Why do most programmers suck at math so much?

>>59237992
Why would you need a PhD in abstract algebra to write webapps?

The real question, is why most mathematicians suck at programming

>>59237992
Because "most programmers" are either pajeet code monkeys or web "developers" who failed the fizzbuzz test.

>>59237992
Programming is not a science, it's an art. Math could help in the past when programming was based on assembly but nowadays it's different.

Define "suck at math". Lack of knowledge of algebra?
Trig?
Integral/Differential Calc?
Vector Calc?

>>59237992
because thinking about maths just not needed in most applications. and when it is needed, there's a library for that.

t. bachelors in maths

File: you should be able to solve this.jpg (234KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1280x720px

The big-mouthed braggarts of /dpt/ couldn't solve this.

>>59240040
How much money could I make at a job that requires me to solve those problems?

>>59240057
300k starting

>>59240068
Nice meme.

>>59240040
>asking to do that on a board without TeX

>>59237992

same as why most programmers suck at sex or public speaking, we don't practice it, because we do not need it, if we need to something that is in the realm of math, we have computers to do that for us

>>59240134
>if we need to something that is in the realm of math, we have computers to do that for us
Oh, nice. Let your computer solve this >>59240040 :)

>>59240158
When would I ever need to solve that?

>>59240134
>implying computers can do math
lol...

>>59237992
Because you don't need a phd in math to make machines do stuff.

>>59238987
Academia in general. I work in a genomics lab and all so much shit is spaghetti R, Python, and C++.

>>59240158

what for? What is the reward for solving that? You want to do math solely for doing math? What is the benefit for solving that? Will I be 5% closer to the Alpha Centauri if I solve that crap?

>>59240068
>>59240072
actually with recent hype on ann, statistics, "exploration" i wouldn't be surprised if you could earn at least 180k

>>59237992
A better question is why does math notation suck so much when we have programming.

This is explored in Sussman's two books SICM and Functional Differential Geometry translating shit like classical mechanics equations into scheme functions and running them to debug/prove them.

>>59237992
Just haven't need it much. I tried to get into SDR and DSP recently and the math is real. I have to brush up on my trig and calc.

>>59237992
There are extremely few renaissance men left. Most will be good at one thing, but suck at other things. Programmers suck at math, mathematicians suck at engineering, engineers suck at art, etc. Only a select few extremely gifted and motivated people become good at multiple things.

>>59241194
This is something wallstreet has figured out.

For decades, they put mathematicians beside programmers and had them build high freq trading/quant trading strategies and schemes.

Then you go over to Silicon Valley and they want renaissance men who have PhDs in Machine Learning plus "senior level software engineering experience" which doesn't exist anywhere, and if that unicorn does exist he's getting paid $300k+/year at Jewggle.

>>59240040
Can someone give me a quick rundown of the solution?

>>59241194
You can become good at multiple things but there isn't enough time in life to do so.

You can get to a mathematical maturity level in software development where you can look at a mathematics academic journal and translate what has already been figured out there into programming, and perform basic good enough analysis on your implementation but for inventing new analytic tools or innovating AI/Machine Learning you're going to need actual mathematicians who have spent 3-8 years specifically researching that field, full-time, every single day all day long and not dicking around with linking libraries together or debugging some legacy code.

>>59240040
can anyone explain this in retarded?

>>59238987
For the same reason that programmers are shit at maths

>>59240840
What does category theory have to do with machine learning?

>>59237992
Most programming is integer math, and beyond that, more advanced math you learned in college and what you actually need are two very different things.

Also, the people in OP's pic are about to be kill by Cleric Beast.

>>59240113
This, the problem isn't even a programming problem, is a CT/HoTT problem

just as much as why electrical engineers can't make you a piece of software

>>59237992

They don't

Computer science is a field of math and computer engineering/software engineering has the math requirements of engineering majors

Can't speak for code bootcamp html monkies and Pajeet though

>>59240237
>Academia in general.
No shit, they aren't working in the private sector for a reason.

>>59237992
You can't be innovative AND good at math. One requires following rules and the other requires breaking them.

I'm beginning to think it's a no true scotsman thing.

Everyone thinks they're a patient, diligent programmer who understands the virtue of advanced mathematics -- and that everyone else is a stinky, incompetent millennial CS grad.

>>59240040

We apply the idea of a topological quantum field theory (TQFT) to maps from manifolds into topological spaces. This leads to a notion of a (d+1)-dimensional homotopy quantum field theory (HQFT) which may be described as a TQFT for closed d-dimensional manifolds and (d+1)-dimensional cobordisms endowed with homotopy classes of maps into a given space. For a group π, we introduce cohomological HQFT's with target K(π,1) derived from cohomology classes of π and its subgroups of finite index. The main body of the paper is concerned with (1+1)-dimensional HQFT's. We classify them in terms of so called crossed group-algebras. In particular, the cohomological (1+1)-dimensional HQFT's over a field of characteristic 0 are classified by simple crossed group-algebras. We introduce two state sum models for (1+1)-dimensional HQFT's and prove that the resulting HQFT's are direct sums of rescaled cohomological HQFT's. We also discuss a version of the Verlinde formula in this setting.

>>59237992
Because programming is about making the computer do the math for you.

>>59245545
That's an abstract from a paper you've just found, isn't it?

>>59237992
>>>59237992 (OP)
Because "most" people suck?