Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!duke!crm
From: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: Math and CS
Message-ID: <7011@duke.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 09:59:03 EST
Article-I.D.: duke.7011
Posted: Fri Mar 14 09:59:03 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Mar-86 00:46:14 EST
References: <256@hropus.UUCP> <6400005@ccvaxa> <77@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1413@garfield.columbia.edu> <6988@duke.UUCP> <767@harvard.UUCP>
Reply-To: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin)
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 48
Summary: 

In article <767@harvard.UUCP> greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) writes:
>In article <6988@duke.UUCP> crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) writes:
>>The basic point of [Knuth's] article was that there are two styles of
>>thought involved, and that being good at one *does not* imply
>>that one is good at the other.  As one who is good at algorithmic
>>thinking and had to struggle with math, I can certainly attest to it.
>
>I for one don't like making a strict dichotomy between math and computer
>science.  There is no one "way of thinking" in mathematics; there are 
>approaches to each field of mathematics, and each approach requires different
>thought processes in varying degrees.  
As far as there being more that one way of thinking in mathematics --
I'm not sure I believe you.  Have you any evidence? 

Don't take this tquestion too seriously, as I am also not certain that
"ways of thinking" are well-defined....

>....
>Certainly some fields of mathematics are very algorithmic, like complexity
>theory, while some fields in computer science are very mathematical, like
>mathematical computer graphics.
There certainly is no question that certain fields of math *can be
understood algorithmically* -- that is certainly the way I understood
integration and differentiation when I first learned about them.  (Now I
just use infinitestimals when I can -- shows you what getting interested
in logic can do.)

But *my point* is that there are two styles of thought, and some people
come more easily to one than the other.  I come more easily to
algorithmic thinking, and less so to mathematical.  Math is harder for
me.  But I still find it useful.

>For example, if you had a position open for a researcher in the state-of-
>the-art computer graphics, and Richard Feynman and my friend-Teddy-with-a-
>C.S.-degree applied for the job, which should you hire?  My answer is Richard
>Feynman, because he is a genius, while Teddy is not, despite the fact that
>Feynman's degree is in physics.
>-- 
>gregregreg
I'd hire Dick Feynmann because he's an artist, and thus has knowledge of
the problem domain.   But I understand he's pretty happy at CalTech, I
don't think we could get him.


-- 

			Charlie Martin
			(...mcnc!duke!crm)