<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_25_0312233</id>
	<title>Math Skills For Programmers &mdash; Necessary Or Not?</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1269546960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Currently, the nature of most programming work is such that you don't really need math skills to get by or even to do well; after all, linear algebra is no help when building database-driven websites. However, Skorks contends that if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field, <a href="http://www.skorks.com/2010/03/you-dont-need-math-skills-to-be-a-good-developer-but-you-do-need-them-to-be-a-great-one/">math skills are essential</a>, and furthermore will become increasingly important as we are forced to work with ever larger data sets (making math-intensive algorithm analysis skills a priority)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Currently , the nature of most programming work is such that you do n't really need math skills to get by or even to do well ; after all , linear algebra is no help when building database-driven websites .
However , Skorks contends that if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field , math skills are essential , and furthermore will become increasingly important as we are forced to work with ever larger data sets ( making math-intensive algorithm analysis skills a priority ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Currently, the nature of most programming work is such that you don't really need math skills to get by or even to do well; after all, linear algebra is no help when building database-driven websites.
However, Skorks contends that if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field, math skills are essential, and furthermore will become increasingly important as we are forced to work with ever larger data sets (making math-intensive algorithm analysis skills a priority).
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607942</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so the real programmers write libraries all day then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so the real programmers write libraries all day then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so the real programmers write libraries all day then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608256</id>
	<title>Depends upon your field</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1269512400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Programming is not a monolithic field. It depends what you do. Obviously, if you work with large datasets, then there are some statistical things you have to do. On the other hand, in my field, embedded software, you don't usually get much further than simple multiply/divide loading estimates. If there is a complex algorithm, it comes from the field specialists. That said, I had to dig into the maths a bit to implement Raid6 - but it was still a matter of understanding someone else's work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Programming is not a monolithic field .
It depends what you do .
Obviously , if you work with large datasets , then there are some statistical things you have to do .
On the other hand , in my field , embedded software , you do n't usually get much further than simple multiply/divide loading estimates .
If there is a complex algorithm , it comes from the field specialists .
That said , I had to dig into the maths a bit to implement Raid6 - but it was still a matter of understanding someone else 's work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programming is not a monolithic field.
It depends what you do.
Obviously, if you work with large datasets, then there are some statistical things you have to do.
On the other hand, in my field, embedded software, you don't usually get much further than simple multiply/divide loading estimates.
If there is a complex algorithm, it comes from the field specialists.
That said, I had to dig into the maths a bit to implement Raid6 - but it was still a matter of understanding someone else's work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607966</id>
	<title>Necessary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Higher math' in the traditional sense may not be a requirement, but discrete mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete\_mathematics) has long been and continues to remain a highly-valuable (if not crucial) skill for any number of reasons. Many of its concepts map directly to programming constructs. Writing conditional statements based on boolean values? You're enjoying the wonderful world of boolean algebra. Want to use those randomly-generated numbers correctly rather than naively throwing them at a problem? An understanding of set-theory/probability subjects such as the principle of inclusion/exclusion is key. Do you need just one enumeration, or do you need a set of flags? Well, that depends on whether the group of characteristics you're differentiating between form equivalence classes (dividing your input into disjoint subsets) or not.</p><p>tl;dr mathematical concepts typically form the underpinnings of even programs that don't manage a single numeric variable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Higher math ' in the traditional sense may not be a requirement , but discrete mathematics ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete \ _mathematics ) has long been and continues to remain a highly-valuable ( if not crucial ) skill for any number of reasons .
Many of its concepts map directly to programming constructs .
Writing conditional statements based on boolean values ?
You 're enjoying the wonderful world of boolean algebra .
Want to use those randomly-generated numbers correctly rather than naively throwing them at a problem ?
An understanding of set-theory/probability subjects such as the principle of inclusion/exclusion is key .
Do you need just one enumeration , or do you need a set of flags ?
Well , that depends on whether the group of characteristics you 're differentiating between form equivalence classes ( dividing your input into disjoint subsets ) or not.tl ; dr mathematical concepts typically form the underpinnings of even programs that do n't manage a single numeric variable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Higher math' in the traditional sense may not be a requirement, but discrete mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete\_mathematics) has long been and continues to remain a highly-valuable (if not crucial) skill for any number of reasons.
Many of its concepts map directly to programming constructs.
Writing conditional statements based on boolean values?
You're enjoying the wonderful world of boolean algebra.
Want to use those randomly-generated numbers correctly rather than naively throwing them at a problem?
An understanding of set-theory/probability subjects such as the principle of inclusion/exclusion is key.
Do you need just one enumeration, or do you need a set of flags?
Well, that depends on whether the group of characteristics you're differentiating between form equivalence classes (dividing your input into disjoint subsets) or not.tl;dr mathematical concepts typically form the underpinnings of even programs that don't manage a single numeric variable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31620546</id>
	<title>Logic and Mathematics</title>
	<author>obliv!on</author>
	<datestamp>1269526560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen many many posts talking about "you need logic but not really mathematics" <br>
I'm not really sure what the confusion is about why mathematics would be separate from logic in any respect.
<br> <br>
Symbolic Logic is Mathematical Logic. Principia Mathematica clearly makes the case that math and logic are the same thing. As did many works around the same time and since. So how can you need logic for computer science or programming yet somehow not mathematics it just doesn't make any sense to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen many many posts talking about " you need logic but not really mathematics " I 'm not really sure what the confusion is about why mathematics would be separate from logic in any respect .
Symbolic Logic is Mathematical Logic .
Principia Mathematica clearly makes the case that math and logic are the same thing .
As did many works around the same time and since .
So how can you need logic for computer science or programming yet somehow not mathematics it just does n't make any sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen many many posts talking about "you need logic but not really mathematics" 
I'm not really sure what the confusion is about why mathematics would be separate from logic in any respect.
Symbolic Logic is Mathematical Logic.
Principia Mathematica clearly makes the case that math and logic are the same thing.
As did many works around the same time and since.
So how can you need logic for computer science or programming yet somehow not mathematics it just doesn't make any sense to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608150</id>
	<title>Math vs logic</title>
	<author>bguiz</author>
	<datestamp>1269510540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who are good at math tend to be good at logical thinking.

</p><p>Similarly, people who are good at logical thinking tend to be good at math.

</p><p>Relevance? To be a good programmer you need to be really really good at logical thinking - without it, you'd take way too long to "crack" a problem or devise a new algorithm or plan an inheritance hierarchy, etc. A strong background in math is therefore advantageous, but is not an absolute necessity.

</p><p>It boils down to what exactly you are coding. If you are writing a specialised statistical tool or engineering software or..... no doubt math skills are essential. Otherwise, as several others have already pointed out, there's probably already a library that does the basic things for you.

</p><p>Case in point: Let's say average Joe programmer is working on a GUI that displays statistics in the form of fancy looking 3D charts. Someone with really good mathematical knowledge of graphing techniques (not to mention the math involved with the 3D bits) created a library that has all the graphing functionality in it. Joe programmer comes along, with a relatively rudimentary knowledge of math, plugs the library into his GUI, and has to figure out how to use its API - overall, the task is quite easily accomplished.

</p><p>However, let's say that Joe programmer was just a GUI that merely displays the statistics, but one which actually understands it and even does some highly specific detailed analysis of said statistics - then the situation would be completely different - Joe programmer would need to acquire the necessary math skills, before even being able to competently code the application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are good at math tend to be good at logical thinking .
Similarly , people who are good at logical thinking tend to be good at math .
Relevance ? To be a good programmer you need to be really really good at logical thinking - without it , you 'd take way too long to " crack " a problem or devise a new algorithm or plan an inheritance hierarchy , etc .
A strong background in math is therefore advantageous , but is not an absolute necessity .
It boils down to what exactly you are coding .
If you are writing a specialised statistical tool or engineering software or..... no doubt math skills are essential .
Otherwise , as several others have already pointed out , there 's probably already a library that does the basic things for you .
Case in point : Let 's say average Joe programmer is working on a GUI that displays statistics in the form of fancy looking 3D charts .
Someone with really good mathematical knowledge of graphing techniques ( not to mention the math involved with the 3D bits ) created a library that has all the graphing functionality in it .
Joe programmer comes along , with a relatively rudimentary knowledge of math , plugs the library into his GUI , and has to figure out how to use its API - overall , the task is quite easily accomplished .
However , let 's say that Joe programmer was just a GUI that merely displays the statistics , but one which actually understands it and even does some highly specific detailed analysis of said statistics - then the situation would be completely different - Joe programmer would need to acquire the necessary math skills , before even being able to competently code the application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are good at math tend to be good at logical thinking.
Similarly, people who are good at logical thinking tend to be good at math.
Relevance? To be a good programmer you need to be really really good at logical thinking - without it, you'd take way too long to "crack" a problem or devise a new algorithm or plan an inheritance hierarchy, etc.
A strong background in math is therefore advantageous, but is not an absolute necessity.
It boils down to what exactly you are coding.
If you are writing a specialised statistical tool or engineering software or..... no doubt math skills are essential.
Otherwise, as several others have already pointed out, there's probably already a library that does the basic things for you.
Case in point: Let's say average Joe programmer is working on a GUI that displays statistics in the form of fancy looking 3D charts.
Someone with really good mathematical knowledge of graphing techniques (not to mention the math involved with the 3D bits) created a library that has all the graphing functionality in it.
Joe programmer comes along, with a relatively rudimentary knowledge of math, plugs the library into his GUI, and has to figure out how to use its API - overall, the task is quite easily accomplished.
However, let's say that Joe programmer was just a GUI that merely displays the statistics, but one which actually understands it and even does some highly specific detailed analysis of said statistics - then the situation would be completely different - Joe programmer would need to acquire the necessary math skills, before even being able to competently code the application.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608242</id>
	<title>You need math(s) for DBs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269512160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can understand database properly if you don't know Set Theory and Boolean Predicate Logic?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can understand database properly if you do n't know Set Theory and Boolean Predicate Logic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can understand database properly if you don't know Set Theory and Boolean Predicate Logic?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608640</id>
	<title>Had to learn trig really fast</title>
	<author>garnkelflax</author>
	<datestamp>1269518700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had a client a few years ago that needed incredibly configurable dials as part of the project's display and print capabilities.  Due to the nature of the client, no 3rd party software was allowed because they required that the software had to be evaluated line by line for security reasons.  I never took trig in H.S. or college.  In H.S. my highest was general math.  In college my highest was algebra II.  The nature of how the dials and needles needed to be displayed was so complicated from a visual perspective that using any existing arc/gradient/line functions in the api were out so I had to build a customized library that worked at the pixel level both for screen and printer devices.  I spent a week of doing nothing but learning the parts of trig that applied to my issue.

If I were to go back 25 years, I'd take every advanced math course H.S. had to offer, and in college I would have continued to be more math focused.  After that experience I've always wondered if I could have solved other problems more elegantly because I'd be equipped with a better toolbox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a client a few years ago that needed incredibly configurable dials as part of the project 's display and print capabilities .
Due to the nature of the client , no 3rd party software was allowed because they required that the software had to be evaluated line by line for security reasons .
I never took trig in H.S .
or college .
In H.S .
my highest was general math .
In college my highest was algebra II .
The nature of how the dials and needles needed to be displayed was so complicated from a visual perspective that using any existing arc/gradient/line functions in the api were out so I had to build a customized library that worked at the pixel level both for screen and printer devices .
I spent a week of doing nothing but learning the parts of trig that applied to my issue .
If I were to go back 25 years , I 'd take every advanced math course H.S .
had to offer , and in college I would have continued to be more math focused .
After that experience I 've always wondered if I could have solved other problems more elegantly because I 'd be equipped with a better toolbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a client a few years ago that needed incredibly configurable dials as part of the project's display and print capabilities.
Due to the nature of the client, no 3rd party software was allowed because they required that the software had to be evaluated line by line for security reasons.
I never took trig in H.S.
or college.
In H.S.
my highest was general math.
In college my highest was algebra II.
The nature of how the dials and needles needed to be displayed was so complicated from a visual perspective that using any existing arc/gradient/line functions in the api were out so I had to build a customized library that worked at the pixel level both for screen and printer devices.
I spent a week of doing nothing but learning the parts of trig that applied to my issue.
If I were to go back 25 years, I'd take every advanced math course H.S.
had to offer, and in college I would have continued to be more math focused.
After that experience I've always wondered if I could have solved other problems more elegantly because I'd be equipped with a better toolbox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610702</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269532500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While much of the time I think that mathematicians are just off in their own imaginary worlds (http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/groups/analytic-topology, no wikipedia article even!), I have found in my engineering studies that often we stumble upon a problem that has had a solution in math for a long time and is well understood even though it is (physically) "new".</p><p>I remember a story about the first electrical engineer to find an efficient method to find important (large) eigen-values for complex systems with many eigen-values, he "discovered" the solution by reading it in a math book. The solution was there just waiting for an application and so circuit simulation was pushed forward quickly because the problem was solved (hundreds of years before I think). (Sadly I don't remember enough details of the story to remember who it was or even exactly why these values needed to be found.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While much of the time I think that mathematicians are just off in their own imaginary worlds ( http : //www.maths.ox.ac.uk/groups/analytic-topology , no wikipedia article even !
) , I have found in my engineering studies that often we stumble upon a problem that has had a solution in math for a long time and is well understood even though it is ( physically ) " new " .I remember a story about the first electrical engineer to find an efficient method to find important ( large ) eigen-values for complex systems with many eigen-values , he " discovered " the solution by reading it in a math book .
The solution was there just waiting for an application and so circuit simulation was pushed forward quickly because the problem was solved ( hundreds of years before I think ) .
( Sadly I do n't remember enough details of the story to remember who it was or even exactly why these values needed to be found .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While much of the time I think that mathematicians are just off in their own imaginary worlds (http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/groups/analytic-topology, no wikipedia article even!
), I have found in my engineering studies that often we stumble upon a problem that has had a solution in math for a long time and is well understood even though it is (physically) "new".I remember a story about the first electrical engineer to find an efficient method to find important (large) eigen-values for complex systems with many eigen-values, he "discovered" the solution by reading it in a math book.
The solution was there just waiting for an application and so circuit simulation was pushed forward quickly because the problem was solved (hundreds of years before I think).
(Sadly I don't remember enough details of the story to remember who it was or even exactly why these values needed to be found.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608598</id>
	<title>depends on the field</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269518160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I currently work with bioinfomaticians (I am the database guy in the group, and the only one that has had a job outside academia). A lot of bioinfomatics seems to involve fairly complex statistics these days. I try and tech them how to use a database, but they are more interested in using flat files than learning a few lines of Perl code to connect. Hardly any of them uses a debugger (not because they are so smart that they don't need one, but because they can't be bothered with the learning cure of setting up a project in Eclipse).</p><p>Sure most of them know more Maths than me, but hardly any of them could build a reliable scalable system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I currently work with bioinfomaticians ( I am the database guy in the group , and the only one that has had a job outside academia ) .
A lot of bioinfomatics seems to involve fairly complex statistics these days .
I try and tech them how to use a database , but they are more interested in using flat files than learning a few lines of Perl code to connect .
Hardly any of them uses a debugger ( not because they are so smart that they do n't need one , but because they ca n't be bothered with the learning cure of setting up a project in Eclipse ) .Sure most of them know more Maths than me , but hardly any of them could build a reliable scalable system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I currently work with bioinfomaticians (I am the database guy in the group, and the only one that has had a job outside academia).
A lot of bioinfomatics seems to involve fairly complex statistics these days.
I try and tech them how to use a database, but they are more interested in using flat files than learning a few lines of Perl code to connect.
Hardly any of them uses a debugger (not because they are so smart that they don't need one, but because they can't be bothered with the learning cure of setting up a project in Eclipse).Sure most of them know more Maths than me, but hardly any of them could build a reliable scalable system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612912</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269539280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Just my 0.02c of course.</p></div></blockquote><p>In a world where people contribute an ostentatious $0.02 to a discussion, you are contributing 0.02c. Your humility amazes me sir!</p><p>That, or you're just incredibly stingy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div><p>No, he works at Verizon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9LZ3ojnxY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just my 0.02c of course.In a world where people contribute an ostentatious $ 0.02 to a discussion , you are contributing 0.02c .
Your humility amazes me sir ! That , or you 're just incredibly stingy .
; - ) No , he works at Verizon : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = zN9LZ3ojnxY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just my 0.02c of course.In a world where people contribute an ostentatious $0.02 to a discussion, you are contributing 0.02c.
Your humility amazes me sir!That, or you're just incredibly stingy.
;-)No, he works at Verizon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9LZ3ojnxY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608320</id>
	<title>Re:code monkeys</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1269513420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(Figures totally out of the air.)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I think you need some statistics training<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Figures totally out of the air .
) I think you need some statistics training : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Figures totally out of the air.
)

