Comment Re:And that's why you fail (Score 1) 352
So you're arguing my point... that you must have intimate knowledge of the computer program to use it. Thank you, I'm glad we agree.
There is no "failure" here other than a failure to read the Python documentation to learn the semantics of its number literals and arithmetic operators.
I can agree with that. AND you have to take into consideration that a mathematician may not have the vocabulary to understand a computer science manual. I have a lot of trouble reading high level mathematics, but at this point, reading computer science code or texts is easier than reading books.
Exactly how many years are we supposed to spend on a mathematical proof just figuring out the details of the programming language we're using? Have you ever met a Physics Ph.D. trying to create a computer model? They look like they're ready to kill someone. I can't say I blaim them. What you put on paper does not easily translate into code.
The problem happens because you use the wrong tool to solve the problem. If you need exact arithmetic, you should use exact arithmetic, not floating-point arithmetic, or if you're happy with high finite precision, you should rewrite your algorithm so that it doesn't suffer from cancellation.
You're right on the fact that I used the wrong tool. But I didn't know that until it was too late. It was like bringing a knife to a gun fight. But in a mathematician's/user's eyes, software should "just work". As a software writer, I don't want to have to write someone else's software for them because they screwed it up. And as a software writer, I definitely don't want to do some other professional's work for them. Do you? So in this case I needed a tool that would work. The entire structure of the language was the problem. Ooops. Now all I have to do to fix it is rewrite everything in another language or reinvent the wheel, thus creating a series of my own methods to bias the problem... and that was just one problem. ... obviously such an approach is unacceptable in most cases.
Plus, you'll need two degrees (probably 2 Ph.D.s) just to proof-read a math paper. OUCH! The level of productivity in academics will drop dramatically. I think in some cases the author of the paper might as well take some drawing classes instead of computer modeling... it would certainly be more productive than the alternative.
There is no "failure" here other than a failure to read the Python documentation to learn the semantics of its number literals and arithmetic operators.
I can agree with that. AND you have to take into consideration that a mathematician may not have the vocabulary to understand a computer science manual. I have a lot of trouble reading high level mathematics, but at this point, reading computer science code or texts is easier than reading books.
Exactly how many years are we supposed to spend on a mathematical proof just figuring out the details of the programming language we're using? Have you ever met a Physics Ph.D. trying to create a computer model? They look like they're ready to kill someone. I can't say I blaim them. What you put on paper does not easily translate into code.
The problem happens because you use the wrong tool to solve the problem. If you need exact arithmetic, you should use exact arithmetic, not floating-point arithmetic, or if you're happy with high finite precision, you should rewrite your algorithm so that it doesn't suffer from cancellation.
You're right on the fact that I used the wrong tool. But I didn't know that until it was too late. It was like bringing a knife to a gun fight. But in a mathematician's/user's eyes, software should "just work". As a software writer, I don't want to have to write someone else's software for them because they screwed it up. And as a software writer, I definitely don't want to do some other professional's work for them. Do you? So in this case I needed a tool that would work. The entire structure of the language was the problem. Ooops. Now all I have to do to fix it is rewrite everything in another language or reinvent the wheel, thus creating a series of my own methods to bias the problem... and that was just one problem.
Plus, you'll need two degrees (probably 2 Ph.D.s) just to proof-read a math paper. OUCH! The level of productivity in academics will drop dramatically. I think in some cases the author of the paper might as well take some drawing classes instead of computer modeling... it would certainly be more productive than the alternative.
