
Re: Keith Devlin's Online Course
Posted:
Jan 1, 2014 12:22 PM



On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:07 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@GMAIL.COM> wrote: > > You are not disagreeing then, only underlining your distopian view of the > present and suggesting in some past golden age, of which you wax nostalgic, > injecting SQL would have seemed logical. > > > I have never had a problem with CS in school. I think it absolutely should > be in school. But CS cannot flourish unless mathematics flourishes. > >
And my point is this artificial divide where we put "CS" in this corner and "Math" over in that corner and make them entirely separate subjects, is the product of lazy minds of effective IQ < 50 (where most adults are at, effectively, through no fault of their own  the curriculum has left them far far behind, with a mental age of about half what it should be (of course this is my own private reckoning as normalization rules forbid such a skewed view)).
Those who keep CS and mathematics strictly separated, with separate faculties, books, course numbers, and favor one over the other politically, making "3 years math" a requirement for high school while offering the other only in privileged schools (almost by definition), are people I consider "morons" in an almost legalistic sense. Yet they're allowed to do their jobs. That's why this is such a liberal place: we let the mentally disabled run it, for the most part (that's all we've got, just about, including in socalled "high office").
>> You need coordinate systems, splines, sprites, Bezier curves... Turtle Art, >> fractals.
> But you don?t need to understand the mathematics behind them, like a > carpenter doesn?t need to understand the physics behind hammers and nails. > >
A lot of them do though. I meet lay people graphic artists types who know a lot of math, play with NetLogo, cellular automata. The art community tends to attract a lot of smart polymath types. They don't have the egos or personas for mathematicians, but have a lot of mastery over the same content.
>> Saying graphic arts is not mathy is like saying M.C. Escher is not mathy. >> Or Penrose tiles. Or polyhedrons. > > > Saying graphics arts is not mathy is not the same thing as saying that one > cannot incorporate mathematics into graphics arts. > > Mathematics is not a requirement of graphics arts. >
I'm just saying, whoever is busy trying to separate everything so strictly so that everything stays compartmentalized, should slack off a bit. That's not work that needs doing. Waste of time.
Like I was saying earlier, making a lot of sharp distinctions where there are none is the mark of a slow thinker, pretending to do work.
Kirby
> > Bob Hansen > >

