most CSE oriented people I know are much better than me at data structures, but have very significant weak spots surrounding modelling and translation from a programming oriented task to one that requires other skills. I'd say I'm probably significantly worse at C than my old roommate from undergrad who did data structures and algorithmic analysis as his CSE specialization, but he couldn't do signal flow and information processing to save his ass when it came to actually properly sampling meaningful data and noise/error prevention/correction. That's also an n = 1 situation like most people who complain about CS vs EE nonsense. If I had to guess, CS majors are probably generally better at working with python and Java, whereas EE majors tend to focus on MATlab/Mathematica for as much as possible and when in doubt do C/C++.

CS fag here casually strolling by. Good luck with your careers friends.

>>11415007
Mathematics isn't a game about counting? What exactly do you mean by 'half of math?"

>engineering
>real science
I'm a Math student, CS is a common master or specialization for us, optimization and numerical methods is basically all CS is about.
You're a seething larper OP.

>>11416714
>optimization and numerical methods is basically all CS is about
ehhhh, that's a really reductive view. CS is its own host of theory. Certainly optimization and numerical analysis are parts of CS, but it's about solving hard problems that arise from math, not just best effort solutions. For example, something like domain theory aims to solve problems about semantics, but we're not trying to give people any sort of theory that lets them do numerical operations.

>>11414645
>Mathematicians suck at CS.
>CS has made me better at math than my math major friend
Then how come you can't write a logical sound post?

>>11382791
is this just the CS general in disguise? Seems like you can't talk about CS on this board

>>11415013
Programming isn't CS or the hardest thing you'll find in a computer science degree.

>>11382791
>hurr durr CS doesn't have math
http://icm.mcs.kent.edu/reports/1995/gb.pdf
>hurr durr it's all just discrete math anyway
http://algo.inria.fr/flajolet/Publications/book.pdf

http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/bob.coecke/domains.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJrnhhRi2IE

https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/math-deep.pdf

https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/spectral-graph-notes.pdf

>well, any physicist or mathematician could learn this in a weekend
I mean, if we're gonna keep using Jean Gallier as an example
https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/jean.html
https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/gbooks/home.html
People in research digest each other's work. CS researchers delve into math and physics just as readily. Why exactly does /sci/ have this whole hate boner for CS?

>>11417392
Nice cope, cs is for brainlets. btw Im an electrical engineer.

>>11417515
>btw Im an electrical engineer.
It’s ok, I could smell that from your post ;^)

>>11417530
Cope, ee is 100000000000 times harder then tcs. it's an infinite time harder then normal cs.

>>11387777
Hello, digits department?

>>11382791
Computer science is completely fascinating, fuck off, retarded freshman.

>>11417784
cope, engineering is full of dicklets who smell and can’t do basic math to save their life. Have you ever been in a dorm full of engineering students? At best it’s a bunch of normies complaining about Fourier transforms, at worst, it’s 8 player smash

>>11417806
It’s just [guaranteed replies]
Its usually some engineering students who wants (You)s and to feel good about their B in calc 1

>>11417807
>and can’t do basic math to save their life.
Engineering is applied math.

>>11417807
hahaha stay in your room you cs nerd. Engineers are normie chads that do harder math then any cs student.

>>11417818
it's a gamut of applied physics and math, bug you and I both know the average engineering student is good at neither, and we need only to look at the curves on the most basic shit to actually see that's the case.
>>11417831
i'm sorry anon but doing integrals of basic sinusoidal functions and looking at tables isn't hard math

>Math majors

>>11417845
Im sorry cs dude but doing basic programming isn't math

>>11417853
neither is running a z transform on a basic problem

>>11383432
i find it funny that that proof is accepted cuz its not rigorous

whether something "is math" is not a great metric for whether it is difficult, rigorous, interesting, meaningful, or useful

>>11382791
>CS hate thread

jelly we are making more money than you? jelly we are shaping the future of mankind? jelly of my 12 inches dark skinned dick?

>>11417869
Holy cope.

>>11382791
how can I learn CS without math? math is gay and fake.