I think you need some statistics training :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613466</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269541080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Just my 0.02c of course.</p></div></blockquote><p>In a world where people contribute an ostentatious $0.02 to a discussion, you are contributing 0.02c. Your humility amazes me sir!</p><p>That, or you're just incredibly stingy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div><p>No, he works for Verizon</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just my 0.02c of course.In a world where people contribute an ostentatious $ 0.02 to a discussion , you are contributing 0.02c .
Your humility amazes me sir ! That , or you 're just incredibly stingy .
; - ) No , he works for Verizon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just my 0.02c of course.In a world where people contribute an ostentatious $0.02 to a discussion, you are contributing 0.02c.
Your humility amazes me sir!That, or you're just incredibly stingy.
;-)No, he works for Verizon
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608740</id>
	<title>Re:Strong Math Skills often get dumbed down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269520620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slick algorithms truely are nothing special.  Slick algorithms which are broken down into something readable, and rational, are very special.  It's too easy in many languages to write antalgorithm in a way which is confusing.  It's rare these days to need to write an algorithm which uses ordering tricks so that the code will be optimal for the processor's register set. C/C++ compilers will  handle a great deal of the optimization for you.</p><p>People that think generating a really cool algorithm is somehow a great idea, but which no one else on their team can understand without breaking it down, are fooling themselves.  Sometimes crap like that will get you out of a job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slick algorithms truely are nothing special .
Slick algorithms which are broken down into something readable , and rational , are very special .
It 's too easy in many languages to write antalgorithm in a way which is confusing .
It 's rare these days to need to write an algorithm which uses ordering tricks so that the code will be optimal for the processor 's register set .
C/C + + compilers will handle a great deal of the optimization for you.People that think generating a really cool algorithm is somehow a great idea , but which no one else on their team can understand without breaking it down , are fooling themselves .
Sometimes crap like that will get you out of a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slick algorithms truely are nothing special.
Slick algorithms which are broken down into something readable, and rational, are very special.
It's too easy in many languages to write antalgorithm in a way which is confusing.
It's rare these days to need to write an algorithm which uses ordering tricks so that the code will be optimal for the processor's register set.
C/C++ compilers will  handle a great deal of the optimization for you.People that think generating a really cool algorithm is somehow a great idea, but which no one else on their team can understand without breaking it down, are fooling themselves.
Sometimes crap like that will get you out of a job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621398</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269533100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with almost all of this list (not convinced about a universal need for linear algebra), but I'd add one more area of mathematics: Number Theory, aka Finite Arithmetic.</p><p>Basically it's the mathematics of integers, and I think everyone would agree that the average programmer spends more time working with integers than real numbers.</p><p>BTW: I'd prefer to use the term "software developer" rather than "programmer"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with almost all of this list ( not convinced about a universal need for linear algebra ) , but I 'd add one more area of mathematics : Number Theory , aka Finite Arithmetic.Basically it 's the mathematics of integers , and I think everyone would agree that the average programmer spends more time working with integers than real numbers.BTW : I 'd prefer to use the term " software developer " rather than " programmer " : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with almost all of this list (not convinced about a universal need for linear algebra), but I'd add one more area of mathematics: Number Theory, aka Finite Arithmetic.Basically it's the mathematics of integers, and I think everyone would agree that the average programmer spends more time working with integers than real numbers.BTW: I'd prefer to use the term "software developer" rather than "programmer" :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609472</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1269526500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you have redefined "maths" as computer science : the study of formal languages and their computational properties....</p></div><p>It's worth noting here that CS came from math back in the 60s and 70s. A lot of the earliest algorithms and related work were done by mathematicians and physicists.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... and then you point out that programming requires your redefined maths, which is actually CS. So yes, programming does require CS.</p></div><p>One doesn't need CS to program either. There's a lot of simple programming that doesn't need that. But knowing these skills empower a programmer and allow them to do a lot more than HTML layout.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you have redefined " maths " as computer science : the study of formal languages and their computational properties....It 's worth noting here that CS came from math back in the 60s and 70s .
A lot of the earliest algorithms and related work were done by mathematicians and physicists .
... and then you point out that programming requires your redefined maths , which is actually CS .
So yes , programming does require CS.One does n't need CS to program either .
There 's a lot of simple programming that does n't need that .
But knowing these skills empower a programmer and allow them to do a lot more than HTML layout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you have redefined "maths" as computer science : the study of formal languages and their computational properties....It's worth noting here that CS came from math back in the 60s and 70s.
A lot of the earliest algorithms and related work were done by mathematicians and physicists.
... and then you point out that programming requires your redefined maths, which is actually CS.
So yes, programming does require CS.One doesn't need CS to program either.
There's a lot of simple programming that doesn't need that.
But knowing these skills empower a programmer and allow them to do a lot more than HTML layout.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31614762</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269545040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree 100\% percent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree 100 \ % percent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree 100\% percent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609904</id>
	<title>oh yes, not absolutely essential</title>
	<author>foog</author>
	<datestamp>1269528660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least, for much of what passes for professional programming.  But in my very humble experience, the guys that brag the loudest that they've never needed any math to do any real-world programming are the ones who end up getting assigned stuff that involves very simple calculations---often just the correct use of libraries---and still manage to bung it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least , for much of what passes for professional programming .
But in my very humble experience , the guys that brag the loudest that they 've never needed any math to do any real-world programming are the ones who end up getting assigned stuff that involves very simple calculations---often just the correct use of libraries---and still manage to bung it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least, for much of what passes for professional programming.
But in my very humble experience, the guys that brag the loudest that they've never needed any math to do any real-world programming are the ones who end up getting assigned stuff that involves very simple calculations---often just the correct use of libraries---and still manage to bung it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608184</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessary</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1269511200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you are a typical programmer, you'll be using libraries that already have the difficult math-y stuff worked out.</i> </p><p>If you don't have any clue about what these libraries actually do, then they're basically as useful as a typewriter to a monkey. You don't need to reinvent the wheel every time, but at least you need to have a clue about how and why a wheel works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a typical programmer , you 'll be using libraries that already have the difficult math-y stuff worked out .
If you do n't have any clue about what these libraries actually do , then they 're basically as useful as a typewriter to a monkey .
You do n't need to reinvent the wheel every time , but at least you need to have a clue about how and why a wheel works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a typical programmer, you'll be using libraries that already have the difficult math-y stuff worked out.
If you don't have any clue about what these libraries actually do, then they're basically as useful as a typewriter to a monkey.
You don't need to reinvent the wheel every time, but at least you need to have a clue about how and why a wheel works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31614240</id>
	<title>The art of recursive thinking</title>
	<author>DollyTheSheep</author>
	<datestamp>1269543240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the article says, you can be a valuable developer without being exposed to or needing much math but you will be confined to certain areas. Normal developer work is mostly applied mathematical logic, but advanced math is normally not needed.</p><p>I think I belong to this group. I'm a chemist turned programmer/consultant and I now mostly work as a consultant for a company providing UML tools. I had my fair share of advanced math in school and during my chemistry studies, but those courses don't compare in any way to the math lectures provided in computer science. This were (introductory) courses in linear algebra and analysis and they were "pure math". Hard proofs and all instead of calculating or solving equations.</p><p>I'm nevertheless thankful for these lessons. They taught me consistent and recursive thinking as much or more so as real programming did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the article says , you can be a valuable developer without being exposed to or needing much math but you will be confined to certain areas .
Normal developer work is mostly applied mathematical logic , but advanced math is normally not needed.I think I belong to this group .
I 'm a chemist turned programmer/consultant and I now mostly work as a consultant for a company providing UML tools .
I had my fair share of advanced math in school and during my chemistry studies , but those courses do n't compare in any way to the math lectures provided in computer science .
This were ( introductory ) courses in linear algebra and analysis and they were " pure math " .
Hard proofs and all instead of calculating or solving equations.I 'm nevertheless thankful for these lessons .
They taught me consistent and recursive thinking as much or more so as real programming did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the article says, you can be a valuable developer without being exposed to or needing much math but you will be confined to certain areas.
Normal developer work is mostly applied mathematical logic, but advanced math is normally not needed.I think I belong to this group.
I'm a chemist turned programmer/consultant and I now mostly work as a consultant for a company providing UML tools.
I had my fair share of advanced math in school and during my chemistry studies, but those courses don't compare in any way to the math lectures provided in computer science.
This were (introductory) courses in linear algebra and analysis and they were "pure math".
Hard proofs and all instead of calculating or solving equations.I'm nevertheless thankful for these lessons.
They taught me consistent and recursive thinking as much or more so as real programming did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610460</id>
	<title>Math = Money</title>
	<author>gabereiser</author>
	<datestamp>1269531480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having been a programmer now for ~10 years or so.  I started off not caring about math that much (aside from a little geometry to draw custom controls).  I was making $45k a year and most of my programming time was doing web development (database, basic logic, front end HTML etc).  Tying records with class objects via auto incrementing ID's and massive JOIN statements.

However, I started getting into 3d programming and multitouch applications and found the more math you know, the more versatile your UI's and windows can become.  I recently finished up a product called Glo (globible.com) and found we couldn't have done ANY of that without advanced math knowledge.  Now I make twice as much as I was making doing web back ends and I owe it all to mathmatics.

When interviewing software programmers, anyone who hasn't had a little trig gets a good kick towards the door.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having been a programmer now for ~ 10 years or so .
I started off not caring about math that much ( aside from a little geometry to draw custom controls ) .
I was making $ 45k a year and most of my programming time was doing web development ( database , basic logic , front end HTML etc ) .
Tying records with class objects via auto incrementing ID 's and massive JOIN statements .
However , I started getting into 3d programming and multitouch applications and found the more math you know , the more versatile your UI 's and windows can become .
I recently finished up a product called Glo ( globible.com ) and found we could n't have done ANY of that without advanced math knowledge .
Now I make twice as much as I was making doing web back ends and I owe it all to mathmatics .
When interviewing software programmers , anyone who has n't had a little trig gets a good kick towards the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having been a programmer now for ~10 years or so.
I started off not caring about math that much (aside from a little geometry to draw custom controls).
I was making $45k a year and most of my programming time was doing web development (database, basic logic, front end HTML etc).
Tying records with class objects via auto incrementing ID's and massive JOIN statements.
However, I started getting into 3d programming and multitouch applications and found the more math you know, the more versatile your UI's and windows can become.
I recently finished up a product called Glo (globible.com) and found we couldn't have done ANY of that without advanced math knowledge.
Now I make twice as much as I was making doing web back ends and I owe it all to mathmatics.
When interviewing software programmers, anyone who hasn't had a little trig gets a good kick towards the door.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608446</id>
	<title>Well..</title>
	<author>Madsy</author>
	<datestamp>1269515640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't understand the difference between a O(n) sorting algorithm and a O(n!) one, you're pretty much screwed as a programmer. If you don't know much math in general, *at least* learn time complexity for different algorithm operations. Perhaps this is why software is so slow nowadays?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't understand the difference between a O ( n ) sorting algorithm and a O ( n !
) one , you 're pretty much screwed as a programmer .
If you do n't know much math in general , * at least * learn time complexity for different algorithm operations .
Perhaps this is why software is so slow nowadays ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't understand the difference between a O(n) sorting algorithm and a O(n!
) one, you're pretty much screwed as a programmer.
If you don't know much math in general, *at least* learn time complexity for different algorithm operations.
Perhaps this is why software is so slow nowadays?
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608022</id>
	<title>YES!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269509040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the fuck, computer science is the purest application of math! Software engineering is the usage of computer science to construct practical applications! YES, IT IS GOD DAMN NECESSARY!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck , computer science is the purest application of math !
Software engineering is the usage of computer science to construct practical applications !
YES , IT IS GOD DAMN NECESSARY ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck, computer science is the purest application of math!
Software engineering is the usage of computer science to construct practical applications!
YES, IT IS GOD DAMN NECESSARY!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608670</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1269519300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're the same thing.</p><p>Just Verizon's 0.002 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're the same thing.Just Verizon 's 0.002 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're the same thing.Just Verizon's 0.002 cents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608616</id>
	<title>its a hindrance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269518400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logic and formal reasoning are essential for programmers. Mathematics is like programming based on the two.<br>Real mathematics skills like writing down a mathematical proof is only a hindrance.<br>The reason is that Mathematicians are kind of sloppy when writing down a proof, its not formal at all.<br>Programmers need to be ultra precise in their reasoning and cannot permit to jump a very detailed (but boring) part of a proof (or program).</p><p>So in general programmers excel in logic and formal reasoning and Mathematicians are bored by it.</p><p>J.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logic and formal reasoning are essential for programmers .
Mathematics is like programming based on the two.Real mathematics skills like writing down a mathematical proof is only a hindrance.The reason is that Mathematicians are kind of sloppy when writing down a proof , its not formal at all.Programmers need to be ultra precise in their reasoning and can not permit to jump a very detailed ( but boring ) part of a proof ( or program ) .So in general programmers excel in logic and formal reasoning and Mathematicians are bored by it.J .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logic and formal reasoning are essential for programmers.
Mathematics is like programming based on the two.Real mathematics skills like writing down a mathematical proof is only a hindrance.The reason is that Mathematicians are kind of sloppy when writing down a proof, its not formal at all.Programmers need to be ultra precise in their reasoning and cannot permit to jump a very detailed (but boring) part of a proof (or program).So in general programmers excel in logic and formal reasoning and Mathematicians are bored by it.J.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608190</id>
	<title>No, but Logic is mandatory.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1269511260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>most of programming inevitably consists of creating logic constructs in algorithms. if this happens it has to be that, but also if that happens with that and it also has to be this and that and so on. they constitute the backbone of programming. anyone lacking understanding of logic would have a hard time. the rest, can easily remedied - we have innumerable libraries, classes, frameworks performing many complex mathematical operations. its better to have very strong logic, and make up for the rest with this approach, and efficient. furthermore, you can receive interdisciplinary help, hell, even help from internet in that regard, if you come up with some problem that has to be solved with a math equation. a mathematician can also help you with that. but the rest, the logic part, you gotta be sharp at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>most of programming inevitably consists of creating logic constructs in algorithms .
if this happens it has to be that , but also if that happens with that and it also has to be this and that and so on .
they constitute the backbone of programming .
anyone lacking understanding of logic would have a hard time .
the rest , can easily remedied - we have innumerable libraries , classes , frameworks performing many complex mathematical operations .
its better to have very strong logic , and make up for the rest with this approach , and efficient .
furthermore , you can receive interdisciplinary help , hell , even help from internet in that regard , if you come up with some problem that has to be solved with a math equation .
a mathematician can also help you with that .
but the rest , the logic part , you got ta be sharp at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most of programming inevitably consists of creating logic constructs in algorithms.
if this happens it has to be that, but also if that happens with that and it also has to be this and that and so on.
they constitute the backbone of programming.
anyone lacking understanding of logic would have a hard time.
the rest, can easily remedied - we have innumerable libraries, classes, frameworks performing many complex mathematical operations.
its better to have very strong logic, and make up for the rest with this approach, and efficient.
furthermore, you can receive interdisciplinary help, hell, even help from internet in that regard, if you come up with some problem that has to be solved with a math equation.
a mathematician can also help you with that.
but the rest, the logic part, you gotta be sharp at that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611806</id>
	<title>For CS it is, for programming maybe not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269535980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as a Computer Science degree goes, yes you need math.  If your job plans are to write webapps or something like that (which is what I do, it's a valid career) I can't say you need math most of the time, or even a CS degree.</p><p>CS != programming.  I know I'm slightly offtopic but too many, even in our field, conflate the two.  I know I did while at university.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as a Computer Science degree goes , yes you need math .
If your job plans are to write webapps or something like that ( which is what I do , it 's a valid career ) I ca n't say you need math most of the time , or even a CS degree.CS ! = programming .
I know I 'm slightly offtopic but too many , even in our field , conflate the two .
I know I did while at university .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as a Computer Science degree goes, yes you need math.
If your job plans are to write webapps or something like that (which is what I do, it's a valid career) I can't say you need math most of the time, or even a CS degree.CS != programming.
I know I'm slightly offtopic but too many, even in our field, conflate the two.
I know I did while at university.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608122</id>
	<title>strange FA</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1269510120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thesis in TFA is that developers are mostly busy building CRUD code and 'websites' and that if you don't want to get completely tired of it 5 years down the road, you need to do other things, possibly just for yourself (because at work you only are building CRUD/websites) and then come up with problems where math is King, and this is so that you will get more 'respect' like those great software guys like Dijkstra, Knuth etc.</p><p>Well, I'd say if you are only doing CRUD/websites now and that's it, you should be concerned about your job 5 years down the road, that's the kind of stuff that gets automated/outsourced eventually.  You are right, do something more than that.</p><p>The question really sounded like this:</p><p>I am bored with my job.  Will it help me to get into heavy math and math related projects to fight this boredom I am experiencing at my work?</p><p>Answer:</p><p>Who knows?  Will you find it personally satisfying getting into some heavy math stuff so you can be like Knuth and Dijkstra?  Are you looking for recognition as  a 'great' programmer or are you really interested in building stuff for yourself?  Sounded more like you hate your job and you want to be famous to me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Maybe you should quit this and become a professional rock star; that will fix the boredom problem right up, if you are good of-course.</p><p>Or maybe you need to find a better job, so you don't work on CRUD/websites all the time?</p><p>Or maybe you should realize that working, having a job is kind of boring, it's not there to entertain you, it's there so you can make a living?</p><p>Or maybe you'll involve yourself in an interesting project, learn some math or whatever and become like Knuth or Dijkstra or Woz?  Or like Gates?  Who knows.  But my gut feeling is that you are not really a math kind of guy if your primary motivation to learn more math is that you are bored of CRUD/websites job and not math itself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  so don't be too disappointed if any project you involve yourself into will degenerated into CRUD/websites kind of project quite quickly and not too much explicit mathematics will be used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thesis in TFA is that developers are mostly busy building CRUD code and 'websites ' and that if you do n't want to get completely tired of it 5 years down the road , you need to do other things , possibly just for yourself ( because at work you only are building CRUD/websites ) and then come up with problems where math is King , and this is so that you will get more 'respect ' like those great software guys like Dijkstra , Knuth etc.Well , I 'd say if you are only doing CRUD/websites now and that 's it , you should be concerned about your job 5 years down the road , that 's the kind of stuff that gets automated/outsourced eventually .
You are right , do something more than that.The question really sounded like this : I am bored with my job .
Will it help me to get into heavy math and math related projects to fight this boredom I am experiencing at my work ? Answer : Who knows ?
Will you find it personally satisfying getting into some heavy math stuff so you can be like Knuth and Dijkstra ?
Are you looking for recognition as a 'great ' programmer or are you really interested in building stuff for yourself ?
Sounded more like you hate your job and you want to be famous to me : ) Maybe you should quit this and become a professional rock star ; that will fix the boredom problem right up , if you are good of-course.Or maybe you need to find a better job , so you do n't work on CRUD/websites all the time ? Or maybe you should realize that working , having a job is kind of boring , it 's not there to entertain you , it 's there so you can make a living ? Or maybe you 'll involve yourself in an interesting project , learn some math or whatever and become like Knuth or Dijkstra or Woz ?
Or like Gates ?
Who knows .
But my gut feeling is that you are not really a math kind of guy if your primary motivation to learn more math is that you are bored of CRUD/websites job and not math itself : ) so do n't be too disappointed if any project you involve yourself into will degenerated into CRUD/websites kind of project quite quickly and not too much explicit mathematics will be used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thesis in TFA is that developers are mostly busy building CRUD code and 'websites' and that if you don't want to get completely tired of it 5 years down the road, you need to do other things, possibly just for yourself (because at work you only are building CRUD/websites) and then come up with problems where math is King, and this is so that you will get more 'respect' like those great software guys like Dijkstra, Knuth etc.Well, I'd say if you are only doing CRUD/websites now and that's it, you should be concerned about your job 5 years down the road, that's the kind of stuff that gets automated/outsourced eventually.
You are right, do something more than that.The question really sounded like this:I am bored with my job.
Will it help me to get into heavy math and math related projects to fight this boredom I am experiencing at my work?Answer:Who knows?
Will you find it personally satisfying getting into some heavy math stuff so you can be like Knuth and Dijkstra?
Are you looking for recognition as  a 'great' programmer or are you really interested in building stuff for yourself?
Sounded more like you hate your job and you want to be famous to me :)Maybe you should quit this and become a professional rock star; that will fix the boredom problem right up, if you are good of-course.Or maybe you need to find a better job, so you don't work on CRUD/websites all the time?Or maybe you should realize that working, having a job is kind of boring, it's not there to entertain you, it's there so you can make a living?Or maybe you'll involve yourself in an interesting project, learn some math or whatever and become like Knuth or Dijkstra or Woz?
Or like Gates?
Who knows.
But my gut feeling is that you are not really a math kind of guy if your primary motivation to learn more math is that you are bored of CRUD/websites job and not math itself :)  so don't be too disappointed if any project you involve yourself into will degenerated into CRUD/websites kind of project quite quickly and not too much explicit mathematics will be used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612470</id>
	<title>Math Skills ARE Essential...</title>
	<author>sitarlo</author>
	<datestamp>1269537900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Order of operations, operator precedence, variables, matrixes, trig, geometry, boolean math, and even calculous are everyday events for programmers who actually write useful software.  Sure, you can create a basic app while being ignorant about math, but to do something useful such as write scientific, financial, or entertainment software, you will most likely need to know at least some algebra.  But, here's the real reason to learn all the math you can: it conditions your brain for solving complex series of problems which is exactly what programming requires.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Order of operations , operator precedence , variables , matrixes , trig , geometry , boolean math , and even calculous are everyday events for programmers who actually write useful software .
Sure , you can create a basic app while being ignorant about math , but to do something useful such as write scientific , financial , or entertainment software , you will most likely need to know at least some algebra .
But , here 's the real reason to learn all the math you can : it conditions your brain for solving complex series of problems which is exactly what programming requires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Order of operations, operator precedence, variables, matrixes, trig, geometry, boolean math, and even calculous are everyday events for programmers who actually write useful software.
Sure, you can create a basic app while being ignorant about math, but to do something useful such as write scientific, financial, or entertainment software, you will most likely need to know at least some algebra.
But, here's the real reason to learn all the math you can: it conditions your brain for solving complex series of problems which is exactly what programming requires.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608626</id>
	<title>Programming math != high school math</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1269518520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that there are plenty of people who have sufficient aptitude for logic and problem solving, but flunked math at high school or college - which tends to be about memorizing definitions and rote learning of set-piece party tricks with numbers and simple algebra, wrapped up in the language of faux "not even wrong" rigour to make it look superficially like "real mathematics".

</p><p>You're not going to get far in programming without some skills in elementary mathematical modeling - but most college/high school courses won't guarantee to teach you that anyway (unless you get a good teacher who cares about more than test scores).

</p><p>Whether you need any knowledge of the mathematical foundation of computing is a different matter - I'd say you only really need that for the proverbial Google database, but what half decent programmer isn't going to be at least curious? Mind you, the math behind that is hardly recognizable as high school/college math (or even undergraduate physics math), even when it uses terms like "calculus" or "algebra".

</p><p>I was slightly lucky to be educated in England, in the 70s, when they were experimenting with "modern maths" and introduced set theory, group theory, matrices and lots of number bases in the equivalent of high school. All gone, now - but then it wasn't very well taught and I suspect only the nerds who were already messing with programmable calculators and computers got anything out of it (learning how to solve a pair of simple simultaneous equations with matrices must seem bloody pointless unless you realize how easy it makes the problem to program...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that there are plenty of people who have sufficient aptitude for logic and problem solving , but flunked math at high school or college - which tends to be about memorizing definitions and rote learning of set-piece party tricks with numbers and simple algebra , wrapped up in the language of faux " not even wrong " rigour to make it look superficially like " real mathematics " .
You 're not going to get far in programming without some skills in elementary mathematical modeling - but most college/high school courses wo n't guarantee to teach you that anyway ( unless you get a good teacher who cares about more than test scores ) .
Whether you need any knowledge of the mathematical foundation of computing is a different matter - I 'd say you only really need that for the proverbial Google database , but what half decent programmer is n't going to be at least curious ?
Mind you , the math behind that is hardly recognizable as high school/college math ( or even undergraduate physics math ) , even when it uses terms like " calculus " or " algebra " .
I was slightly lucky to be educated in England , in the 70s , when they were experimenting with " modern maths " and introduced set theory , group theory , matrices and lots of number bases in the equivalent of high school .
All gone , now - but then it was n't very well taught and I suspect only the nerds who were already messing with programmable calculators and computers got anything out of it ( learning how to solve a pair of simple simultaneous equations with matrices must seem bloody pointless unless you realize how easy it makes the problem to program... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that there are plenty of people who have sufficient aptitude for logic and problem solving, but flunked math at high school or college - which tends to be about memorizing definitions and rote learning of set-piece party tricks with numbers and simple algebra, wrapped up in the language of faux "not even wrong" rigour to make it look superficially like "real mathematics".
You're not going to get far in programming without some skills in elementary mathematical modeling - but most college/high school courses won't guarantee to teach you that anyway (unless you get a good teacher who cares about more than test scores).
Whether you need any knowledge of the mathematical foundation of computing is a different matter - I'd say you only really need that for the proverbial Google database, but what half decent programmer isn't going to be at least curious?
Mind you, the math behind that is hardly recognizable as high school/college math (or even undergraduate physics math), even when it uses terms like "calculus" or "algebra".
I was slightly lucky to be educated in England, in the 70s, when they were experimenting with "modern maths" and introduced set theory, group theory, matrices and lots of number bases in the equivalent of high school.
All gone, now - but then it wasn't very well taught and I suspect only the nerds who were already messing with programmable calculators and computers got anything out of it (learning how to solve a pair of simple simultaneous equations with matrices must seem bloody pointless unless you realize how easy it makes the problem to program...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608146</id>
	<title>Set theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269510480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Set theory (what you need to understand to make effective databases, for your "database driven website") is still mathematics. There's more to mathematics than linear algebra or differential calculus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Set theory ( what you need to understand to make effective databases , for your " database driven website " ) is still mathematics .
There 's more to mathematics than linear algebra or differential calculus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Set theory (what you need to understand to make effective databases, for your "database driven website") is still mathematics.
There's more to mathematics than linear algebra or differential calculus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608636</id>
	<title>What if it was your doctor?</title>
	<author>ff1324</author>
	<datestamp>1269518640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Saying programmers don't need advanced math is like saying your doctors don't need to take anything beyond 12 grade high school biology. While emergency room physicians and trauma surgeons need to have a rich knowledge base of the anatomy and physiology of the human body, your ophthalmologist can probably get by without knowing much about cardiac output or fluid resuscitation volumes. <br> <br>
But they still need to know ALL of the human body because their actions, while localized in some fields of medicine, can have effects on other areas of the system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying programmers do n't need advanced math is like saying your doctors do n't need to take anything beyond 12 grade high school biology .
While emergency room physicians and trauma surgeons need to have a rich knowledge base of the anatomy and physiology of the human body , your ophthalmologist can probably get by without knowing much about cardiac output or fluid resuscitation volumes .
But they still need to know ALL of the human body because their actions , while localized in some fields of medicine , can have effects on other areas of the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying programmers don't need advanced math is like saying your doctors don't need to take anything beyond 12 grade high school biology.
While emergency room physicians and trauma surgeons need to have a rich knowledge base of the anatomy and physiology of the human body, your ophthalmologist can probably get by without knowing much about cardiac output or fluid resuscitation volumes.
But they still need to know ALL of the human body because their actions, while localized in some fields of medicine, can have effects on other areas of the system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607948</id>
	<title>Math skills are becoming more important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but it's not the kind of math you might be thinking about, like calculus, etc. Rather statistics, discrete math, combinatorics, etc. are becoming essential skills if you want to be better than average.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but it 's not the kind of math you might be thinking about , like calculus , etc .
Rather statistics , discrete math , combinatorics , etc .
are becoming essential skills if you want to be better than average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but it's not the kind of math you might be thinking about, like calculus, etc.
Rather statistics, discrete math, combinatorics, etc.
are becoming essential skills if you want to be better than average.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31616744</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He works for Verizon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He works for Verizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He works for Verizon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608294</id>
	<title>Re:Math skills are becoming more important</title>
	<author>TranceThrust</author>
	<datestamp>1269512820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up. Math is more than calculus. At its very base it's result-driven logical thinking combined with wanting to prove correctness of everything you do, within equally well-defined premises. Precisely what a programmer needs.
And head on with the discrete math and combinatorics; graph algorithms will impact the computing world more and more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
Math is more than calculus .
At its very base it 's result-driven logical thinking combined with wanting to prove correctness of everything you do , within equally well-defined premises .
Precisely what a programmer needs .
And head on with the discrete math and combinatorics ; graph algorithms will impact the computing world more and more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
Math is more than calculus.
At its very base it's result-driven logical thinking combined with wanting to prove correctness of everything you do, within equally well-defined premises.
Precisely what a programmer needs.
And head on with the discrete math and combinatorics; graph algorithms will impact the computing world more and more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608042</id>
	<title>code monkeys</title>
	<author>Mirar</author>
	<datestamp>1269509160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since 99.8\% of the "programmers" out there seems to get code monkey jobs where they have to translate an algorithm from one language (or diagram) to another, those don't need many skills at all. Especially not when protected by schemes like MISRA, code reviews and QA.</p><p>The other 0.2\% wouldn't get the job unless they had skills. I hope. And math is probably included there somewhere.</p><p>(Figures totally out of the air.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since 99.8 \ % of the " programmers " out there seems to get code monkey jobs where they have to translate an algorithm from one language ( or diagram ) to another , those do n't need many skills at all .
Especially not when protected by schemes like MISRA , code reviews and QA.The other 0.2 \ % would n't get the job unless they had skills .
I hope .
And math is probably included there somewhere .
( Figures totally out of the air .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since 99.8\% of the "programmers" out there seems to get code monkey jobs where they have to translate an algorithm from one language (or diagram) to another, those don't need many skills at all.
Especially not when protected by schemes like MISRA, code reviews and QA.The other 0.2\% wouldn't get the job unless they had skills.
I hope.
And math is probably included there somewhere.
(Figures totally out of the air.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31628164</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>JJKun</author>
	<datestamp>1269625260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, if only maths graduates could program their way out of a wet cardboard box.</p></div><p>Whoa there, let's not forget all of the programmers who couldn't prove their way out of a wet POJO. </p><p>I'm an undergrad who was studying computer science and switched to math, and at every job fair I go to I get a blatant "We don't hire math majors," until I mention that (oh yeah) I've done SOA and database programming in C++, Android Apps in Java, and I enjoy working on my compiler.
</p><p>My experience with subjects like real analysis, topology, and abstract algebra (which are crucial to truly understanding mathematics) are very undervalued in the job application process, and I feel bitter toward most tech companies because of this. At the same time, I attribute my skills in programming (abstraction, data analysis, algorithm design) to the skills I gained studying those same "irrelevant" subjects. </p><p>The truth is that math isn't valuable for the knowledge you gain. Honestly, with a bit of research you can look up an algorithm to solve any problem, and probably get a pseudocode implementation as well. Math is valuable simply because it makes you smarter, better at analyzing problems, and better at thinking about solutions before you attempt to code them. It doesn't matter whether you study finite group theory or differential equations, the skills you would gain allow you to sort through complex problems that have no established Theory. And then if you do need to work with linear algebra specifically, it will be relatively easy to become familiar with the terminology and methods, because the whole point of math is to do cool things with new concepts and rules. As mathematicians we breathe abstraction, analysis, and invention.</p><p>And hirers just don't seem to care about that if you haven't memorized algorithms on C strings. With that attitude, it's no wonder math people don't want to program and programmers don't want to learn math.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if only maths graduates could program their way out of a wet cardboard box.Whoa there , let 's not forget all of the programmers who could n't prove their way out of a wet POJO .
I 'm an undergrad who was studying computer science and switched to math , and at every job fair I go to I get a blatant " We do n't hire math majors , " until I mention that ( oh yeah ) I 've done SOA and database programming in C + + , Android Apps in Java , and I enjoy working on my compiler .
My experience with subjects like real analysis , topology , and abstract algebra ( which are crucial to truly understanding mathematics ) are very undervalued in the job application process , and I feel bitter toward most tech companies because of this .
At the same time , I attribute my skills in programming ( abstraction , data analysis , algorithm design ) to the skills I gained studying those same " irrelevant " subjects .
The truth is that math is n't valuable for the knowledge you gain .
Honestly , with a bit of research you can look up an algorithm to solve any problem , and probably get a pseudocode implementation as well .
Math is valuable simply because it makes you smarter , better at analyzing problems , and better at thinking about solutions before you attempt to code them .
It does n't matter whether you study finite group theory or differential equations , the skills you would gain allow you to sort through complex problems that have no established Theory .
And then if you do need to work with linear algebra specifically , it will be relatively easy to become familiar with the terminology and methods , because the whole point of math is to do cool things with new concepts and rules .
As mathematicians we breathe abstraction , analysis , and invention.And hirers just do n't seem to care about that if you have n't memorized algorithms on C strings .
With that attitude , it 's no wonder math people do n't want to program and programmers do n't want to learn math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if only maths graduates could program their way out of a wet cardboard box.Whoa there, let's not forget all of the programmers who couldn't prove their way out of a wet POJO.
I'm an undergrad who was studying computer science and switched to math, and at every job fair I go to I get a blatant "We don't hire math majors," until I mention that (oh yeah) I've done SOA and database programming in C++, Android Apps in Java, and I enjoy working on my compiler.
My experience with subjects like real analysis, topology, and abstract algebra (which are crucial to truly understanding mathematics) are very undervalued in the job application process, and I feel bitter toward most tech companies because of this.
At the same time, I attribute my skills in programming (abstraction, data analysis, algorithm design) to the skills I gained studying those same "irrelevant" subjects.
The truth is that math isn't valuable for the knowledge you gain.
Honestly, with a bit of research you can look up an algorithm to solve any problem, and probably get a pseudocode implementation as well.
Math is valuable simply because it makes you smarter, better at analyzing problems, and better at thinking about solutions before you attempt to code them.
It doesn't matter whether you study finite group theory or differential equations, the skills you would gain allow you to sort through complex problems that have no established Theory.
And then if you do need to work with linear algebra specifically, it will be relatively easy to become familiar with the terminology and methods, because the whole point of math is to do cool things with new concepts and rules.
As mathematicians we breathe abstraction, analysis, and invention.And hirers just don't seem to care about that if you haven't memorized algorithms on C strings.
With that attitude, it's no wonder math people don't want to program and programmers don't want to learn math.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31622952</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269636960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you know that Archimedes actually had a form of integral calculus that he used to come up with many of his proofs, but he thought it was a mathematical trick. He often would then find a more normal proof that didn't use his trick. He also came up with an approximation of pi that wasn't made better until the 16th century.</p><p>Oh, and there were two forms of numerals used by (I presume different sets) of greeks. One was something akin to the roman numerals we know and a second form which had a 27 different characters and seems to me likely similar to the arabic digits we use today</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you know that Archimedes actually had a form of integral calculus that he used to come up with many of his proofs , but he thought it was a mathematical trick .
He often would then find a more normal proof that did n't use his trick .
He also came up with an approximation of pi that was n't made better until the 16th century.Oh , and there were two forms of numerals used by ( I presume different sets ) of greeks .
One was something akin to the roman numerals we know and a second form which had a 27 different characters and seems to me likely similar to the arabic digits we use today</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you know that Archimedes actually had a form of integral calculus that he used to come up with many of his proofs, but he thought it was a mathematical trick.
He often would then find a more normal proof that didn't use his trick.
He also came up with an approximation of pi that wasn't made better until the 16th century.Oh, and there were two forms of numerals used by (I presume different sets) of greeks.
One was something akin to the roman numerals we know and a second form which had a 27 different characters and seems to me likely similar to the arabic digits we use today</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608280</id>
	<title>Re:How should I learn math?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269512640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia math articles tend to be terse and designed for people who need to look something up that they already know something about.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>what are the best resources to learn math?</p></div><p>That depends on what you want to learn, and where you want to start, but there are some resources available at <a href="http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Mathematics" title="wikibooks.org" rel="nofollow">Wikibooks</a> [wikibooks.org]. There's a lot missing there, but plenty to learn. If you want complete resources, I would suggest buying a book--for the full learning experience, possibly taking a class at a local community college or university (just one class, mind you). I don't know about other countries, but it is far from unheard-of in the US (which by your singularization of math is probably your nationality if not your location).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia math articles tend to be terse and designed for people who need to look something up that they already know something about.what are the best resources to learn math ? That depends on what you want to learn , and where you want to start , but there are some resources available at Wikibooks [ wikibooks.org ] .
There 's a lot missing there , but plenty to learn .
If you want complete resources , I would suggest buying a book--for the full learning experience , possibly taking a class at a local community college or university ( just one class , mind you ) .
I do n't know about other countries , but it is far from unheard-of in the US ( which by your singularization of math is probably your nationality if not your location ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia math articles tend to be terse and designed for people who need to look something up that they already know something about.what are the best resources to learn math?That depends on what you want to learn, and where you want to start, but there are some resources available at Wikibooks [wikibooks.org].
There's a lot missing there, but plenty to learn.
If you want complete resources, I would suggest buying a book--for the full learning experience, possibly taking a class at a local community college or university (just one class, mind you).
I don't know about other countries, but it is far from unheard-of in the US (which by your singularization of math is probably your nationality if not your location).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609254</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269524940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>***No, absolutely not... Physics uses Math: Physics without Math is unthinkable. Math without Physics is absolutely possible. There was pretty much maths before physics. The old Greeks were more Mathematicians than Physicists.***</p><p>The Greeks and Romans didn't have that much in the way of math really.  Plane geometry, trigonometry -- that's about it.  They didn't have calculus, cartesian coordinates, vector spaces, matrices, or even numeric notation that was easy to work with.  Try division with Roman numerals some time.  But they were still able to build big buildings, build bridges, figure out that the Earth was spherical and to calculate its diameter, and even propose a heliocentric model of the solar system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * No , absolutely not... Physics uses Math : Physics without Math is unthinkable .
Math without Physics is absolutely possible .
There was pretty much maths before physics .
The old Greeks were more Mathematicians than Physicists .
* * * The Greeks and Romans did n't have that much in the way of math really .
Plane geometry , trigonometry -- that 's about it .
They did n't have calculus , cartesian coordinates , vector spaces , matrices , or even numeric notation that was easy to work with .
Try division with Roman numerals some time .
But they were still able to build big buildings , build bridges , figure out that the Earth was spherical and to calculate its diameter , and even propose a heliocentric model of the solar system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***No, absolutely not... Physics uses Math: Physics without Math is unthinkable.
Math without Physics is absolutely possible.
There was pretty much maths before physics.
The old Greeks were more Mathematicians than Physicists.
***The Greeks and Romans didn't have that much in the way of math really.
Plane geometry, trigonometry -- that's about it.
They didn't have calculus, cartesian coordinates, vector spaces, matrices, or even numeric notation that was easy to work with.
Try division with Roman numerals some time.
But they were still able to build big buildings, build bridges, figure out that the Earth was spherical and to calculate its diameter, and even propose a heliocentric model of the solar system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608726</id>
	<title>Let Me Fix That Title For You...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269520200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Math Skills for Everyone - Necessary Or Not?"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and I'll even answer the question: necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Math Skills for Everyone - Necessary Or Not ?
" ...and I 'll even answer the question : necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Math Skills for Everyone - Necessary Or Not?
" ...and I'll even answer the question: necessary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608936</id>
	<title>Of course ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269522900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... mathematical skills are not necessary for programming.
You can implement 'Quicksort' and 'Ray Tracing' very well after going through the complete works of Shakespeare, if not Anne Rice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... mathematical skills are not necessary for programming .
You can implement 'Quicksort ' and 'Ray Tracing ' very well after going through the complete works of Shakespeare , if not Anne Rice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... mathematical skills are not necessary for programming.
You can implement 'Quicksort' and 'Ray Tracing' very well after going through the complete works of Shakespeare, if not Anne Rice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610866</id>
	<title>Oh, good lord...</title>
	<author>Poodleboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269532980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't need carpentry skills to build a chair, either, just the tools.  It will, however, be a piece of junk.  It will be wobbly, ugly, dangerous, and short-lived.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need carpentry skills to build a chair , either , just the tools .
It will , however , be a piece of junk .
It will be wobbly , ugly , dangerous , and short-lived .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need carpentry skills to build a chair, either, just the tools.
It will, however, be a piece of junk.
It will be wobbly, ugly, dangerous, and short-lived.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607932</id>
	<title>Ignorant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; after all linear algebra is no help when building database driven websites.<br>
<br>

