Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Resources and education
Message-ID: <6413@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Apr-87 11:48:25 EST
Article-I.D.: mimsy.6413
Posted: Wed Apr 22 11:48:25 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Apr-87 03:43:06 EST
References: <780@killer.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 70

In article <780@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes:
>Barry Shein mentions that "Copying a bubblesort out of ACM algorithms
>is not innovation". Someone else mentions a case where a student was
>influenced by a partial program in another algorithms book. 
>
>First, we have to figure out what we're here to do.

In the case mentioned by Barry Shein, the students were no doubt
supposed to do one or more of these:

	learn a language;
	learn about sorting;
	learn how bubble sorts are implemented.

Copying the algorithm from a book is not a particularly good way to
do these.  (Not that it can never work.  One can learn quite a bit
simply by reading.)

>In other words, the whole purpose of the thing is to get the program
>written.

Not in this case.

>... For another example, when [working for a company] I needed to do
>some hashing, I consulted Knuth.  The job needed doing. The job needed
>doing RIGHT.  Without spending 6 months working through the math
>(assuming that I had the Statistics background to do it at all).
>The way to do it right, in the case of a well-known problem with a
>well-known solution, is to look it up -- there is generally no reason
>to re-invent the wheel.

But first you must know that the wheel has been invented.  How did
you know you needed hashing?  How did you know to use Knuth?  Of
all those hashing algorithms Knuth presents, how can you tell which
one to use?

Of course, this can be carried to an arbitrary depth (`How did you
know you needed to write that particular program in the first
place?', etc., ad absurdum nauseamque).  The point, though, is that
you have to know where to start when solving a problem.  The more
you know, the less chance there is that you will waste time solving
the wrong problems---inventing square wheels, or copying round pegs
only to put them into triangular holes.

Aside:

One of the things I dislike about the traditional school environment
is that it assumes a linear approach to learning---that you should
start with something small and very basic, then build on that, and
keep building until you reach the state of the art and begin
innovating.  This approach is fine:  it works, and it does not have
to be boring.  But it is not the only approach.  One can also dive
off the deep end, and sink or swim.  I have done this with some of
my own hobby-interests (e.g., digital electronics, when I was in
junior high and high school).  Sometimes one sinks; and if not,
one's swimming ability is hard to judge, if only because the gradual
approach is more common and familiar.  To climb out of the metaphorical
pool, it is conceivable that someone might pick up Knuth's books
and learn quite a bit about computing, without ever having touched
a digital computer.  This person might well have a terrible time
afterward in a regular curriculum.  All the beginning classes would
be terribly boring.  This is why I believe that the ideal school
is a log with a teacher on one end and a student on the other.

(Incidentally, if we are going to argue about plagiarism, can
we at least spell it correctly?  Everyone seems to have copied
the wrong spelling from the previous poster. :-) )
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690)
UUCP:	seismo!mimsy!chris	ARPA/CSNet:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu