Can someone please explain to me why the FUCK programming is required

...to get a degree in mathematics at my school? It may not require more than one class or two but it's still there. Seriously. I wanna know. Finding this out ruined mathematics as an option for me because I'm good at math but I hate all programming with a fiery passion.

edited 4th May '12 7:48:51 PM by LightArrow

Because employers want programming skills. Or so maths professors think. Pure maths is for the birds in this post credit crunch world. Whether that is true or not I leave it up to you but it is the best I can come up with.

^^ Mostly to get you to think logically. (as in logic "this does this then calls that then performs this step" logic) Not much more to it than that.

Yup, they've both got it. It makes you a bit more hire-able, and its an excellent chance to use some applied mathematics and logic.

Oddly enough, I kninda like programing, but it's too much math for me.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Yeah but wouldn't someone who is good at math have no problems thinking logically? Math skills are generally associated with left brain thinking.

edited 4th May '12 7:44:51 PM by LightArrow

^ Not necessarily. Being good at numbers does not always translate to being good at logic. Specifically since some forms of high level math require step by step proofs to reach a solution. If you don't understand step by step logic you won't be able to do those proofs very well. Programming at the least teaches you how to think in step by step logic.

edited 4th May '12 7:49:38 PM by MajorTom

You mean good at numbers as in mental number-crunching abilities? If that's the case I'm doing pretty well in discrete math and that doesn't require much number crunching

If I were you I wouldn't let that turn you away from the field. An intro level programming course isn't that hard to suffer through.

<><

Yeah, I knew way too many people in my physics major who were good at the math itself, but a) lacked the greater abstract understanding to apply it to anything other than a given problem, or b) had a rather tumultuous and disconnected flow of thought and lost track of themselves. Programming forces you to break a problem down into systematic pieces and sub-problems, and verify yourself algorithmically instead of just numerically.

This is exceedingly important once you get into 300-level-ish math, where not rigorously verifying your process and possible exceptions you introduce can result in nonsense, neglecting non-unique solutions, or all manner of other things that can completely Swiss cheese your crunching.

edited 4th May '12 8:00:16 PM by Pykrete

Writing proofs and writing code are similar tasks. Actually, by the Curry-Howard correspondence, proofs and computer programs are very closely related.

A good proof looks a lot like a valid program, so I can certainly understand why they require a programming class; programming is a good way to gain experience with the sort of reasoning used in proving theorems.

I really have my doubts that anyone with the ability to get a degree in mathematics would not be able to handle an intro programming course or two. What happened, did a compiler bite you as a small child?

A brighter future for a darker age.

Yeah dude, I'm a Creative Writing major and I've taken some programming courses, I've written a program that will play Rock Paper Scissors with you, although for some reason it would shit the bed if you both played paper. Never did get around to fixing that.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

I'm trying to resist the urge to shout "nerds" at all y'all.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Primarily because math, past a certain point, becomes very difficult to do by hand.

Especially applied math.

As such, one must use a computer. And often, one must program that computer to deal with the functions and vector spaces you have to deal with.

/shrug/ That's the way it tends to be, based on the math majors I know, anyway.

"Lock up your girlfriends, lock up your wives, Grim's on the loose so run for your lives." - Pyrite

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Depends on the kind of math.

But yeah, there are branches of mathematics for which you need programming abilities. Numerical analysis is the most obvious example; but experimental mathematics is getting rather big right now.

If that's not the sort of thing that interests you, you'll probably just take a basic course or two and that's it; but still, that's part of a modern mathematical education.

Also, there is another thing to consider. Often, in order to prove a result, you have to define an algorithm and then prove that it satisfies a certain property. That's the case even for rather simple proofs: for example, Euclid's proof that there exist infinitely many prime numbers is nothing but an algorithm that, given the first n prime numbers, returns you yet another one.

Knowing something about the basics of programming can come useful to find out such algorithms in practice.

edited 5th May '12 1:36:14 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

A lot of problems simply can't be analytically solved in terms of elementary functions and either have to be numerically approximated or can be solved only in terms of a (-n infinite) series.

Pah, it's unworthy of a mathematician to compute solutions, by approximation of otherwise. We prove that solutions exist: the rest we leave to engineers, physicists and other lower forms of life

edited 5th May '12 11:33:44 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Well, as an economist, I resent that snide comment.

Economists get a pass, because they find interesting results in game theory. You can be our minions in the fight against physicists and engineers

If you were really offended, I apologize. It goes without saying that I am kidding.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I'm really unable to be offended at this, seeing that I just got a degree in applied mathematics not two hours ago.

Congratulations!

To clarify, there is quite a bit of friendly rivalry between the applied math and theoretical math disciplines, at least over here.

It's all in jest — applied people say that we are just playing around with definitions, and we say that applied people are glorified computer caretakers, but nobody takes it seriously.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

As I see it, showing a solution exists is good, but if you can construct it, compute it, or provide an algorithm, that's even better. An unnecessarily nonconstructive proof feels like using the axiom of choice when you don't need to; it introduces extra foundational dependencies that aren't inherent to the theorem.

edited 5th May '12 1:54:04 PM by Enthryn

Computing + bad teachers = a wasted class. I'm with Light Arrow on this one.