/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8920894
0/10 bait

programming, obviously

>>8920894
Take a look at who studies them.

Definitely programming, I fucking hate that I cannot get into it for some reason.

Not sure if it's because I'm NT or something, can get into math but not into programming.
At least I'm a good teacher and tutor though, pls no bully

>>8920894
WHO IS THIS SPERM WYRM?

>>8920902
Jesus that's stupid

>>8920917
Carrie

Why am I still here?

computer science is a subset of math

>>8920941
she has perfect breasts
>>8920894
math, but then again I am terrible at math

>>8920902
That guy is just trying to be funny.

You would have to be literally brain-dead to program like that.

People don't even know how to bait these days. Jesus.

>>8920902
I don't actually know why it doesn't work, but then again I don't know java. Is there a syntax error somewhere?

>>8921074
Floating-point arithmetic and Round-off error

>>8921074
>I don't actually know why it doesn't work

Spot the non-programmmer, thinks of numbers in base 10.

>>8921116
> accused of not being a code-monkey

Well, you got me there.

Computer programming is math with many veils of black magic.

>>8920894
Who fucking cares

>>8921127
I do

My dick is harder than either.

>>8921136
>My dick is harder than either.

>>8921124
I think mathematics is using math to manipulate just numbers, while programing is using math to manipulate everything else that isn't numbers.

>>8921139
>I think mathematics is using math to manipulate just numbers
You are dead wrong about that.

Mathematics is concerned with significantly more then just numbers and it is a pretty common opinion that CS is the sub field of mathematics that deals with finite structures (graphs, etc.) or structures which can be easily representable on a computer.

"Programming" on the other hand is just the specific implementation of these structures in a computer.
Comparing mathematics (or even Computer science) to programming is like comparing an architect to a brick layer.
One deals with the structure as a whole and the other with the specifics of how the structure can be represented.

Programming is probably more difficult and also uses math. Math doesn't use programming.

Code can start to become insanely complex the longer you work on something. Constructing efficient algorithms also requires a lot of creativity. I would imagine something similar to this effect in Math would be coming up with conjectures.

>>8920894
>programming or mathematics
Programming is about the implementation of algorithms and data structures something which can be learned in months, very similar to learning a trade (up to now it is better paid though).
An average problem is programming is easily solved by an experienced programmer and even the hardest problems dont pose any significant hardships (aside from a time investment) to people who know what they are doing.

Mathematics on the other hand is concerned with the structure of how we experience reality and gives us the ability to make accurate predictions about the world we are living in.
To become a decent mathematician in even one field decades of study and hard work are required, most modern problems in mathematics can not be easily solved by amateurs or even mathematicians who work outside the field where the question is asked.


In conclusion, programming is significantly easier then mathematics. I would say that learning programming is about as hard as learning the basics of calculus.

>>8920966
This

>>8921165
>Comparing mathematics (or even Computer science) to programming is like comparing an architect to a brick layer.

Being a brick layer is easier though.

>>8921185
>Mathematics on the other hand is concerned with the structure of how we experience reality and gives us the ability to make accurate predictions about the world we are living in.

I think the term you're reaching for here isn't mathematician so much as it is physicist.

>>8920894
She is pretty!

>>8921217
>Being a brick layer is easier though.
Exactly. It isn't hard to become a brick layer, just like it isn't hard to become a programmer...

programmers
>solve real world problems that affect the lives of billions of people

mathematicians
>there's an dark space force just like in my Star Trek that's moving everything that no one can see and is impossible to test for lmao!

>>8921234
>I think the term you're reaching for here isn't mathematician so much as it is physicist.
no

Physics is the application of mathematics in an effort to describe the real world as accurately as possible.
Mathematics is "just" providing the framework in which physicists can describe the world.

Mathematics is about formalizing general structures, the only source from which the basis of these structure can arise is reality.

Consider the way a mathematician thinks about distance, you will realize that the mathematical idea of distance is the generalization of how we experience distance. (This includes things like "the distance from a to b should be the same as the distance from b to a")
The basis for this theory of distance is based on the world we are living in.

>>8921301
>Written on a computer build on mathematics
>By a person living in a house build on mathematics
>Who (potentially) drives a car which is build on mathematics
>Trusting bridges which are build with mathematics.


Mathematics is the greatest invention of human kind and every second of your live is influenced by it.
Every progress we have made in the last 2000 years is the result of mathematics.

>>8921170
>Programming is probably more difficult and also uses math.
Are you serious?

You can EASILY learn the basics of programming in a month or two.
No one goes to university to learn to program, mathematics is the most complex thing humanity has ever created and we are at a point where not one person in the world knows more then a fraction of the mathematical knowledge.

