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