I bet you're one of those people who sat in English classes going 'ugh, when is *this* ever going to be useful?'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; after all linear algebra is no help when building database driven websites .
I bet you 're one of those people who sat in English classes going 'ugh , when is * this * ever going to be useful ?
' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; after all linear algebra is no help when building database driven websites.
I bet you're one of those people who sat in English classes going 'ugh, when is *this* ever going to be useful?
'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612102</id>
	<title>Re:yes, you need math</title>
	<author>QuantumPenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1269536820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a mathematician I would like to point out that anisotropy/isotropy are geometrical concepts, not algebraic. Homogeneity is probably what you meant, but neither this nor any related concepts even come close to describing "full algebra" as you say, this is certainly first year undergraduate material. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that Algebra is some kind of complete packaged tool, like how we use Calculus, which is a great misconception. Algebra is still massively incomplete, so much so that I believe every university mathematical department in the entirety of the UK has at least some algebraic research division. There is still so much more algebra to learn, however I think your interests lie elsewhere. I would recommend some material on Differential Geometry or perhaps some introductory material on Topological Groups, both very fascinating subjects,</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a mathematician I would like to point out that anisotropy/isotropy are geometrical concepts , not algebraic .
Homogeneity is probably what you meant , but neither this nor any related concepts even come close to describing " full algebra " as you say , this is certainly first year undergraduate material .
Forgive me if I 'm wrong , but you seem to imply that Algebra is some kind of complete packaged tool , like how we use Calculus , which is a great misconception .
Algebra is still massively incomplete , so much so that I believe every university mathematical department in the entirety of the UK has at least some algebraic research division .
There is still so much more algebra to learn , however I think your interests lie elsewhere .
I would recommend some material on Differential Geometry or perhaps some introductory material on Topological Groups , both very fascinating subjects,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a mathematician I would like to point out that anisotropy/isotropy are geometrical concepts, not algebraic.
Homogeneity is probably what you meant, but neither this nor any related concepts even come close to describing "full algebra" as you say, this is certainly first year undergraduate material.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that Algebra is some kind of complete packaged tool, like how we use Calculus, which is a great misconception.
Algebra is still massively incomplete, so much so that I believe every university mathematical department in the entirety of the UK has at least some algebraic research division.
There is still so much more algebra to learn, however I think your interests lie elsewhere.
I would recommend some material on Differential Geometry or perhaps some introductory material on Topological Groups, both very fascinating subjects,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>jawtheshark</author>
	<datestamp>1269515700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But IMO math should be physics driven.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, absolutely not...  Physics uses Math:  Physics without Math is unthinkable.  Math without Physics is absolutely possible.  There was pretty much maths <b>before</b> physics.  The old Greeks were more Mathematicians than Physicists.</p><blockquote><div><p>There is little need for calculatign stuff you don't know what it's your calculating.</p></div></blockquote><p>I present to you <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex\_numbers" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Complex Numbers</a> [wikipedia.org].  For all intents and purposes we don't know what we're calculating *but* they are used in all kinds of engineering to find actual useful results.  (Scroll down to the Applications part).  Understand that Complex Numbers were <b>first</b>, then came the applications.</p><p>I am by no means a Mathematician and I wasn't a big fan of it in school, but loved physics and excelled in it.  In a way, I was like you, but I understand that Maths is used in Physics but not limited to Physics.</p><p>Finally: <a href="http://xkcd.com/435/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">Obligatory XKCD Link.</a> [xkcd.com] (Of course, if you feel bitter about this comment, read the mouse-over text)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But IMO math should be physics driven.No , absolutely not... Physics uses Math : Physics without Math is unthinkable .
Math without Physics is absolutely possible .
There was pretty much maths before physics .
The old Greeks were more Mathematicians than Physicists.There is little need for calculatign stuff you do n't know what it 's your calculating.I present to you Complex Numbers [ wikipedia.org ] .
For all intents and purposes we do n't know what we 're calculating * but * they are used in all kinds of engineering to find actual useful results .
( Scroll down to the Applications part ) .
Understand that Complex Numbers were first , then came the applications.I am by no means a Mathematician and I was n't a big fan of it in school , but loved physics and excelled in it .
In a way , I was like you , but I understand that Maths is used in Physics but not limited to Physics.Finally : Obligatory XKCD Link .
[ xkcd.com ] ( Of course , if you feel bitter about this comment , read the mouse-over text )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But IMO math should be physics driven.No, absolutely not...  Physics uses Math:  Physics without Math is unthinkable.
Math without Physics is absolutely possible.
There was pretty much maths before physics.
The old Greeks were more Mathematicians than Physicists.There is little need for calculatign stuff you don't know what it's your calculating.I present to you Complex Numbers [wikipedia.org].
For all intents and purposes we don't know what we're calculating *but* they are used in all kinds of engineering to find actual useful results.
(Scroll down to the Applications part).
Understand that Complex Numbers were first, then came the applications.I am by no means a Mathematician and I wasn't a big fan of it in school, but loved physics and excelled in it.
In a way, I was like you, but I understand that Maths is used in Physics but not limited to Physics.Finally: Obligatory XKCD Link.
[xkcd.com] (Of course, if you feel bitter about this comment, read the mouse-over text)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610342</id>
	<title>It depends what you want to be really...</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1269530880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basic math (i.e. 1+1 = 2) is obviously an absolute requirement.</p><p>Algebra too is mostly a requirement (though if you did programming first, you'd probably find algebra alot less difficult cause you'd dealt with representative values).</p><p>But thats where it ends for almost 99\% of programmers. Programming is really about shuffling bits of data around and so you can get by with only those two skills. However, the rest are very useful depending on the field.</p><p>For example trig and calculus are infinitely handy in any kind of spatial programming, but knowing vectors and transformations are often essential if your getting into 3d coding (though u can get by without it, if your using a library).</p><p>The rest are usually straight forward and dependant on you already having the math skills. I.e. if your going to be coding something that deals with statisics, that you obviously need to know statistics.</p><p>Ultimately, any math you know is to your advantage, but not really essential unless you dealing as a coder in a pure math realm (i.e. trying to implement a math algorithm within code). There are indeed many things you could code that are based on math without having to understand the math behind it.</p><p>For example using rand() is easy, is based on math and you can use it without understanding it. You can also learn to understand the difference between random number generators without understand the theory of their operation, and indeed understand what the difference between strong and pseudo random number generators really is - again, without needing to know the maths of their operation and be a very effective coder.</p><p>Another example if neural nets - its easy to understand their operation in terms of a pure coding exercise if your using someone elses neural net library - their operation is quite simple. Writing the library would require a reasonable amount of math intelligence though.</p><p>There are huge numbers of example where these things are fundamentally true, things you may build on that are based entirely within the math realm but understanding their mathematical operation is fairly irrelevant (but useful).</p><p>What alot of people do think (and it annoys me no end) is that you should be able to reinvent the wheel constantly. This is a time waster. If your writing some program that uses a neural net, the only reason to know how to implement your own is if the several out there cant do exactly what you need. This is what most people do anyways, "gimme that library" and reuse peoples work - its the backbone of how we code and ultimately the world as we know it would be alot different if we didnt just use the library that does the thing we want rather then implementing our on constantly.</p><p>But as i said, it depends on what you want to be as a coder. I would say having high-school maths in your head is going to cover 90\% of coding jobs easily (i.e. 1+1=2 and algebra). I really dont know too many coders who need more then that myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basic math ( i.e .
1 + 1 = 2 ) is obviously an absolute requirement.Algebra too is mostly a requirement ( though if you did programming first , you 'd probably find algebra alot less difficult cause you 'd dealt with representative values ) .But thats where it ends for almost 99 \ % of programmers .
Programming is really about shuffling bits of data around and so you can get by with only those two skills .
However , the rest are very useful depending on the field.For example trig and calculus are infinitely handy in any kind of spatial programming , but knowing vectors and transformations are often essential if your getting into 3d coding ( though u can get by without it , if your using a library ) .The rest are usually straight forward and dependant on you already having the math skills .
I.e. if your going to be coding something that deals with statisics , that you obviously need to know statistics.Ultimately , any math you know is to your advantage , but not really essential unless you dealing as a coder in a pure math realm ( i.e .
trying to implement a math algorithm within code ) .
There are indeed many things you could code that are based on math without having to understand the math behind it.For example using rand ( ) is easy , is based on math and you can use it without understanding it .
You can also learn to understand the difference between random number generators without understand the theory of their operation , and indeed understand what the difference between strong and pseudo random number generators really is - again , without needing to know the maths of their operation and be a very effective coder.Another example if neural nets - its easy to understand their operation in terms of a pure coding exercise if your using someone elses neural net library - their operation is quite simple .
Writing the library would require a reasonable amount of math intelligence though.There are huge numbers of example where these things are fundamentally true , things you may build on that are based entirely within the math realm but understanding their mathematical operation is fairly irrelevant ( but useful ) .What alot of people do think ( and it annoys me no end ) is that you should be able to reinvent the wheel constantly .
This is a time waster .
If your writing some program that uses a neural net , the only reason to know how to implement your own is if the several out there cant do exactly what you need .
This is what most people do anyways , " gim me that library " and reuse peoples work - its the backbone of how we code and ultimately the world as we know it would be alot different if we didnt just use the library that does the thing we want rather then implementing our on constantly.But as i said , it depends on what you want to be as a coder .
I would say having high-school maths in your head is going to cover 90 \ % of coding jobs easily ( i.e .
1 + 1 = 2 and algebra ) .
I really dont know too many coders who need more then that myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basic math (i.e.
1+1 = 2) is obviously an absolute requirement.Algebra too is mostly a requirement (though if you did programming first, you'd probably find algebra alot less difficult cause you'd dealt with representative values).But thats where it ends for almost 99\% of programmers.
Programming is really about shuffling bits of data around and so you can get by with only those two skills.
However, the rest are very useful depending on the field.For example trig and calculus are infinitely handy in any kind of spatial programming, but knowing vectors and transformations are often essential if your getting into 3d coding (though u can get by without it, if your using a library).The rest are usually straight forward and dependant on you already having the math skills.
I.e. if your going to be coding something that deals with statisics, that you obviously need to know statistics.Ultimately, any math you know is to your advantage, but not really essential unless you dealing as a coder in a pure math realm (i.e.
trying to implement a math algorithm within code).
There are indeed many things you could code that are based on math without having to understand the math behind it.For example using rand() is easy, is based on math and you can use it without understanding it.
You can also learn to understand the difference between random number generators without understand the theory of their operation, and indeed understand what the difference between strong and pseudo random number generators really is - again, without needing to know the maths of their operation and be a very effective coder.Another example if neural nets - its easy to understand their operation in terms of a pure coding exercise if your using someone elses neural net library - their operation is quite simple.
Writing the library would require a reasonable amount of math intelligence though.There are huge numbers of example where these things are fundamentally true, things you may build on that are based entirely within the math realm but understanding their mathematical operation is fairly irrelevant (but useful).What alot of people do think (and it annoys me no end) is that you should be able to reinvent the wheel constantly.
This is a time waster.
If your writing some program that uses a neural net, the only reason to know how to implement your own is if the several out there cant do exactly what you need.
This is what most people do anyways, "gimme that library" and reuse peoples work - its the backbone of how we code and ultimately the world as we know it would be alot different if we didnt just use the library that does the thing we want rather then implementing our on constantly.But as i said, it depends on what you want to be as a coder.
I would say having high-school maths in your head is going to cover 90\% of coding jobs easily (i.e.
1+1=2 and algebra).
I really dont know too many coders who need more then that myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608488</id>
	<title>Maths = Obsolete</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269516600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole reason computers were invented was so that humans WOULDN'T have to do maths in their heads any more...</p><p>Maths is about as useful to programming as knowing how to ride a horse is to driving a car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole reason computers were invented was so that humans WOULD N'T have to do maths in their heads any more...Maths is about as useful to programming as knowing how to ride a horse is to driving a car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole reason computers were invented was so that humans WOULDN'T have to do maths in their heads any more...Maths is about as useful to programming as knowing how to ride a horse is to driving a car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608404</id>
	<title>Some fields only</title>
	<author>PARENA</author>
	<datestamp>1269514800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the article is saying that in some fields of programming it might be better to have good math skills? That's pretty ground breaking.........</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the article is saying that in some fields of programming it might be better to have good math skills ?
That 's pretty ground breaking........ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the article is saying that in some fields of programming it might be better to have good math skills?
That's pretty ground breaking.........</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610020</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what you mean by "programming"</title>
	<author>pla</author>
	<datestamp>1269529260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>You don't need math skills for programming work.</i> <br>
<br>
Why yes, thank you, I <b>would</b> like fries with that webpage.<br>
<br>
This topic simply amazes me every time it comes up... Yes, you most certainly need
decent math skills to work as a <b>halfway decent</b> programmer.  No, every line of
code you write won't require solving PDEs, but you <i>will</i> use, at a minimum, algebra,
geometry/trig, and combinatorics (whether you know it or not) on a daily basis.  And on
the DB side, you'd damned well better know set theory inside and out.<br>
<br>
Most code you write in the real world, in my experience, involves page after page of conditionals.
No one "enjoys" that part of the job, we do it to cover our asses against the myriad crap users will
try to force-feed a program.  But after 500 lines of checking that nothing can possibly go wrong,
at some point you need to <i>do</i> something with all that information.  You need to plot sales
trends, or minimize cost functions over several independent variables, or turn a list of options
into a manufacturing-floor ready bill-of-materials (don't ever say "BOM" in an airport - I know
this from personal experience) for a 747, or track a missile moving in 3d space toward the game's hero.<br>
<br>
Yes, you can find formulas with Google.  And if you don't have a solid background in math, you <b>will</b>
misuse them (or fail to realize a far, far easier and more efficient solution exists).</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need math skills for programming work .
Why yes , thank you , I would like fries with that webpage .
This topic simply amazes me every time it comes up... Yes , you most certainly need decent math skills to work as a halfway decent programmer .
No , every line of code you write wo n't require solving PDEs , but you will use , at a minimum , algebra , geometry/trig , and combinatorics ( whether you know it or not ) on a daily basis .
And on the DB side , you 'd damned well better know set theory inside and out .
Most code you write in the real world , in my experience , involves page after page of conditionals .
No one " enjoys " that part of the job , we do it to cover our asses against the myriad crap users will try to force-feed a program .
