>I studied Linear Programming at the Danzig Simplex Algorithm as well.
"At the" as in "at the altar of" is a nice way of putting it. My next program was compass and straightedge construction of the regular F(sub n)-gon for F(sub n) prime. Especially given the computer time/memory/cost limitations of the era, the lack of inherent recursion in FORTRAN was really frustrating.
>Coding an algorithm oneself is a way to help it sink in.
I haven't had anything to do with our numerical analysis classes for a long time so I don't know if it still the case or not but, last time I did, we required at least one project in anybody's favorite language for exactly that reason.
>Having a crummy language, though, can get in the way.
>Wayne's early edition Linear Algebra text (which I got a copy of) >has lots of code in the back for doing linear algebra. The language >(BASIC I think) is not taught in the regular text and in the back >it's somewhat dense and uncommented. You're just supposed to type >it in and cross your fingers you didn't make too many typos.
Not the earliest, thanks for remembering, nor the latest. Not only "cross your fingers" but also "quick and dirty" if you read carefully. So-called "rational numbers" as ordinary fractions are phony. They use early BASIC's idea of real arithmetic and just look for a close fraction. If they can't find one, they revert to "real". As with the Simplex Algorithm, I wanted something to teach with and offered the (floppy, while reminiscing) disk for free with the book. Including (especially!) row reduction of matrices that are not square and/or determinant of 0; not then easily available for free in order to completely solve systems of linear equations that have multiple solutions or no solution.
>But again, technology has moved on, and therefore pedagogy (potentially).
For some things, certainly. But mathematics remains mathematics and compromising it to genuflect to "technology" is not an appropriate part of your "therefore".