Is CS really code monkeying?

>>8493880
Your picture is graph theory, pure mathematics.

CS people don't let graph theory. They learn tree theory without proofs LITE.

>>8493884
Ford Fulkerson is at the very least applied mathematics. It definitely is taught to CS majors, and graduate students use this text for a course on combinatorial optimization at my uni.

>>8493880
>Any flow must pass across any cut between s and t
>The flow obviously can't exceed the value of the cut
>Therefore the minimum cut is the maximum you flow from s to t

Jesus Christ it's like I'm a PhD mathematician!!

>>8493890
>graduate students use this text for a course on combinatorial optimization at my uni.

What text is it? It's not AMO, Papadimitriou, Cook, Korte, or Schrijver.

>>8493884
>t. underage retard who never attended a real university, let alone a CS programme

>>8494051

This what irritates me the most.
You got math in your courses. Big deal.
Literally all science and engineering courses have math in them.

But for some reason, they somehow think their struggle is on par with math majors.
I rolled my eyes everytime a CS guy comment on /r/math like he's one of us.

>>8493884
Well. In Germany we actually do learn graph theory. Some do it in math class or in theo. CS class "Theoretische Informatik".

>>8494634
>I went to a shit-tier school and don't understand that real computer science can be just as hard

If computer science is so trivial why don't you solve P = NP and all other CS problems? Do you hate fame and money?

>>8494634
>pseudo-elitism
>"we struggled more ;_;"

>>8494656
>>8494669

Meh, you know it's true.

>>8493884

I had to learn graph theory in my CS undergrad, including proofs etc.

>>8494674
I agree that what your average CS undergrad student studies is easier than what your average math student studies but you are making the big mistake of dismissing the entire field of computer science as trivial just because of that.

You still end up using a calculator a whole lot in math studies, which to be honest doesn't make it too different from computer science - but is without many of the computer science specific issues such as maximizing performance by utilizing multithreading in efficient ways.

File: 0-eus-d1-73a9fb8400e87e48ef46ff07c2545ac6.jpg (100KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1200x675px

>>8493884
ucsb cs here

you're retarded, we learn about graph theory with proofs in undergrad data structures.

>>8494711
Who has it easier, chemists or computer scientists?

>>8494730
Chemistry is more about memorizing than abstract thinking, so I'd say chemists have it easier.
>>8494717
I study computer science and we never use a calculator in university. When you learn university maths, you don't really need much of that, do you? Although I use Sage and MATLAB, I don't know if that counts as a calculator.

That's baby math I read to 3 year old siser for a bedtime story. Try this (teenager math)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelfand–Naimark_theorem

>>8494740
> Everything above me is hard math and everything bellow me is baby math.

merk yourself.

>>8494656
>implying it matters when you could just masturbate to you algorithm with O(n^(k-0.075)) complexity for the rest of your life

i.e faster square matrix multiplication

>>8493884
My friend does CS here in Brazil and he does learn proof and graph theory(with proof).

CS looks different depending on uni and country.

>>8494060
It is Korte

>>8494060
Which is your favorite out of those?

>>8494808
imo the best american schools are
MIT, Stanford, CMU, Berkeley, UWashington Seattle, UMichigan Ann Arbor, UIUC

the rest are bad and just go to europe at that point

I'm a cs major and haven't written code in more than a year

>>8493880
How can CS PhDs live with having to teach undergrads wwho struggle with Big Oh and just want to program games?

>>8494887
They fail them?

>>8494871
UMDCP