But after 500 lines of checking that nothing can possibly go wrong , at some point you need to do something with all that information .
You need to plot sales trends , or minimize cost functions over several independent variables , or turn a list of options into a manufacturing-floor ready bill-of-materials ( do n't ever say " BOM " in an airport - I know this from personal experience ) for a 747 , or track a missile moving in 3d space toward the game 's hero .
Yes , you can find formulas with Google .
And if you do n't have a solid background in math , you will misuse them ( or fail to realize a far , far easier and more efficient solution exists ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need math skills for programming work.
Why yes, thank you, I would like fries with that webpage.
This topic simply amazes me every time it comes up... Yes, you most certainly need
decent math skills to work as a halfway decent programmer.
No, every line of
code you write won't require solving PDEs, but you will use, at a minimum, algebra,
geometry/trig, and combinatorics (whether you know it or not) on a daily basis.
And on
the DB side, you'd damned well better know set theory inside and out.
Most code you write in the real world, in my experience, involves page after page of conditionals.
No one "enjoys" that part of the job, we do it to cover our asses against the myriad crap users will
try to force-feed a program.
But after 500 lines of checking that nothing can possibly go wrong,
at some point you need to do something with all that information.
You need to plot sales
trends, or minimize cost functions over several independent variables, or turn a list of options
into a manufacturing-floor ready bill-of-materials (don't ever say "BOM" in an airport - I know
this from personal experience) for a 747, or track a missile moving in 3d space toward the game's hero.
Yes, you can find formulas with Google.
And if you don't have a solid background in math, you will
misuse them (or fail to realize a far, far easier and more efficient solution exists).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612880</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>whitroth</author>
	<datestamp>1269539160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got through 2 years of calculus.</p><p>I've now been in the field for 30 years, of which about 2/3rds was as a programmer, and the rest as a sysadmin, and the highest-level math I ever used was when I wrote a database system, back in the mid-eighties... and that was logs.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got through 2 years of calculus.I 've now been in the field for 30 years , of which about 2/3rds was as a programmer , and the rest as a sysadmin , and the highest-level math I ever used was when I wrote a database system , back in the mid-eighties... and that was logs .
              mark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got through 2 years of calculus.I've now been in the field for 30 years, of which about 2/3rds was as a programmer, and the rest as a sysadmin, and the highest-level math I ever used was when I wrote a database system, back in the mid-eighties... and that was logs.
              mark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609100</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269524160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got many years of c and c++ experience, very good skills in every math category you mention, and no job.  While I agree that software often suffers due to developers' poor math skills, I don't think that math is necessarily very helpful from a career standpoint.  It's my niche, being the only one I'm cut out for, but it's a narrow one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got many years of c and c + + experience , very good skills in every math category you mention , and no job .
While I agree that software often suffers due to developers ' poor math skills , I do n't think that math is necessarily very helpful from a career standpoint .
It 's my niche , being the only one I 'm cut out for , but it 's a narrow one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got many years of c and c++ experience, very good skills in every math category you mention, and no job.
While I agree that software often suffers due to developers' poor math skills, I don't think that math is necessarily very helpful from a career standpoint.
It's my niche, being the only one I'm cut out for, but it's a narrow one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608460</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1269515940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://xkcd.com/verizon/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/verizon/</a> [xkcd.com] </p><p>I must admit I've never heard anyone experience anything similar regarding kroner and &#248;re... ^\_^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/verizon/ [ xkcd.com ] I must admit I 've never heard anyone experience anything similar regarding kroner and   re... ^ \ _ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext> http://xkcd.com/verizon/ [xkcd.com] I must admit I've never heard anyone experience anything similar regarding kroner and øre... ^\_^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610614</id>
	<title>Re:yes, you need math</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1269532200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, i think your dealing in very niche cases there. Relational mathematics is absolutely no requirement for being any kind of database guy. Logic, yes. But thats basic school maths.</p><p>games are a somewhat different story and there are quite alot of cases where you'll need some maths.</p><p>The rest your all talking about a re-invention of the wheel. AI, if your going to write an actually AI then yeah, maths is important, but the reality is its a niche realm. You also dont need probabilty to use random number generators, you just need to understand the differences between the types you can get (no maths required for that really), unless your IMPLEMENTING a random number generator - then maths is required, but again, thats niche.</p><p>String processing and regex require very very little math, unless your impelementing one, again niche.</p><p>But look to the real world for examples. Im a person who drives coders these days and i only code for fun. I do have a maths degree and excluding games, most math based theory is fundamentally useless in the real world. Just look at web coders for example (this is a massive chunk of the code-producing industry right there) and almost anyone could learn to code around 95\% of the websites out there without any fundamental knowledge of maths past school level - and be very effective at it. The web browser itself is another example (and many applications fall into this same realm) where maths is just not a huge requirement, i.e. you could have 20 coders working on this and only 1 or 2 might need some maths for some parts.</p><p>A profound knowledge of math is only a requirement if your doing something profound WITH math in code, and this equates to less then 10\% of the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , i think your dealing in very niche cases there .
Relational mathematics is absolutely no requirement for being any kind of database guy .
Logic , yes .
But thats basic school maths.games are a somewhat different story and there are quite alot of cases where you 'll need some maths.The rest your all talking about a re-invention of the wheel .
AI , if your going to write an actually AI then yeah , maths is important , but the reality is its a niche realm .
You also dont need probabilty to use random number generators , you just need to understand the differences between the types you can get ( no maths required for that really ) , unless your IMPLEMENTING a random number generator - then maths is required , but again , thats niche.String processing and regex require very very little math , unless your impelementing one , again niche.But look to the real world for examples .
Im a person who drives coders these days and i only code for fun .
I do have a maths degree and excluding games , most math based theory is fundamentally useless in the real world .
Just look at web coders for example ( this is a massive chunk of the code-producing industry right there ) and almost anyone could learn to code around 95 \ % of the websites out there without any fundamental knowledge of maths past school level - and be very effective at it .
The web browser itself is another example ( and many applications fall into this same realm ) where maths is just not a huge requirement , i.e .
you could have 20 coders working on this and only 1 or 2 might need some maths for some parts.A profound knowledge of math is only a requirement if your doing something profound WITH math in code , and this equates to less then 10 \ % of the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, i think your dealing in very niche cases there.
Relational mathematics is absolutely no requirement for being any kind of database guy.
Logic, yes.
But thats basic school maths.games are a somewhat different story and there are quite alot of cases where you'll need some maths.The rest your all talking about a re-invention of the wheel.
AI, if your going to write an actually AI then yeah, maths is important, but the reality is its a niche realm.
You also dont need probabilty to use random number generators, you just need to understand the differences between the types you can get (no maths required for that really), unless your IMPLEMENTING a random number generator - then maths is required, but again, thats niche.String processing and regex require very very little math, unless your impelementing one, again niche.But look to the real world for examples.
Im a person who drives coders these days and i only code for fun.
I do have a maths degree and excluding games, most math based theory is fundamentally useless in the real world.
Just look at web coders for example (this is a massive chunk of the code-producing industry right there) and almost anyone could learn to code around 95\% of the websites out there without any fundamental knowledge of maths past school level - and be very effective at it.
The web browser itself is another example (and many applications fall into this same realm) where maths is just not a huge requirement, i.e.
you could have 20 coders working on this and only 1 or 2 might need some maths for some parts.A profound knowledge of math is only a requirement if your doing something profound WITH math in code, and this equates to less then 10\% of the real world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609408</id>
	<title>You must be kidding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269526020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, I cannot believe that this is even open for discussion.  Math not necessary!?!? The only one who would consider this opinion as viable is one who does not have good math skills or does not really understand what their responsibilities are for developing a report, user interface, application, operating system or technical gizmo of any kind.</p><p>May not need Calculas, may not need high level physics or an engineer's level of calculating ability, but one had darn sure be good at Algebra, Logic, Basic Accounting and Statistics.  The most absurd look is that of a software developer at any level (usually the higher, the better the look) when you explain to them for the tenth time that the total value of the column has to be the actual total of the numbers in the column.</p><p>Totally absurd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , I can not believe that this is even open for discussion .
Math not necessary ! ? ! ?
The only one who would consider this opinion as viable is one who does not have good math skills or does not really understand what their responsibilities are for developing a report , user interface , application , operating system or technical gizmo of any kind.May not need Calculas , may not need high level physics or an engineer 's level of calculating ability , but one had darn sure be good at Algebra , Logic , Basic Accounting and Statistics .
The most absurd look is that of a software developer at any level ( usually the higher , the better the look ) when you explain to them for the tenth time that the total value of the column has to be the actual total of the numbers in the column.Totally absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, I cannot believe that this is even open for discussion.
Math not necessary!?!?
The only one who would consider this opinion as viable is one who does not have good math skills or does not really understand what their responsibilities are for developing a report, user interface, application, operating system or technical gizmo of any kind.May not need Calculas, may not need high level physics or an engineer's level of calculating ability, but one had darn sure be good at Algebra, Logic, Basic Accounting and Statistics.
The most absurd look is that of a software developer at any level (usually the higher, the better the look) when you explain to them for the tenth time that the total value of the column has to be the actual total of the numbers in the column.Totally absurd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608336</id>
	<title>Two distinct disciplines</title>
	<author>amn108</author>
	<datestamp>1269513660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...which often benefit from a fruitful relationship. That said, I would point out that in my experience programming and mathematics are two distinct disciplines, and neither requires the other. You really can be a professional programmer without knowing anything beyond the most basic arithmetics.</p><p>Programming is application of pure logic, the latter isolated from the all but basic mathematical concepts. Mathematics is application of logic in a specific manner which springs from simple arithmetics and has evolved into own world, not in the one of the most important "worlds" we have.</p><p>One important remark would be that programming is often APPLICATION of mathematics, which is one case where the two disciplines cannot, for a time being, be separated. In that case, one obviously needs a programmer who is also a good mathematician.</p><p>Also, obviously, given two programmers with equal programming skills, pick one with the better math skills over the other, if no other qualities affect the choice. It is like picking any other job candidate - you pick one with more qualifications, even if these apply only remotely to the field of work the company does. And since mathematics is a close cousin here, the choice should be obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...which often benefit from a fruitful relationship .
That said , I would point out that in my experience programming and mathematics are two distinct disciplines , and neither requires the other .
You really can be a professional programmer without knowing anything beyond the most basic arithmetics.Programming is application of pure logic , the latter isolated from the all but basic mathematical concepts .
Mathematics is application of logic in a specific manner which springs from simple arithmetics and has evolved into own world , not in the one of the most important " worlds " we have.One important remark would be that programming is often APPLICATION of mathematics , which is one case where the two disciplines can not , for a time being , be separated .
In that case , one obviously needs a programmer who is also a good mathematician.Also , obviously , given two programmers with equal programming skills , pick one with the better math skills over the other , if no other qualities affect the choice .
It is like picking any other job candidate - you pick one with more qualifications , even if these apply only remotely to the field of work the company does .
And since mathematics is a close cousin here , the choice should be obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...which often benefit from a fruitful relationship.
That said, I would point out that in my experience programming and mathematics are two distinct disciplines, and neither requires the other.
You really can be a professional programmer without knowing anything beyond the most basic arithmetics.Programming is application of pure logic, the latter isolated from the all but basic mathematical concepts.
Mathematics is application of logic in a specific manner which springs from simple arithmetics and has evolved into own world, not in the one of the most important "worlds" we have.One important remark would be that programming is often APPLICATION of mathematics, which is one case where the two disciplines cannot, for a time being, be separated.
In that case, one obviously needs a programmer who is also a good mathematician.Also, obviously, given two programmers with equal programming skills, pick one with the better math skills over the other, if no other qualities affect the choice.
It is like picking any other job candidate - you pick one with more qualifications, even if these apply only remotely to the field of work the company does.
And since mathematics is a close cousin here, the choice should be obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608878</id>
	<title>Re:Math skills essential? Of course, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269522360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  But integral calculus?  Differential Equations?  Nonsense.</p></div><p>Once you do any kind of simulation, you'll need differential equations.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A lot of this is probably because CS is part of the Engineering department</p></div><p>Where I studied, CS was its own department, but I still had to do math. Also I never regretted it. Math is way more useful than most of the sh*t they taught us in the software-engineering classes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But integral calculus ?
Differential Equations ?
Nonsense.Once you do any kind of simulation , you 'll need differential equations.A lot of this is probably because CS is part of the Engineering departmentWhere I studied , CS was its own department , but I still had to do math .
Also I never regretted it .
Math is way more useful than most of the sh * t they taught us in the software-engineering classes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  But integral calculus?
Differential Equations?
Nonsense.Once you do any kind of simulation, you'll need differential equations.A lot of this is probably because CS is part of the Engineering departmentWhere I studied, CS was its own department, but I still had to do math.
Also I never regretted it.
Math is way more useful than most of the sh*t they taught us in the software-engineering classes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608004</id>
	<title>I aint taken to cypherin like my cousin Elly-Mae</title>
	<author>NewtonsLaw</author>
	<datestamp>1269508740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I aint never taken much to cypherin but it t'aint stopped me hankerin to be a brain surgeon and that's whats I'll be, soon as I finish the fifth grade!</p><p>Signed<br>Jethro Bodine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I aint never taken much to cypherin but it t'aint stopped me hankerin to be a brain surgeon and that 's whats I 'll be , soon as I finish the fifth grade ! SignedJethro Bodine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I aint never taken much to cypherin but it t'aint stopped me hankerin to be a brain surgeon and that's whats I'll be, soon as I finish the fifth grade!SignedJethro Bodine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608864</id>
	<title>The one true thing Heinlein said</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1269522240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who can not cope with mathematics is not fully human .
At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes , bathe and not make messes in the house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612212</id>
	<title>More Math == More $</title>
	<author>PsiCTO</author>
	<datestamp>1269537180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "math" is easy.

</p><p>My programming rate with 12 years post-secondary mathematics and 25+ years math use and interest is &gt;&gt; your rate without a good math background.

</p><p>I get some jobs because I have the background no one else (available) possesses. Being able to program is the necessary expression of the problem being solved.

</p><p>In one of my first jobs, I was asked to learn and apply mathematics to do some satellite orbit modeling. The Chief Scientist of the company was very pleased I was willing to take on the work, but to my surprise mostly because the company had joined the bandwagon of companies in the late 70s and early 80s in their enthusiasm for Comp Sci grads. Only later, he explained, did they realize that most were trained to apply algorithms in problem solutions, not to create solutions (especially those  that required some math work). This was driven home when a colleague asked me for the solution to an orbit problem he had been asked to solve. I said sure, it's easy, and here's the mathematical approach you can use -- his problem was for a satellite we had not yet worked with. He totally balked and insisted that I must have a pre-coded subroutine available he could use?

</p><p>Anyway, I'm happy that (at times) my interest in math has paid off in getting me work that others can't. And I get a premium because of the common feeling that "math is hard". This is especially true of management who can neither program or solve math-related problems and are scared to death and willing to pay<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

</p><p>Of course, to be fair, I'm no great whiz at database, client-server, and other more "traditional" programming challenges, so things kind of even out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " math " is easy .
My programming rate with 12 years post-secondary mathematics and 25 + years math use and interest is &gt; &gt; your rate without a good math background .
I get some jobs because I have the background no one else ( available ) possesses .
Being able to program is the necessary expression of the problem being solved .
In one of my first jobs , I was asked to learn and apply mathematics to do some satellite orbit modeling .
The Chief Scientist of the company was very pleased I was willing to take on the work , but to my surprise mostly because the company had joined the bandwagon of companies in the late 70s and early 80s in their enthusiasm for Comp Sci grads .
Only later , he explained , did they realize that most were trained to apply algorithms in problem solutions , not to create solutions ( especially those that required some math work ) .
This was driven home when a colleague asked me for the solution to an orbit problem he had been asked to solve .
I said sure , it 's easy , and here 's the mathematical approach you can use -- his problem was for a satellite we had not yet worked with .
He totally balked and insisted that I must have a pre-coded subroutine available he could use ?
Anyway , I 'm happy that ( at times ) my interest in math has paid off in getting me work that others ca n't .
And I get a premium because of the common feeling that " math is hard " .
This is especially true of management who can neither program or solve math-related problems and are scared to death and willing to pay : - ) Of course , to be fair , I 'm no great whiz at database , client-server , and other more " traditional " programming challenges , so things kind of even out ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "math" is easy.
My programming rate with 12 years post-secondary mathematics and 25+ years math use and interest is &gt;&gt; your rate without a good math background.
I get some jobs because I have the background no one else (available) possesses.
Being able to program is the necessary expression of the problem being solved.
In one of my first jobs, I was asked to learn and apply mathematics to do some satellite orbit modeling.
The Chief Scientist of the company was very pleased I was willing to take on the work, but to my surprise mostly because the company had joined the bandwagon of companies in the late 70s and early 80s in their enthusiasm for Comp Sci grads.
Only later, he explained, did they realize that most were trained to apply algorithms in problem solutions, not to create solutions (especially those  that required some math work).
This was driven home when a colleague asked me for the solution to an orbit problem he had been asked to solve.
I said sure, it's easy, and here's the mathematical approach you can use -- his problem was for a satellite we had not yet worked with.
He totally balked and insisted that I must have a pre-coded subroutine available he could use?
Anyway, I'm happy that (at times) my interest in math has paid off in getting me work that others can't.
And I get a premium because of the common feeling that "math is hard".
This is especially true of management who can neither program or solve math-related problems and are scared to death and willing to pay :-)

Of course, to be fair, I'm no great whiz at database, client-server, and other more "traditional" programming challenges, so things kind of even out ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608176</id>
	<title>an estimate needs little math</title>
	<author>r00t</author>
	<datestamp>1269510900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Count the loop nesting, look up any well-studied algorithms, and don't be a dummy about computation/storage hidden behind layers of object-oriented obfuscation. It's easy.</p><p>Seldom does anybody need to determine things down to the last byte or CPU cycle. You can't do that anyway unless you use something like assembly. In the  time you might spend improving your estimate, computers will get faster and your software project will get later.</p><p>Just doing rough estimates puts you way ahead of everybody else, allowing you to avoid severe stupidity. BTW, remember that any libraries you depend on may become worse in future revisions, and you're screwed if you don't have the source code to fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Count the loop nesting , look up any well-studied algorithms , and do n't be a dummy about computation/storage hidden behind layers of object-oriented obfuscation .
It 's easy.Seldom does anybody need to determine things down to the last byte or CPU cycle .
You ca n't do that anyway unless you use something like assembly .
In the time you might spend improving your estimate , computers will get faster and your software project will get later.Just doing rough estimates puts you way ahead of everybody else , allowing you to avoid severe stupidity .
BTW , remember that any libraries you depend on may become worse in future revisions , and you 're screwed if you do n't have the source code to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Count the loop nesting, look up any well-studied algorithms, and don't be a dummy about computation/storage hidden behind layers of object-oriented obfuscation.
It's easy.Seldom does anybody need to determine things down to the last byte or CPU cycle.
You can't do that anyway unless you use something like assembly.
In the  time you might spend improving your estimate, computers will get faster and your software project will get later.Just doing rough estimates puts you way ahead of everybody else, allowing you to avoid severe stupidity.
BTW, remember that any libraries you depend on may become worse in future revisions, and you're screwed if you don't have the source code to fix it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610452</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269531480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in a similar boat maths wise. If it helps, I've found more and more that people who "get" calculus have only learned the methods in order to DO calculus. In my time at university I was keen to learn some more maths and so asked some of the people who had done maths at college (British college which is post high school but before university) about calculus. I found that while they could all work with calculus they couldn't answer most of my simple inquiries while I was trying to really understand it, mainly because they'd never actually been taught to understand what calculus is, just how to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in a similar boat maths wise .
If it helps , I 've found more and more that people who " get " calculus have only learned the methods in order to DO calculus .
In my time at university I was keen to learn some more maths and so asked some of the people who had done maths at college ( British college which is post high school but before university ) about calculus .
I found that while they could all work with calculus they could n't answer most of my simple inquiries while I was trying to really understand it , mainly because they 'd never actually been taught to understand what calculus is , just how to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in a similar boat maths wise.
If it helps, I've found more and more that people who "get" calculus have only learned the methods in order to DO calculus.
In my time at university I was keen to learn some more maths and so asked some of the people who had done maths at college (British college which is post high school but before university) about calculus.
I found that while they could all work with calculus they couldn't answer most of my simple inquiries while I was trying to really understand it, mainly because they'd never actually been taught to understand what calculus is, just how to use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608506</id>
	<title>Stupid question</title>
	<author>Trivial Solutions</author>
	<datestamp>1269516840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw an episode of the office or something.  Had a programmer who's boss stopped a stop watch if he stopped working.  The boss then proceeded to mangle star trek and star wars with a buddy within ear shot.  The programmer was tortured because he couldn't correct them.

A psychologist probably know all the buttons to push on programmers.  This topic is a stupid one.  Might also ask "Is a degree necessary?"  Or, on and on.

Did human anscestors mate with other humanoid species?

It's like crack.  Predictable psychlology of atheist programmers.

If you are not a clear stereotype nerd, jock, Christian, etc.  They call you scizophrenic.

They have your profile down to a science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw an episode of the office or something .
Had a programmer who 's boss stopped a stop watch if he stopped working .
The boss then proceeded to mangle star trek and star wars with a buddy within ear shot .
The programmer was tortured because he could n't correct them .
A psychologist probably know all the buttons to push on programmers .
This topic is a stupid one .
Might also ask " Is a degree necessary ?
" Or , on and on .
Did human anscestors mate with other humanoid species ?
It 's like crack .
Predictable psychlology of atheist programmers .
If you are not a clear stereotype nerd , jock , Christian , etc .
They call you scizophrenic .
They have your profile down to a science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw an episode of the office or something.
Had a programmer who's boss stopped a stop watch if he stopped working.
The boss then proceeded to mangle star trek and star wars with a buddy within ear shot.
The programmer was tortured because he couldn't correct them.
A psychologist probably know all the buttons to push on programmers.
This topic is a stupid one.
Might also ask "Is a degree necessary?
"  Or, on and on.
Did human anscestors mate with other humanoid species?
It's like crack.
Predictable psychlology of atheist programmers.
If you are not a clear stereotype nerd, jock, Christian, etc.
They call you scizophrenic.
They have your profile down to a science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609110</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269524220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He is fucking contributing a 2\% of the speed of light! He's as humble as Paris Hilton. Only that he has never had sex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He is fucking contributing a 2 \ % of the speed of light !
He 's as humble as Paris Hilton .
Only that he has never had sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is fucking contributing a 2\% of the speed of light!
He's as humble as Paris Hilton.
Only that he has never had sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608028</id>
	<title>linear algebra &lt; math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269509100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>linear algebra is ONE PART in mathematics, but handling quantity operations (like on a database) is also an area of mathematics, so no matter what you do - math skills will help while programming !</p><p>Many unskilled people do make this mistake, so don't cry but keep learning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>linear algebra is ONE PART in mathematics , but handling quantity operations ( like on a database ) is also an area of mathematics , so no matter what you do - math skills will help while programming ! Many unskilled people do make this mistake , so do n't cry but keep learning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>linear algebra is ONE PART in mathematics, but handling quantity operations (like on a database) is also an area of mathematics, so no matter what you do - math skills will help while programming !Many unskilled people do make this mistake, so don't cry but keep learning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608104</id>
	<title>You'll need mathematical concepts for everything</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1269509940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From sorting data efficiently, to calculating statistics, to drawing geometric shapes.</p><p>Programmers should cherish the mathematics and abstract thinking - it's the only part of our expertise that is guaranteed to remain useful until retirement, when all our favorite languages have become either obsolete or unrecognizable. (And visual interface design has been rendered obsolete by brain implants.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From sorting data efficiently , to calculating statistics , to drawing geometric shapes.Programmers should cherish the mathematics and abstract thinking - it 's the only part of our expertise that is guaranteed to remain useful until retirement , when all our favorite languages have become either obsolete or unrecognizable .
( And visual interface design has been rendered obsolete by brain implants .
: P )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From sorting data efficiently, to calculating statistics, to drawing geometric shapes.Programmers should cherish the mathematics and abstract thinking - it's the only part of our expertise that is guaranteed to remain useful until retirement, when all our favorite languages have become either obsolete or unrecognizable.
(And visual interface design has been rendered obsolete by brain implants.
:P )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621944</id>
	<title>Tidbit from our technology past</title>
	<author>SilverPDA</author>
	<datestamp>1269537660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In 1964 when I started programming there were no Computer Science degrees and programmers of the day were split evenly between math and music majors. The ability for abstract thought was the basic requirement then. It was a different world. There were no "industry standards" like "C" or "*nix", everything was unique.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1964 when I started programming there were no Computer Science degrees and programmers of the day were split evenly between math and music majors .
The ability for abstract thought was the basic requirement then .
It was a different world .
There were no " industry standards " like " C " or " * nix " , everything was unique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1964 when I started programming there were no Computer Science degrees and programmers of the day were split evenly between math and music majors.
The ability for abstract thought was the basic requirement then.
It was a different world.
There were no "industry standards" like "C" or "*nix", everything was unique.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608502</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>Dzonatas</author>
	<datestamp>1269516780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mathematics is generally limited to Physics, or at least it's resources. Computations, and computation models, can go beyond physics, and thus advanced arithmetics are more useful the mathematics itself. I agree math knowledge is quite helpful, yet it is arithmetic skills that are essential.</p><p>Computers are more based on symbolic functions and their rearrangement rather than on knowledge of methods to balance the numbers in equations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mathematics is generally limited to Physics , or at least it 's resources .
Computations , and computation models , can go beyond physics , and thus advanced arithmetics are more useful the mathematics itself .
I agree math knowledge is quite helpful , yet it is arithmetic skills that are essential.Computers are more based on symbolic functions and their rearrangement rather than on knowledge of methods to balance the numbers in equations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mathematics is generally limited to Physics, or at least it's resources.
Computations, and computation models, can go beyond physics, and thus advanced arithmetics are more useful the mathematics itself.
I agree math knowledge is quite helpful, yet it is arithmetic skills that are essential.Computers are more based on symbolic functions and their rearrangement rather than on knowledge of methods to balance the numbers in equations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609382</id>
	<title>Math is over-rated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269525840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't need math skills to do most kinds of programming.  In fact, contrary to what they tell you in middle school, you don't need math skills in life at all anymore.  Everything is calculated automatically for you these days.  Don't waste you time with any more math classes.  Now finish making my latte, bitch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need math skills to do most kinds of programming .
In fact , contrary to what they tell you in middle school , you do n't need math skills in life at all anymore .
Everything is calculated automatically for you these days .
Do n't waste you time with any more math classes .
Now finish making my latte , bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need math skills to do most kinds of programming.
In fact, contrary to what they tell you in middle school, you don't need math skills in life at all anymore.
Everything is calculated automatically for you these days.
Don't waste you time with any more math classes.
Now finish making my latte, bitch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612040</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>ufoolme</author>
	<datestamp>1269536640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logic is programming! And its from the school of philosophy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>Philosophy &gt; Math. I agree math skills are needed, but programming is more an art than a science.<br>At least I see a little beauty in awesome code, even if it is awesomely bad.<br>In everything creativity is king.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logic is programming !
And its from the school of philosophy : ) Philosophy &gt; Math .
I agree math skills are needed , but programming is more an art than a science.At least I see a little beauty in awesome code , even if it is awesomely bad.In everything creativity is king .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logic is programming!
And its from the school of philosophy :)Philosophy &gt; Math.
I agree math skills are needed, but programming is more an art than a science.At least I see a little beauty in awesome code, even if it is awesomely bad.In everything creativity is king.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609134</id>
	<title>statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269524460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>regardless of whether the claim is right or wrong -- the same claim I remember reading on slashdot the better part of 12 years ago<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and nothing apparently has changed in that time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>regardless of whether the claim is right or wrong -- the same claim I remember reading on slashdot the better part of 12 years ago ... and nothing apparently has changed in that time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>regardless of whether the claim is right or wrong -- the same claim I remember reading on slashdot the better part of 12 years ago ... and nothing apparently has changed in that time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609588</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269527040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The common thread in these is the ability to handle abstraction. If you can't do it, you can't program, and you can't do mathematics. Of course that doesn't formally imply that if you \_can\_ do one, you can do the other. But the correlation is high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The common thread in these is the ability to handle abstraction .
If you ca n't do it , you ca n't program , and you ca n't do mathematics .
Of course that does n't formally imply that if you \ _can \ _ do one , you can do the other .
But the correlation is high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The common thread in these is the ability to handle abstraction.
If you can't do it, you can't program, and you can't do mathematics.
Of course that doesn't formally imply that if you \_can\_ do one, you can do the other.
But the correlation is high.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31633786</id>
	<title>New Rule</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1269604680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No more slashdotting articles with more than three sentence fragments masquerading as full sentences, or from "writers" who don't know the basic mechanics of the language.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No more slashdotting articles with more than three sentence fragments masquerading as full sentences , or from " writers " who do n't know the basic mechanics of the language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No more slashdotting articles with more than three sentence fragments masquerading as full sentences, or from "writers" who don't know the basic mechanics of the language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31648708</id>
	<title>What irks me about Math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269802260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always ask whats that mean? What do I use it for? Most of the time the teacher doesn't answer.<br>How the hell do you remember knoweldge, practice knowledge, if you have no idea what to use it for. Its like a stupid dog trick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always ask whats that mean ?
What do I use it for ?
Most of the time the teacher does n't answer.How the hell do you remember knoweldge , practice knowledge , if you have no idea what to use it for .
Its like a stupid dog trick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always ask whats that mean?
What do I use it for?
Most of the time the teacher doesn't answer.How the hell do you remember knoweldge, practice knowledge, if you have no idea what to use it for.
Its like a stupid dog trick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610994</id>
	<title>What can I do without so much math knowledge?</title>
	<author>FoolishOwl</author>
	<datestamp>1269533460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went back to school, about a year and a half ago, with an original plan of taking some community college courses, then transferring to a four-year school and getting a computer science degree, and an overall plan of working as a system administrator. In general, I'd found most of my classes ranging from easy to effortless, but I found calculus incredibly difficult. Calculus took up 90\% or more of my study time, and I was still doing poorly. I concluded that if a computer science degree required that much math, I just wouldn't be able to do it.</p><p>My current plan is to finish up a certificate program in system administration, try to find work, and perhaps get a degree in technical writing later. My guess is that I'd be good enough at light-weight programming -- hooking up the pieces with Perl and so forth -- but I wouldn't be a first rate coder in any case.</p><p>I did find it puzzling, though, that the programming courses I've taken were almost painfully easy, by contrast with the math courses. It also struck me that while there was a wide range of ages in the networking and programming courses I took, the students in the math courses were almost all 19 or 20.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went back to school , about a year and a half ago , with an original plan of taking some community college courses , then transferring to a four-year school and getting a computer science degree , and an overall plan of working as a system administrator .
In general , I 'd found most of my classes ranging from easy to effortless , but I found calculus incredibly difficult .
Calculus took up 90 \ % or more of my study time , and I was still doing poorly .
I concluded that if a computer science degree required that much math , I just would n't be able to do it.My current plan is to finish up a certificate program in system administration , try to find work , and perhaps get a degree in technical writing later .
My guess is that I 'd be good enough at light-weight programming -- hooking up the pieces with Perl and so forth -- but I would n't be a first rate coder in any case.I did find it puzzling , though , that the programming courses I 've taken were almost painfully easy , by contrast with the math courses .
It also struck me that while there was a wide range of ages in the networking and programming courses I took , the students in the math courses were almost all 19 or 20 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went back to school, about a year and a half ago, with an original plan of taking some community college courses, then transferring to a four-year school and getting a computer science degree, and an overall plan of working as a system administrator.
In general, I'd found most of my classes ranging from easy to effortless, but I found calculus incredibly difficult.
Calculus took up 90\% or more of my study time, and I was still doing poorly.
I concluded that if a computer science degree required that much math, I just wouldn't be able to do it.My current plan is to finish up a certificate program in system administration, try to find work, and perhaps get a degree in technical writing later.
My guess is that I'd be good enough at light-weight programming -- hooking up the pieces with Perl and so forth -- but I wouldn't be a first rate coder in any case.I did find it puzzling, though, that the programming courses I've taken were almost painfully easy, by contrast with the math courses.
It also struck me that while there was a wide range of ages in the networking and programming courses I took, the students in the math courses were almost all 19 or 20.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31628294</id>
	<title>math is not that serious...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269625680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609528</id>
	<title>skillz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269526860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as the programmar had mad skillz, math skills are not needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the programmar had mad skillz , math skills are not needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the programmar had mad skillz, math skills are not needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610980</id>
	<title>Re:No, but Logic is mandatory.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269533460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fully agree with this. From a programmer with 15 years experience in developing bookkeeping software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fully agree with this .
From a programmer with 15 years experience in developing bookkeeping software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fully agree with this.
From a programmer with 15 years experience in developing bookkeeping software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609676</id>
	<title>Horse sense</title>
	<author>ralphbecket</author>
	<datestamp>1269527460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In designing an operating system one needs both theoretical insight and horse sense. Without the former, one designs an ad hoc mess; without the latter one designs an elephant in best Carrara marble (white, perfect, and immobile)."</p><p>-- Needham &amp; Hartley, 1969</p><p>Applies to everything else, too, in my experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In designing an operating system one needs both theoretical insight and horse sense .
Without the former , one designs an ad hoc mess ; without the latter one designs an elephant in best Carrara marble ( white , perfect , and immobile ) .
" -- Needham &amp; Hartley , 1969Applies to everything else , too , in my experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In designing an operating system one needs both theoretical insight and horse sense.
Without the former, one designs an ad hoc mess; without the latter one designs an elephant in best Carrara marble (white, perfect, and immobile).
"-- Needham &amp; Hartley, 1969Applies to everything else, too, in my experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608216</id>
	<title>How should I learn math?</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1269511740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I would like to know is what are the best resources to learn math? I find wikipedia's math pages are written in such a way that they are pretty near impossible to read, they are all technical accuracy and no explanation.</p><p>Are there better resources that don't involve taking 3 years off work to go back to university?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I would like to know is what are the best resources to learn math ?
I find wikipedia 's math pages are written in such a way that they are pretty near impossible to read , they are all technical accuracy and no explanation.Are there better resources that do n't involve taking 3 years off work to go back to university ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I would like to know is what are the best resources to learn math?
I find wikipedia's math pages are written in such a way that they are pretty near impossible to read, they are all technical accuracy and no explanation.Are there better resources that don't involve taking 3 years off work to go back to university?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1269513720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd go further than that - most chunks of maths are things that are absolutely essential for some area of programming. You may not need to know everything all of the time, but for any particular task you will need to know some of this (non-exhaustive) list :</p><p><b>Statistics</b> - useful just about everywhere, but in particular if you have to do any kind of data analysis in your work. Knowing particular distributions and how to compute the properties of them is essential.</p><p><b>Probability</b> - if you use any kind of randomness in your work this is essential and in quite a few places where you don't deliberately use randomness but you are using non-determinism to model lack of knowledge i.e packing and filling of sparse data-structures.</p><p><b>Algebra</b> - the daddy. Knowing a simple formal language that lets you rearrange expressions is an essential first step towards understanding a programming language. The more you learn the more it will help. If you head down to the Category Theory end of the pool then Monads and Arrows come in useful if you swim away from imperative languages and find something more interesting.</p><p><b>Logic</b> - the other foundation. Learning to apply logic is relevant in any area of programming as it is an elementary part of programming. A deeper understanding of propositional and predicate logics is essential to do any work in compilers and will aid your understanding of control and data-flow in any language that you work in.</p><p><b>Linear Algebra</b> - anything that touches the "real world" requires a bit of LA, as the parent mentioned physics, 3D graphics and I would add Vision to that list.</p><p><b>Set Theory</b> - these are your basic building blocks, use them well. Whether it is building the right data-structure or using a database this is the foundation that you need to understand.</p><p><b>Graph Theory</b> - some people never need anything more complex than a relational database, but some people only care about the relations. If you want to model any large network (the internet, or social interactions, economics), or perhaps programs within a compiler, or just the relationships between discrete objects then you will either learn some Graph Theory first, or rediscover it yourself the hard way.</p><p><b>Combinatorics</b> - counting is fun! Counting (and enumerating in the programmer's sense) complex objects is basic problem that crops up in almost every area. For people without some grounding in combinatorics it is the kind of question that will get kicked up to the "office guru".</p><p>Now, if only maths graduates could program their way out of a wet cardboard box, then we could truly start designing giant flame breathing killer robots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd go further than that - most chunks of maths are things that are absolutely essential for some area of programming .
You may not need to know everything all of the time , but for any particular task you will need to know some of this ( non-exhaustive ) list : Statistics - useful just about everywhere , but in particular if you have to do any kind of data analysis in your work .
Knowing particular distributions and how to compute the properties of them is essential.Probability - if you use any kind of randomness in your work this is essential and in quite a few places where you do n't deliberately use randomness but you are using non-determinism to model lack of knowledge i.e packing and filling of sparse data-structures.Algebra - the daddy .
Knowing a simple formal language that lets you rearrange expressions is an essential first step towards understanding a programming language .
The more you learn the more it will help .
If you head down to the Category Theory end of the pool then Monads and Arrows come in useful if you swim away from imperative languages and find something more interesting.Logic - the other foundation .
Learning to apply logic is relevant in any area of programming as it is an elementary part of programming .
A deeper understanding of propositional and predicate logics is essential to do any work in compilers and will aid your understanding of control and data-flow in any language that you work in.Linear Algebra - anything that touches the " real world " requires a bit of LA , as the parent mentioned physics , 3D graphics and I would add Vision to that list.Set Theory - these are your basic building blocks , use them well .
Whether it is building the right data-structure or using a database this is the foundation that you need to understand.Graph Theory - some people never need anything more complex than a relational database , but some people only care about the relations .
If you want to model any large network ( the internet , or social interactions , economics ) , or perhaps programs within a compiler , or just the relationships between discrete objects then you will either learn some Graph Theory first , or rediscover it yourself the hard way.Combinatorics - counting is fun !
Counting ( and enumerating in the programmer 's sense ) complex objects is basic problem that crops up in almost every area .
For people without some grounding in combinatorics it is the kind of question that will get kicked up to the " office guru " .Now , if only maths graduates could program their way out of a wet cardboard box , then we could truly start designing giant flame breathing killer robots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd go further than that - most chunks of maths are things that are absolutely essential for some area of programming.
You may not need to know everything all of the time, but for any particular task you will need to know some of this (non-exhaustive) list :Statistics - useful just about everywhere, but in particular if you have to do any kind of data analysis in your work.
Knowing particular distributions and how to compute the properties of them is essential.Probability - if you use any kind of randomness in your work this is essential and in quite a few places where you don't deliberately use randomness but you are using non-determinism to model lack of knowledge i.e packing and filling of sparse data-structures.Algebra - the daddy.
Knowing a simple formal language that lets you rearrange expressions is an essential first step towards understanding a programming language.
The more you learn the more it will help.
If you head down to the Category Theory end of the pool then Monads and Arrows come in useful if you swim away from imperative languages and find something more interesting.Logic - the other foundation.
Learning to apply logic is relevant in any area of programming as it is an elementary part of programming.
A deeper understanding of propositional and predicate logics is essential to do any work in compilers and will aid your understanding of control and data-flow in any language that you work in.Linear Algebra - anything that touches the "real world" requires a bit of LA, as the parent mentioned physics, 3D graphics and I would add Vision to that list.Set Theory - these are your basic building blocks, use them well.
Whether it is building the right data-structure or using a database this is the foundation that you need to understand.Graph Theory - some people never need anything more complex than a relational database, but some people only care about the relations.
If you want to model any large network (the internet, or social interactions, economics), or perhaps programs within a compiler, or just the relationships between discrete objects then you will either learn some Graph Theory first, or rediscover it yourself the hard way.Combinatorics - counting is fun!
Counting (and enumerating in the programmer's sense) complex objects is basic problem that crops up in almost every area.
For people without some grounding in combinatorics it is the kind of question that will get kicked up to the "office guru".Now, if only maths graduates could program their way out of a wet cardboard box, then we could truly start designing giant flame breathing killer robots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608718</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1269520140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing he meant that you understand the physics conceptually first, and then learn the math that represents it, that way you have a motivation for learning the math and it is more interesting.</p><p>I'd tend to agree with that. Most physics can be understood conceptually without the math, but when you understand the math you can move from qualitative descriptions/predictions to quantitative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing he meant that you understand the physics conceptually first , and then learn the math that represents it , that way you have a motivation for learning the math and it is more interesting.I 'd tend to agree with that .
Most physics can be understood conceptually without the math , but when you understand the math you can move from qualitative descriptions/predictions to quantitative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing he meant that you understand the physics conceptually first, and then learn the math that represents it, that way you have a motivation for learning the math and it is more interesting.I'd tend to agree with that.
Most physics can be understood conceptually without the math, but when you understand the math you can move from qualitative descriptions/predictions to quantitative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609768</id>
	<title>inter dependent</title>
	<author>nten</author>
	<datestamp>1269527880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are cases where the math to model something predated the thing that math was later used to model.  But (more often probably) the math was invented (or discovered, not getting into that one), in order to model what was desired.  It is my understanding that Newton's formulation of calculus was driven by the need to model his laws of physics in a formal fashion.  As need is almost always the driver of invention/discovery this is not surprising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are cases where the math to model something predated the thing that math was later used to model .
But ( more often probably ) the math was invented ( or discovered , not getting into that one ) , in order to model what was desired .
It is my understanding that Newton 's formulation of calculus was driven by the need to model his laws of physics in a formal fashion .
As need is almost always the driver of invention/discovery this is not surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are cases where the math to model something predated the thing that math was later used to model.
But (more often probably) the math was invented (or discovered, not getting into that one), in order to model what was desired.
It is my understanding that Newton's formulation of calculus was driven by the need to model his laws of physics in a formal fashion.
As need is almost always the driver of invention/discovery this is not surprising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611476</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessary</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1269534960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You choose 'quicksort' because it says 'quick' on the label.  Your data is mostly sorted already, so it should be really fast, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You choose 'quicksort ' because it says 'quick ' on the label .
Your data is mostly sorted already , so it should be really fast , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You choose 'quicksort' because it says 'quick' on the label.
Your data is mostly sorted already, so it should be really fast, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609220</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269524820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a degree in Math and CS. The math degree doesn't seem to be helping me get accepted to grad school, or getting a job.</p><p>Any idea what fields/companies would have a strong demand for a CS/Math person?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a degree in Math and CS .
The math degree does n't seem to be helping me get accepted to grad school , or getting a job.Any idea what fields/companies would have a strong demand for a CS/Math person ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a degree in Math and CS.
The math degree doesn't seem to be helping me get accepted to grad school, or getting a job.Any idea what fields/companies would have a strong demand for a CS/Math person?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610106</id>
	<title>math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269529740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually it depends on the nature of work you are doing. Some programming tasks are more math related.</p><p>neccessary? Arguable but maybe not.</p><p>Extremely useful and a competitive edge over others? Absolutely.</p><p>I double majored in math and CS. Getting good grades in math on my resume made me very competitive and helped me get interviews. Occasionally I use some of the things I learned in my math classes. The one thing that has been a constant help is the mathematical maturity I gained from taking the courses. It filters in to how you think and makes you a better problem solver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually it depends on the nature of work you are doing .
Some programming tasks are more math related.neccessary ?
Arguable but maybe not.Extremely useful and a competitive edge over others ?
Absolutely.I double majored in math and CS .
Getting good grades in math on my resume made me very competitive and helped me get interviews .
Occasionally I use some of the things I learned in my math classes .
The one thing that has been a constant help is the mathematical maturity I gained from taking the courses .
It filters in to how you think and makes you a better problem solver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually it depends on the nature of work you are doing.
Some programming tasks are more math related.neccessary?
Arguable but maybe not.Extremely useful and a competitive edge over others?
Absolutely.I double majored in math and CS.
Getting good grades in math on my resume made me very competitive and helped me get interviews.
Occasionally I use some of the things I learned in my math classes.
The one thing that has been a constant help is the mathematical maturity I gained from taking the courses.
It filters in to how you think and makes you a better problem solver.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607938</id>
	<title>Needed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether the actual math knowledge helps or not, the act of learning the math imparts knowledge you'll need.  Learning to learn is a skill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether the actual math knowledge helps or not , the act of learning the math imparts knowledge you 'll need .
Learning to learn is a skill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether the actual math knowledge helps or not, the act of learning the math imparts knowledge you'll need.
Learning to learn is a skill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31620494</id>
	<title>Re:What part of Maths ?</title>
	<author>smellotron</author>
	<datestamp>1269526200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For everyone who thinks that they do not use maths when programming: what do you think regular expressions are?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

