Comment by parasubvert | Hacker News Reader

Comment by parasubvert | Hacker News Reader

Why place one body of knowledge in front of the other like this? Everything has to be a competition with some people.

It's always been a mistake to believe math is somehow more noble than programming. Best explanation as to why comes from the preface of SICP by Abelson and Sussmann:

"Underlying our approach to this subject is our conviction that ``computer science'' is not a science and that its significance has little to do with computers. The computer revolution is a revolution in the way we think and in the way we express what we think. The essence of this change is the emergence of what might best be called procedural epistemology -- the study of the structure of knowledge from an imperative point of view, as opposed to the more declarative point of view taken by classical mathematical subjects. Mathematics provides a framework for dealing precisely with notions of ``what is.'' Computation provides a framework for dealing precisely with notions of ``how to.''"

Where did you get nobility from. This isn't the author's point at all. Obviously knowledge about different areas of knowledge can be of more practical benefit at different times. The point is that in the next few years knowledge of math will become relatively more valuable and programming relatively less valuable.

Regarding the quote, it is a best a great oversimplification. Mathematicians have been interested in computation for a long time. See the Euclidean algorithm for example. Interestingly its computational complexity was worked out a hundred years before computer science was even considered a subject. Many great mathematicians like Gauss also had a keen interest in computation. A description of the fast Fourier transform was found in his notes after he died.

It is true that mathematical theorems have historically not been written from a computational point of view. But many many theorems can easily be turned into an algorithm (anything based on induction for example). Mathematics has many different subfields and the number of such constructive theorems varies based on the area. However, constructive arguments in mathematics are so pervasive that I think it is silly to even try and separate computation and mathematics as separate ways of thinking.

"The point is that in the next few years knowledge of math will become relatively more valuable and programming relatively less valuable."

Sorry, that's at best an opinion, and at worst, bullshit. There little evidence of this. This article makes an assertion, provides a few anecdotes.

I agree there is almost no content in this post. Reasonable cases could be made both for and against the point I think.

Yeah, I accept that.

I think you made a false equivocation there--computer science in relation to programming is like geology in relation to ditch digging. Besides, math literally is at the core of all of our advancements as humans, and is probably going to be the differentiator for people in the future--kind of like degreed versus not degreed today. It is far more universal than programming, and in some respects high level mathematics may be one of the last things to be automated. If that isn't reason enough to consider of primary importance, I'm not sure what is.

"I think you made a false equivocation there--computer science in relation to programming is like geology in relation to ditch digging."

That's a very 1960's attitude. Change 'ditch digging' to 'mining', or 'engineering geology', and I'd agree.

"Besides, math literally is at the core of all of our advancements as humans, and is probably going to be the differentiator for people in the future--kind of like degreed versus not degreed today."

This is rather hilarious to me, considering I've taken a BMath program, which has had zero bearing on my work prospects. Helped me to think & learn, yes.

Math is certainly a component of many areas of advancement, and I believe a certain level of mathematical knowledge is required to be a productive knowledge worker. But to single it out as the core of our advancements is false.

For example, the greatest source of our improved economic equality and growth globally is improved productivity in managed industrial processes brought to light in various phases by Henry Ford, Fredrick Taylor, Taiichi Ohno & Sheigo Shingo, and Edwards Deming. Math, particularly statistical analysis, queuing theory, etc. is a part of all of that, but not the core insight, and not even required to understand and apply the approaches, methods.

Similarly, our greatest achievements in understanding macroeconomic systems come from fairly basic models like IS-LM that have stood the test of time. Advanced mathematical models of the economy, like Real Business Cycle theory have tried to fit reality to their maths, with disastrous policy results. Blind faith in advanced maths placed at the heart of the shadow banking system is what almost destroyed the world economy in 2008.

"It is far more universal than programming"

Philosophy is more universal than all of these topics, but I don't necessarily see it as requiring primary importance.

Math is traditionally one of several liberal arts, and not particularly central. There's also language & literature, history, psychology, science (in various sub-forms), art, music. I'd add systems engineering to this list as another key subject area that's been necessary for our advancement. All of which interact with each other, and all of which are are core to our advancement as humans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com