Of course it is "hard" to understand how a 100000 SLOC program works, but that is because it is a lot of things to memorize, but it is entirely unnecessary.

>Constructing efficient algorithms also requires a lot of creativity
Thats why mathematicians are doing it and not programmers...

>>8921308
nothing significant has happened in mathematics in a thousand years or more, that's like worshiping fire because it burns coal

>>8921324
>in a thousand years
your computer and your car IS BASED ON MATHEMATICS LESS THEN A COUPLE DECADES OLD. (most likely less then 5 or so years)


are you fucking retarded?

>>8920941
CARRIE WHO GODDAMN IT!!?!

>>8921331
>100 year old inventions are based on math from 5 years ago

wow you're a great fucking mathematician lmao

Isn't math just a minor tool created by engineers to facilitate building?
Isn't programming just a minor tool created by engineers to automate the use of math?

Isn't better bricklaying the true goal and purpose of all science?

>>8920894
Mathematics, how is this even a question?

>>8921319
>No one goes to university to learn to program

Unfortunately, there is an entire undergraduate degree for that area. Even if your school isn't shit (requires discrete I and II, Calc I-III, Calc based statistics, Numerical Analysis, Graph Theory and Abstract Algebra) you still have to take a bunch of coding based courses like programming I and II, Data Structures and Programming, Operating Systems, Databases, etc.

>>8920894
Math AINEC

>>8921450
Do you know how a modern car is developed?
Why are you straw manning this hard? I talked about cars TODAY not the first car ever made. (there is a GIANT difference there)
Hundred years ago they could be perfectly fine with a bit of calculus.

A modern car involves a lot of numerics to simulate and optimize it. This part of mathematics is VERY actively developed and a huge part of mathematical research happening right now. This research is IMMEDIATELY applicable to the automobile industry (and nearly all other industries who produce complex, highly engineered products.).

If you are interested what kind of math is currently needed there have a look at finite element methods, PDEs, DEs and numerically solving large systems of linear equations. As I stated these are actively researched (and funded) because they are highly necessary for companies.

>>8921517
Of course but if you "want to learn how to code" the university is the wrong place.

If you want to learn how to develop and manage high quality software, create new algorithms and learn about the foundations of computers in mathematics then the university gives you what you need.

>>8921499
>Isn't math just a minor tool created by engineers to facilitate building?
No.

Engineers use mathematics, they dont create it. Engineering (aside from designing) is the application of mathematics to the real world with the goal of creating both accurate and easily calculable models of reality.

It is neither a minor too, nor created by engineers. It is the foundation of engineering (just like it is the foundation of physics and many different subjects) and only used by engineers not created by them.

>>8921683
>used by programmers to actually do something useful with

I rest my case retard lmao

>>8921697
A mathematician creates the algorithm, the software engineer uses that algorithm.

Are you retarded or do you actually think this if you scratch the mathematician you would still get the algorithms necessary?

>>8920966
No, he's dead serious. There are thousands just like him. Google fizzbuzz.

/sci/fags on programming

>>8920894

programming is something you can learn to the point where you understand a computer and can get it to do what you want.

At that point it just becomes a tool for the rest of your skills in math

math is harder
programming is. especially if u learn by yourself
did a programming class at my cc and it was shit.

>>8921933
>psychology

top zoz

>>8921499
>minor
citation needed

>>8921933
Psychology will turn even the most basic observations into "mind blowing" facts.

If anyone's looking for a laugh, look up topological psychology. Lewin's equation is the pinnacle of this, behavior is a function of person and environment, B=f(PE), as seen in his book on topological psychology.

>>8920904
What the fuck is NT?

>>8921997
Microsofts operating system for servers from the 90's. Stands for New Technology. Was famous for actually not crashing, like most OS of the day.

>>8921693
>>8921964
That was what we humans call a joke. You need a sense of humor to understand it. What that is, is an ability to appreciate the beauty in blatant exaggeration and simplification.

>>8922167
>joke
>not funny
What did he mean by this?

>>8921401
Carrie you out on a stretcher if you don't stop ogling my girl.

>>8922203
kek, nice

>>8921933
More like /g/

>muh difficult pointers
>muh recursion
>muh functional programming

>>8920894
depends on the who's doing it I've meet people that can crazy math but can't code and I've meet people that can code really well but can't do hard math very well.

>>8921933
I actually took some programming classes (procedural programming and object oriented programming) in university, both were SIGNIFICANTLY easier then all of my math classes.

The exams were just remembering things and the homework took less then 30 mins per week.

>>8920894
My dick is harder than IUTT when I fap to Carrie Cummings.

>>8920894
muh dick is harder.

>>8921997
Neurotypical

Whats easier?

Prove X vs create a program to prove X. The latter can be reduced to the first meaning the latter must be at least somewhat more difficult.

