Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!qumix!ittvax!decvax!mcnc!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe From: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Intelligence Message-ID: <528@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 16:32:54 EDT Article-I.D.: ttidcc.528 Posted: Mon Jul 8 16:32:54 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 11:53:23 EDT References: <456@ttidcc.UUCP> <457@ttidcc.UUCP> <1586@hao.UUCP> Reply-To: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) Organization: The Cat Factory Lines: 61 Summary: In article <262@tove.UUCP> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: >> >>... business, policy analysis, medicine, accounting, etc. > >Whatever. The list wasn't intended to be exhaustive. I was trying to show that some subjects not typicaly though of as technical also require calculus. Apparently you're defining "technical subject" to be any subject that requires calculus after first stating that calculus is only required for technical subjects. Circular. >First, intro calculus isn't "advanced mathematics"--in fact, some people >have argued that it's not even "real" mathematics! Typically, it is a >"cookbook" course, in the sense that it concentrates more on teaching >techniques than on teaching the theoretical reasons why those techniques >work. It saddens me to see a professor with so little sympathy for those who aren't comfortable with his subject area. I know of people who consider _introductory algebra_ to be advanced mathematics. (I draw the line at the first integral sign, myself. (-: ) Where do you consider advanced psychology courses to begin? (That's _my_ subject area). >Second, I don't think it's valid to draw a distinction between calculus and >those other introductory courses. Intro chemistry and physics, for example, >are just as difficult, and just as likely not to be needed later. Where I >went to school, calculus was a prerequisite for intro physics. I know of _no_ course of study that requires a person to take introductory calculus and go no further. Where I went to school, general-ed requirements for sciences could be fulfilled by taking intro-level survey courses that didn't require calculus (or much math at all). Only technical/science majors were required to take the tougher chemistry/physics/math series and they could _not_ get by with just the first semester. >Someone who works at a company in the DC area came to me a few >weeks ago with a programming problem which had come up in her work. In a >few minutes, I saw that the algorithm she had in mind for the problem >wouldn't work, and showed her why. I couldn't have done this without my >mathematical abilities (note that I don't necessarily mean calculus). Note that in this situation _she_ didn't need the mathematical ability. All she needed to do was consult _you_. This has been my general approach to the problem. When I need a mathematical solution I find someone who knows the math. This is usually someone who works where I do and typically has a degree in math, _not_ CS. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I could give you a lot of reasons why it would be a better world if everyone studied advanced psychology, but I doubt you'd agree. I'm sure the same could be done for most other subject areas. --- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe