/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6471928
>lol, look mom I poasted it again

Yes, compsci is just applied math.

>>6471928
programming is logic

however math =/= programming

fuck math, why do math when we have computers that can do math billions of times faster than us?
lets use computers to do math

>>6471928

To be a programmer, no. To be a computer scientist yes. Although since you're asking, and by implication don't want to be good at math there are studied in the field of computers where you don't need to be good at math.

>>6471978
Because math isn't just computation.

>computer science
>computer
>science
kikes

if you are doing a legitimate comp sci program, yes, you need math. If you are doing some pleb tier software engineering, not really

>>6471982
Did you flunk Java 101?

>>6471982
I love how people make these posts saying your degree is shit because it's not their degree. Often times it becomes a shit battle between two degrees that have nothing to do with each other, and then they start saying "well.... a 16 year old can do your job!"

A fucking 16 year old can also do advanced calculus, and run their own study into biology. Does that mean they have the piece of paper that allows them to make money in this fucked up world? No? Then STFU. You get a degree to make money, not to learn a skill. I don't care what line of bullshit they fed you about college in the past, it's useless to those who can do, and those who can't will not be able to pass in the first place, think of it as an if statement. "If person.degree = true then hire! Else fuck you!

Yes. You need understanding of more advanced math to be a good coder. You don't need to remember shit for arithmetic for the most part because the computer does it for you. Being able to do it in your head, though, does provide an advantage when designing shit.

>>6472394
A 16 year old could program, doesn't mean he wouldn't be shit.

Does it get harder than linear algebra?

you can program a lot of things without being good at math, but you will need math for complex things (3d engines, scientific systems, whatever need physics).
Logic is absolutely needed, if you don't have logic, fuck off.

>>6472656
You can program web and mobiles apps connected to a database that you created without needing maths.
But as soon as your program involves physics, you need maths.
You can make 2d games without complex maths, but as soon as you dwelve into 3d it's getting harder.
Some people also programs automated missiles launchers/automated planes which need trajectory calculation with all the physics involved.
But yeah if your goal is to make web and mobiles apps you're good to go.

>>6472685
I thought linear algebra was especially used for calculations in 3d and higher dimensions? What math would one need for that then?

>>6472691
>but as soon as you dwelve into 3d it's getting harder.
Yeah you will need linear algebra for 3d, that's what I meant by harder.
As soon as you get into 3d, shit is getting hardcore. You'll have to read more into it to know what math you really need, but as you said it's sure that you will need linear algebra.
2D is piss easy, no need for advanced mathematics

My computer science program (a big 10 school) only makes us take Calculus 1-2 and discrete math. Will getting a math minor help or nah?

No, you used to need to know it but anyone can have a degree in computer science easily today, even a smart penguin could do it.

All schools use Java and Python, and a lot of schools don't even teach essential concepts anymore.
CS is basically a glorified code monkey degree today.

>>6472616
You missed the point of my post entirely

>>6471990
who cares about math when computers will be fast enough to bruteforce anything

>>6471978

Because computers are only good for computing billions of numbers in a short amount of time, not devising the computational methods.
The theorems that mathematicians find significantly cut compiling and run time.
Let's say that Gauss didn't exist and no one found the n(n+1)/2 formula for adding up n consecutive integers starting from 1.
Let n be 1 billion.
Do you have any idea how long it would take a typical computer to run the program if you don't use Gauss' method?

>>6474867

Actually, now that I mentioned it, I am curious about it myself.
Gonna go test it out.

>>6474875

Whelp, my eclipsed crashed on me when I used 1 billion.
Using n = 100,000,000, the program is taking pretty long to finish (Using python).
accu = 0

for i in range(1, 100000000):
accu += i
print accu

Yes.

>>6474867
Ten year old processor, one core, arbitrary precision library, no compiler optimization = 243 seconds
Comparing benchmarks, a $100 modern processor should be able to do this in under a second, and even faster if it parallelizes. Not bad.

(define billion-and-one 1000000001)
(time (for/sum ([i (range billion-and-one)]) i))

>>6474881
do not be mislead here...

Your computer is not taking long to compute the solution, it is taking long to print it.

If you had "print accu" outside of the for loop it would be much faster