>>8921997
NautisT

>>8922722
The latter relies on the first one existing in the first place though. That's like saying office work is harder than being an electrical engineering because the former can be reduced to the latter.

>>8920894
I would program her mathematics hard, if you catch my meaning

>smart enough for cs
>smart enough for maths
>not smart enough to have a gf

>>8921401
>he can't tell by the writing on the top of the car what this is from

2 secs in google m8 step it up

>>8923434

>>8923434
this hits home.

>>8920894
Does it matter? A programmer without any math is nearly useless, and a math major without any experience in programming is unemployable.
Programming is extremely easy to pick up if you have had any experience with formal logic, which you will have, if you took any decent math courses in first year.

>>8922674
Finally someone who said her name. I'm about to bust several nuts to her.

>>8920894
As a programmer, I'd say maths.

I've become quite good at linear algebra the few past years, but maths is an entire field; It feels overwhelming at times.

But I'm sure there are others who'd object.

>>8920894
I like your taste in boobs, friend.

>>8921185
There's a difference between knowing how to program and understanding programming. It usually takes about 5 years to become a competent programmer.

By competent I mean, someone who can actively decide on a method of implementation based on for example execution speed, implementation speed, readability, etc. Someone who knows what happens to the data understands how it's parsed through the heap, stack and CPU cache lvl's etc.
Someone who knows his Patterns, AntiPatterns, Refactoring methods, etc. Someone who can comfortable get into other people's code, regardless of project size.

>>8923434

You cannot smart yourself into having a billion dollars either. Just because you are smart, doesn't mean you can literally achieve anything. You are still a slave to your circumstances.

OK serious answer.

It's not even in the same league.

I started out as a CS guy, who was super into programming. When it came to choosing a major I chose Math because I thought CS was too easy and Math was more mysterious to me while I knew more or less what CS was about.

Math is hard in a way that programming will never ever be. With programming you can always bruteforce something. Heck sometimes we bruteforce math! But with math you don't always get to have a bruteforce fallback tactic.

>>8921185
There's a difference between knowing how to code, and really understanding programming.
It usually takes about 5 years to become a competent programmer.

By competent I mean:
Someone who can actively decide on a method of implementation based on for example execution speed, implementation speed, readability, etc.
Someone who knows what happens to the data and know how it's parsed through the heap, stack and CPU cache level's etc.
Someone who knows his Patterns, AntiPatterns, Refactoring methods, etc.
Someone who can comfortable get into other people's code, regardless of project size.
Someone who knows some basic Assembler, and can use it for debugging. (C++ specific)
Someone who understands the difference between SOA & AOS and knows when and where to apply each one.
The list goes on.

>>8920894
Math, is this really a choice?

>>8921139
This shows you absolutely do not have any understanding of math beyond calculus, and likely your understanding of calculus is very poor. Assuming you fudged your way through it with a C and didnt just fail.

>>8921234
Good physicists are basically mathematicians.

>>8926121
Are you implying rotation matrices are hard?

>>8926173
If you cared to read the actual text in my post, you should be able to figure out the answer.

>>8926179
So you do

>>8926186
Stop stroking your superiority complex, I literally wrote: "I've become quite good at linear algebra".

You must apply mathematics to specific programs but you must have a sound knowledge of it. For example, moving a sprite requires linear algebra.

>>8922664
yeah but both procedural and OOP are like the basics, so that is to the left of that graph.

Programmers have to think of a way to make the human words, look like computers words, so it's pretty differenty from mathematics that is solving problems, i think that it has one abyss between math and programing because of that human speak, computer speak.

>>8920902
>2015+2
>not creating a class for rational numbers and evaluating only at the very end of your calculations

>>8920894
To work as a mathematician you have to actually understsnd math
A programmer can literally maintain a job copy pasting other peoples work from stack overflow

>>8926794
>2100-83
>not storing your bits as quaterions and using them to calculate all real cases

>>8921517
>not only do you have to take freshman math, but also spend years to learn things most people genuinely interested in CS already know by the time the lectures start
Kek. It's always amusing to hear CS students tell tales of hardship spending years learning basic algorithms and OOP/func principles and then go on to ramble about math as if sitting Calc exams is fucking IUTeich.

Programming itself isn't hard. Most mathematicians and engineers can do that.
Mathematics, on the other hand, requires abstract thinking and even more logic than programming

>>8920894
That entirely depends on what level we are talking about. At the highest levels, Mathematics for sure.

t. Computer Scientist.

>>8927297
At any level really.

t. Mathematician

>>8921685
this.

>>8927307
wow I love cocks in my ass too

>>8920894
Once you get up far enough into the theory of both of them you begin to realize they're essentially the same thing (i.e. proofs = programs).