>>11383491
funny how Social Workers are the ones who will give you your free communist money for being a high IQ NEET.

>>11417904
Your reply is not math, therefore is was shit

>>11417859
cope, just admit it cs don't do any math while EE's do the hardest math out of all majors, yes that includes math majors.

>>11418055
>yes that includes math majors.
Weak bait.

>>11418063
>he just noticed I was baiting him
low IQ retard

>>11417861
It is rigorous. The machine verification took care of the tedious parts, but the proof was accepted after the 80s

>>11415406
Sorry I didn't mean to insult any engineer who would otherwise be reasonable to the idea of the disciplines blending.

>>11418827
No! Only I can work on certain problems! Keep your grubby hands off of them! I need to feel special because nobody else should be able to understand what I struggled through!

>>11399624
programming is really simple. its problem solving using functions analogous to f(x). where each f(x) has an input(s), process inside the function made up of lines of code each performing its own task or calculation, then the output is used for something else like a different function

>>11399808
if you are trying to learn a language by memorizing all the functions then no wonder. i only know a few functions, the rest i just search up that match the solution to my problem

>>11418974
>>11418981
This is the most brainlet way to write code. Sometimes it helps to think about your problems in terms of functions, and other times it helps to think about it as sequential procedure. The former will help you do basic calculations, but it won’t help you actually write code to solve problems you need code to solve. In fact, it’s usually the people who write in the style of
>importedpackage.do_calculations(input);
are the people who are worst at programming and peddle it as being simpler than it is, even though it’s not very hard in the average case.

>>11417909
Not really possible. You’re asking to become a codemonkey

>>11419013
ok, codemonkey

>>11419329
I’m not a codemonkey nor did I go to school for CS

be me
be epic
hate other fields of research
heck yes

Hang on, so CS sucks for jobs and Engineering also sucks for jobs. What degree is good for employability then? Anyone on here got a good job through their degree?

>>11382791
Imagine Not going to College and end up working in IT and then earning £40k(UK) in 6 Months for a contract job as IT Engineer with minimum work experience in IT industry

>>11421212
>what degree is good for employability
I mean unironically, nursing. Hours are pretty tough though.
>>11421258
Not everyone is a slacker, and not everyone who isn’t a slacker is an academic shill either. CS is fine - but people like you who come in to do the bare minimum and advertise the major as being such give the field a bad name. Especially so since IT isn’t CS

>>11399858
Based practical application anon

>>11401089
Image

>>11385470
Study any type of engineering and move to Michigan. It doesn't matter what you are, theyll find a cubical for you in one of the infinite suppliers. If you're good, or have connections, you'll work for one of the big three and get burned the fuck out while making bank.

>>11407571
>>11407601
keep telling that yourself buddy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ1ZEjjP_4k&t=7m43s

>>11423116
>this community college “I like html5” bitch again

At my uni CS is where all the people who were too retarded for EE end up.

>>11423354
I mean sure, if your uni's CS program isn't that good. In most good schools, EE and CS programs are generally both difficult in different ways yet have similar workload.

>>11397166
Took SAT last December. Now there's only a reading, grammar, and 2 math sections. Also SAT is out of 1600 now. Math is ez, but getting 1 wrong fucks you in the ass (30 points off). Grammar and reading ez af I got 780 reading. I got 1 wrong math got a 770, fuck I hate the college board curve.

>>11423641
It's easy to complain about the curve, but it's more productive to not get any wrong.

>boom industry

vs

>highly guarded handful of positions competing for even more highly guarded funding

Meanwhile I personally know someone that had to go into CS because he didn't get a letter of recommendation from doing ultracold particle stuff at Cornell. Why? He touched a STEM roastie's desk looking for a borrowed item and she got mad, professor was fucking the roastie and had the place loaded down with roasties. He's not even white.

Compared to something where you can only represent a potential liability something where you can represent profit is a lot easier to deal with and will be far better to you. I far prefer the role where my entire life doesn't get fucked up because some horny asshole doesn't feel like writing a letter.

>>11413554
>>hey guys these are my favoritest fields
this thread in a nutshell