That said, in practice programmers do easier work at higher detail but mathematicians do more sophisticated work at less detail.

>>8921074
Floating point numbers are actually completely different from the real or rational numbers. They're fucked in a lot of ways and operations on them aren't even associative. That said there are ways of working around this and only someone completely new to programming would run into these sorts of issues.

>>8921139
This has to be bait.

>>8921165
While I agree for the most part with your description of CS, math, and programming, I disagree with your assessment (though not description) of programming.

I argue that from a formal perspective, programming is to CS as proof-writing is to mathematics. There is however a large divide in their practice caused by the different needs of the different fields.

If mathematicians were obsessed with foundations and implementing proofs directly in raw logic (or even something like set theory) then it would be possible to have mathematicians well versed in all these nitty-gritty details that are never trained in looking at the big picture. On the other hand if programmers were obsessed in creating the best code out there and building up the best abstractions possible then it would be possible to have programmers well versed in developing abstractions and writing clearly written well documented code that communicates their idea in such a way that the reader can easily be convinced of its correctness (to a limited extent this can be seen in some open source projects).

I believe that in the future we will see mathematical proof writing begin to move closer to programming and we will see programmers begin to move closer to mathematical proof writing.

I used to be a software engineering major; now I'm math major. For me, programming is way harder for two particular reasons. The first is somewhat obvious: programming has less tolerance for error. I don't just mean forgetting a semicolon; I mean mixing up the order of your array indices or forgetting which classes can be cast into which. Mathematics, being processed by humans, is more forgiving.

However, math is also easier because the difficulty of saying something is much closer to the difficulty of actually doing it. For example:
> Divide V(G) into its equivalence classes under ~; remove from G each equivalence class containing K5. Call the result G'.
Programming something like this would take a fair bit more than two lines, even if you had functions RemoveK5(Graph g) and GetEquivalenceClasses(Graph g, Relation r) all ready to go.

>>8928044
>However, math is also easier because the difficulty of saying something is much closer to the difficulty of actually doing it. For example:
>> Divide V(G) into its equivalence classes under ~; remove from G each equivalence class containing K5. Call the result G'.
>Programming something like this would take a fair bit more than two lines, even if you had functions RemoveK5(Graph g) and GetEquivalenceClasses(Graph g, Relation r) all ready to go.

What you have described here is called handwaving. Actually pedantically writing out the work in complete formality to ensure all of your sentences are writable and provable under your logic is very similar to programming. In fact, writing a fully formal constructive proof would essentially be the same thing.

Mathematics has higher standards of rigor while programming has higher standards of formality. In truth both are necessary in either field. The only reason we have this difference is because in one field you are primarily talking to a computer (though not entirely since your code still has to be clear enough that others can understand, believe, and approve of it) and in another field you are primarily talking to other researchers.

>>8928099
What I'm saying is that those differences make math easier. At least, in my experience.

>>8920894
[eqn]
\begin{matrix}
\mathsf{Programming} & \overset{ \sim}{ \to } & \mathsf{Calculations} \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
\mathsf{Computer ~ Science} & \overset{ \sim}{ \to } & \mathsf{Mathematics}
\end{matrix}
[/eqn]

>>8921401
Her porn name was literally just carrie.

>>8920894
It depends on the programming language and the field of mathematics. Languages like Java have compilers that tell you what went wrong with your code and where the errors are located. Similarly, fields of math like calculus have tons of resources like Wolfram Alpha to give you step-by-step breakdowns of most problems, and most problems become intuitive after you learn the basic concepts.

On the other hand, C Programming Language leaves you on your own to figure out where you fucked up, and fields like discrete mathematics are much messier because you're not always dealing with nice, clean functions and the numbers are no longer continuous.

>>8928613
Effectively your saying that lower standards in mathematics allow you to handwave more and do less work. Effectively making the work easier by virtue of not being expected to show details.

I argue that while that does make the work easier it is only a superficial difference with no real meaning. In fact, I often feel it isn't justified to even call such work mathematics (I'm aware I'm in disagreement with the majority of practicing mathematicians).

>>8928651
What category are you working in? What sorts of morphisms are you using?

I hope you aren't merely attempting (and failing) to use a poor understanding of algebra to make a category theory diagram. That would be very embarrassing for you.

Depends on how far you go into either. Both are endless jungles you can never master in a lifetime.

If you put the limit to be at a bachelor's level, however, a CS major is far easier than a math major. CS is pretty straightforward, while math is not.

>>8928876
I've been using C heavily for about 2 years. I wouldn't say I'm an expert but I understand just about every error the compiler can give. I have a pretty good understanding of the generated assembly.

Compare it to the garbage that g++ spits out. You'll much prefer the C errors.