"Magic."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For everyone who thinks that they do not use maths when programming : what do you think regular expressions are ?
" Magic. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For everyone who thinks that they do not use maths when programming: what do you think regular expressions are?
"Magic."
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608892</id>
	<title>Physics Software Programming</title>
	<author>TheLeopardsAreComing</author>
	<datestamp>1269522480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I write a lot of software for experimental physics applications, statistics is absolutely vital for data analysis software...  Calc is essential for PID control methods as well.  It really depends on what you want to do, but having higher level math skills will make you a better programmer in the long run.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I write a lot of software for experimental physics applications , statistics is absolutely vital for data analysis software... Calc is essential for PID control methods as well .
It really depends on what you want to do , but having higher level math skills will make you a better programmer in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I write a lot of software for experimental physics applications, statistics is absolutely vital for data analysis software...  Calc is essential for PID control methods as well.
It really depends on what you want to do, but having higher level math skills will make you a better programmer in the long run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609086</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>The Mighty Buzzard</author>
	<datestamp>1269524040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eh, I'm pretty sure physics came first.  Little things like sticking to a planet because gravity is holding you and an atmosphere there were fairly important to the development of the abstract concept that is math.  Good old physics.  Works the same whether you understand and study it or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , I 'm pretty sure physics came first .
Little things like sticking to a planet because gravity is holding you and an atmosphere there were fairly important to the development of the abstract concept that is math .
Good old physics .
Works the same whether you understand and study it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, I'm pretty sure physics came first.
Little things like sticking to a planet because gravity is holding you and an atmosphere there were fairly important to the development of the abstract concept that is math.
Good old physics.
Works the same whether you understand and study it or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31614534</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>mgessner</author>
	<datestamp>1269544380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was trying to figure out how to make a funny comment in which c represented the speed of light, and not $0.01.</p><p>I failed massively.</p><p>Any takers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was trying to figure out how to make a funny comment in which c represented the speed of light , and not $ 0.01.I failed massively.Any takers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was trying to figure out how to make a funny comment in which c represented the speed of light, and not $0.01.I failed massively.Any takers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609230</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1269524880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A software program is essentially a complex logic structure. One of the disciplines in Maths is Logic.</p><p>One could thus assume that a deep understanding of at least one of the areas in Maths is needed for Software Development.</p><p>However Logic (the Mathematical discipline) is just a formalization of an innate human ability - one can think logically and create logical structures without actually knowing the formalization.</p><p>Thus, in my view, a deep understanding of Math is thus not needed for Software Development.</p><p>That said, knowing the basics of Maths is needed and in fact expected of everybody in Software Development, so much so that it's pretty much assumed that anyboy in or wanting to get into Software Development knows them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A software program is essentially a complex logic structure .
One of the disciplines in Maths is Logic.One could thus assume that a deep understanding of at least one of the areas in Maths is needed for Software Development.However Logic ( the Mathematical discipline ) is just a formalization of an innate human ability - one can think logically and create logical structures without actually knowing the formalization.Thus , in my view , a deep understanding of Math is thus not needed for Software Development.That said , knowing the basics of Maths is needed and in fact expected of everybody in Software Development , so much so that it 's pretty much assumed that anyboy in or wanting to get into Software Development knows them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A software program is essentially a complex logic structure.
One of the disciplines in Maths is Logic.One could thus assume that a deep understanding of at least one of the areas in Maths is needed for Software Development.However Logic (the Mathematical discipline) is just a formalization of an innate human ability - one can think logically and create logical structures without actually knowing the formalization.Thus, in my view, a deep understanding of Math is thus not needed for Software Development.That said, knowing the basics of Maths is needed and in fact expected of everybody in Software Development, so much so that it's pretty much assumed that anyboy in or wanting to get into Software Development knows them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613086</id>
	<title>Re:Strong Math Skills often get dumbed down</title>
	<author>cervo</author>
	<datestamp>1269539880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The important thing to remember is that Algorithms often take a long time to get right.  Even something as simple to us now as binary search took years for a correct implementation to appear.  The rule should be do the simplest thing first and then if it is too slow optimize.<br> <br>
Programs are written more to be read by humans.  That's why languages like Python/Ruby/Perl/Ruby/ASP.NET/Java are all becoming more favored than C.  They are easier to write and easier to read (Perl is debatable...but if done right it is readable..).  For example, if someone used:<br>
a = a xor b<br>
b = a xor b<br>
a = a xor b<br>
to swap two integers instead of the more common way of temp = a; a = b; b = temp; I'd probably strangle them....  There is an easy way to do it that performs well, so there is no need to go to "advanced" tricks.<br> <br>
Anyway the more clever the code is made, often the more assumptions it makes.  And then when something breaks you run into trouble.  For example, maybe you have a list and the simplest thing is to linear search it via an iterator and the performance is fine.  Now maybe someone decides to prematurely optimize it using a hash table to look things up.  They define the size of the hash table and figure it won't grow bigger than that.  Then it does and the code crashes.  Or they write an expandable hash table but then end up with bugs in the memory allocation code.  The sequential search would have been easier....<br> <br>
Anyway time = money.  Quite often after investigating a bug, I won't be allowed to fix it because it is too expensive (if I touch the code, we end up owning it, and if the vendor corrects the code, they charge support time on our contract...), so they instead prefer to work around it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The important thing to remember is that Algorithms often take a long time to get right .
Even something as simple to us now as binary search took years for a correct implementation to appear .
The rule should be do the simplest thing first and then if it is too slow optimize .
Programs are written more to be read by humans .
That 's why languages like Python/Ruby/Perl/Ruby/ASP.NET/Java are all becoming more favored than C. They are easier to write and easier to read ( Perl is debatable...but if done right it is readable.. ) .
For example , if someone used : a = a xor b b = a xor b a = a xor b to swap two integers instead of the more common way of temp = a ; a = b ; b = temp ; I 'd probably strangle them.... There is an easy way to do it that performs well , so there is no need to go to " advanced " tricks .
Anyway the more clever the code is made , often the more assumptions it makes .
And then when something breaks you run into trouble .
For example , maybe you have a list and the simplest thing is to linear search it via an iterator and the performance is fine .
Now maybe someone decides to prematurely optimize it using a hash table to look things up .
They define the size of the hash table and figure it wo n't grow bigger than that .
Then it does and the code crashes .
Or they write an expandable hash table but then end up with bugs in the memory allocation code .
The sequential search would have been easier... . Anyway time = money .
Quite often after investigating a bug , I wo n't be allowed to fix it because it is too expensive ( if I touch the code , we end up owning it , and if the vendor corrects the code , they charge support time on our contract... ) , so they instead prefer to work around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The important thing to remember is that Algorithms often take a long time to get right.
Even something as simple to us now as binary search took years for a correct implementation to appear.
The rule should be do the simplest thing first and then if it is too slow optimize.
Programs are written more to be read by humans.
That's why languages like Python/Ruby/Perl/Ruby/ASP.NET/Java are all becoming more favored than C.  They are easier to write and easier to read (Perl is debatable...but if done right it is readable..).
For example, if someone used:
a = a xor b
b = a xor b
a = a xor b
to swap two integers instead of the more common way of temp = a; a = b; b = temp; I'd probably strangle them....  There is an easy way to do it that performs well, so there is no need to go to "advanced" tricks.
Anyway the more clever the code is made, often the more assumptions it makes.
And then when something breaks you run into trouble.
For example, maybe you have a list and the simplest thing is to linear search it via an iterator and the performance is fine.
Now maybe someone decides to prematurely optimize it using a hash table to look things up.
They define the size of the hash table and figure it won't grow bigger than that.
Then it does and the code crashes.
Or they write an expandable hash table but then end up with bugs in the memory allocation code.
The sequential search would have been easier.... 
Anyway time = money.
Quite often after investigating a bug, I won't be allowed to fix it because it is too expensive (if I touch the code, we end up owning it, and if the vendor corrects the code, they charge support time on our contract...), so they instead prefer to work around it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608142</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1269510420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I consider mathematical thinking not only Linear Algebra, Infi et al, but everything that requires exact abstract thinking</i></p><p>Exactly.  You need to understand maths to, for example, predict what a particular SQL query will do, or to perform any more than the most basic reasoning about how two parts of a program will interact.  Maths is a lot broader than dealing with numbers and vectors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider mathematical thinking not only Linear Algebra , Infi et al , but everything that requires exact abstract thinkingExactly .
You need to understand maths to , for example , predict what a particular SQL query will do , or to perform any more than the most basic reasoning about how two parts of a program will interact .
Maths is a lot broader than dealing with numbers and vectors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider mathematical thinking not only Linear Algebra, Infi et al, but everything that requires exact abstract thinkingExactly.
You need to understand maths to, for example, predict what a particular SQL query will do, or to perform any more than the most basic reasoning about how two parts of a program will interact.
Maths is a lot broader than dealing with numbers and vectors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609610</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what you mean by "programming"</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1269527160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a qualifier: "truly interesting work".</p><p>Sure you need no math at all to write a shitty web forum, but that's not interesting.</p><p>Of course different people have different definitions of interesting, and people who have good math skills probably are biased toward finding things that involve math interesting (that's part of the reason they have those skills after all).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a qualifier : " truly interesting work " .Sure you need no math at all to write a shitty web forum , but that 's not interesting.Of course different people have different definitions of interesting , and people who have good math skills probably are biased toward finding things that involve math interesting ( that 's part of the reason they have those skills after all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a qualifier: "truly interesting work".Sure you need no math at all to write a shitty web forum, but that's not interesting.Of course different people have different definitions of interesting, and people who have good math skills probably are biased toward finding things that involve math interesting (that's part of the reason they have those skills after all).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166</id>
	<title>Depends on what you mean by "programming"</title>
	<author>headLITE</author>
	<datestamp>1269510720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't need math skills for programming work.</p><p>You do need them for theoretical computer science, and in turn, you need theoretical computer science to invent something new that you could program. Most programmers don't do theoretical work themselves, and most theoretical computer scientists don't finish their software<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) It's a completely different type of job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need math skills for programming work.You do need them for theoretical computer science , and in turn , you need theoretical computer science to invent something new that you could program .
Most programmers do n't do theoretical work themselves , and most theoretical computer scientists do n't finish their software ; - ) It 's a completely different type of job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need math skills for programming work.You do need them for theoretical computer science, and in turn, you need theoretical computer science to invent something new that you could program.
Most programmers don't do theoretical work themselves, and most theoretical computer scientists don't finish their software ;-) It's a completely different type of job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608946</id>
	<title>Math is necessary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269522960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fundamentally math is not about memorizing equations, math is about developing problem solving skills.  All educational systems teach math functions and some apply those functions in story problems.  Very few teach or explain that all math developed from a need to solve a specific problem.  Most of those problems developed from economics, trade in resources.  Many problems developed from engineering, construction, manufacturing.  In every single case the math was developed to solve a specific problem.  Computer programming is a problem solving profession.  Like mathematicians, programmers take a problem and develop a solution for that problem.  The three basic skills taught, reading, writing and &lsquo;rithmetic, are to receive communications, transmit communications and solve problems.  One of the huge problems with education in the United States is that our educational system focuses more on socialization and receiving communication than it does on transmitting communications or developing problem solving skills.  You cannot program without developing problem solving skills and mathematics is the primary methodology for training in problem solving skills.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fundamentally math is not about memorizing equations , math is about developing problem solving skills .
All educational systems teach math functions and some apply those functions in story problems .
Very few teach or explain that all math developed from a need to solve a specific problem .
Most of those problems developed from economics , trade in resources .
Many problems developed from engineering , construction , manufacturing .
In every single case the math was developed to solve a specific problem .
Computer programming is a problem solving profession .
Like mathematicians , programmers take a problem and develop a solution for that problem .
The three basic skills taught , reading , writing and    rithmetic , are to receive communications , transmit communications and solve problems .
One of the huge problems with education in the United States is that our educational system focuses more on socialization and receiving communication than it does on transmitting communications or developing problem solving skills .
You can not program without developing problem solving skills and mathematics is the primary methodology for training in problem solving skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fundamentally math is not about memorizing equations, math is about developing problem solving skills.
All educational systems teach math functions and some apply those functions in story problems.
Very few teach or explain that all math developed from a need to solve a specific problem.
Most of those problems developed from economics, trade in resources.
Many problems developed from engineering, construction, manufacturing.
In every single case the math was developed to solve a specific problem.
Computer programming is a problem solving profession.
Like mathematicians, programmers take a problem and develop a solution for that problem.
The three basic skills taught, reading, writing and ‘rithmetic, are to receive communications, transmit communications and solve problems.
One of the huge problems with education in the United States is that our educational system focuses more on socialization and receiving communication than it does on transmitting communications or developing problem solving skills.
You cannot program without developing problem solving skills and mathematics is the primary methodology for training in problem solving skills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612734</id>
	<title>Re:Strong Math Skills often get dumbed down</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1269538800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that is part of the poblem. If you make your best programmers code to the standard of the porest ones, they'll all have the same productivity. Since they have the same productivity, why do you pay more to the good programmers? Now, once you fire all but your worst programmers, things sudenly stop working and cost orders of magnitude more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that is part of the poblem .
If you make your best programmers code to the standard of the porest ones , they 'll all have the same productivity .
Since they have the same productivity , why do you pay more to the good programmers ?
Now , once you fire all but your worst programmers , things sudenly stop working and cost orders of magnitude more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that is part of the poblem.
If you make your best programmers code to the standard of the porest ones, they'll all have the same productivity.
Since they have the same productivity, why do you pay more to the good programmers?
Now, once you fire all but your worst programmers, things sudenly stop working and cost orders of magnitude more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609648</id>
	<title>Re:Math skills are becoming more important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269527280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then why don't universities push this instead of the perversity that is Cal 4 for programmers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then why do n't universities push this instead of the perversity that is Cal 4 for programmers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then why don't universities push this instead of the perversity that is Cal 4 for programmers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31616554</id>
	<title>Seriously dude, math is fundamental</title>
	<author>rigorrogue</author>
	<datestamp>1269507780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can read and write. That implies you can count patterns of symbols and use them. Combinatorics right there, and hence Number Theory, Set Theory, Number Theory, Group Theory, Number Theory, Logic, and Number Theory. And of course Number Theory. Did I mention Number Theory?</p><p>A bit of background. I studied Art as my major through school and breezed into Art College. I'm good. But I was also curious about stuff, and read philosophy, and got curiouser. And then I realized I'd never be able to \_really\_ understand patterns of any kind without Math. So I went and got a degree in Math and Physics (a highly recommendable combination). Golly did it change how I see the world.</p><p>I lament the poor teaching of the subject, the deplorable notation, the effortless and almost justified intellectual superiority of Mathematicians, and most of all the general ignorance of the subject and so the silly questions as to its utility.</p><p>But someone interested in programming asking if Math is useful? Gee, is being able to make marks handy for writing? Is the sensory perception of sound waves good for vocal communication? Is eyesight in any way a contributory skill for comprehending body language? Sure one doesn't need to understand physics to use all three but it helps (and Physics uses Math ubiquitously, expressly, and inescapably).</p><p>Programming \_IS\_ mathematics*. It uses different languages to get the points across to a dumb computer, but without it we wouldn't have computers! Yes it's great we've all these high level languages (Go LISP! Go Haskell! Go Prolog and Python!) Yes, it's marvellous we've an incredibly rich set of interoperating libraries ("set", Uh huh huh huh!). Yes we've got bleedin' amazing dev tools (emacs and vim<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:). But you simply can't pretend to use them without Math. Seriously, you can't. I don't care if you're a HTML+CSS+JS drone in a cubical, or a script kiddy, or a logo-learner, you're using Math.</p><p>Want to be a better programmer? Learn more Math**.</p><p>A bit more background. I'm doing a lot of programming now, and most of the hard work is in learning the new Math I need to express my whims, and figuring out how to use the libraries to do so efficiently ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exergy\_efficiency" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exergy\_efficiency</a> [wikipedia.org] - Warning: Contains Math). Paper and Pencil are essential tools at this stage. The rest is a test of my concentration, short-term memory, and typing skills.</p><p>So here's some advice. Before making daft comments about well-established disciplines study them and their applications carefully. You will spend less time being thought of as an ass. You could do worse than start here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Art\_of\_Computer\_Programming" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Art\_of\_Computer\_Programming</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Math for the win!</p><p>* Which is why patenting software is execrably idiotic.</p><p>** I'd almost say "Want to be a better person? Learn more Math." Except that one can, and some do, learn Math in isolation from other subjects, and it can sometimes help them little if at all in comprehending life in general and their own life in particular. I know many sad stories in this regard. But still, it's good gear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can read and write .
That implies you can count patterns of symbols and use them .
Combinatorics right there , and hence Number Theory , Set Theory , Number Theory , Group Theory , Number Theory , Logic , and Number Theory .
And of course Number Theory .
Did I mention Number Theory ? A bit of background .
I studied Art as my major through school and breezed into Art College .
I 'm good .
But I was also curious about stuff , and read philosophy , and got curiouser .
And then I realized I 'd never be able to \ _really \ _ understand patterns of any kind without Math .
So I went and got a degree in Math and Physics ( a highly recommendable combination ) .
Golly did it change how I see the world.I lament the poor teaching of the subject , the deplorable notation , the effortless and almost justified intellectual superiority of Mathematicians , and most of all the general ignorance of the subject and so the silly questions as to its utility.But someone interested in programming asking if Math is useful ?
Gee , is being able to make marks handy for writing ?
Is the sensory perception of sound waves good for vocal communication ?
Is eyesight in any way a contributory skill for comprehending body language ?
Sure one does n't need to understand physics to use all three but it helps ( and Physics uses Math ubiquitously , expressly , and inescapably ) .Programming \ _IS \ _ mathematics * .
It uses different languages to get the points across to a dumb computer , but without it we would n't have computers !
Yes it 's great we 've all these high level languages ( Go LISP !
Go Haskell !
Go Prolog and Python !
) Yes , it 's marvellous we 've an incredibly rich set of interoperating libraries ( " set " , Uh huh huh huh ! ) .
Yes we 've got bleedin ' amazing dev tools ( emacs and vim : ) .
But you simply ca n't pretend to use them without Math .
Seriously , you ca n't .
I do n't care if you 're a HTML + CSS + JS drone in a cubical , or a script kiddy , or a logo-learner , you 're using Math.Want to be a better programmer ?
Learn more Math * * .A bit more background .
I 'm doing a lot of programming now , and most of the hard work is in learning the new Math I need to express my whims , and figuring out how to use the libraries to do so efficiently ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exergy \ _efficiency [ wikipedia.org ] - Warning : Contains Math ) .
Paper and Pencil are essential tools at this stage .
The rest is a test of my concentration , short-term memory , and typing skills.So here 's some advice .
Before making daft comments about well-established disciplines study them and their applications carefully .
You will spend less time being thought of as an ass .
You could do worse than start here : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Art \ _of \ _Computer \ _Programming [ wikipedia.org ] Math for the win !
* Which is why patenting software is execrably idiotic .
* * I 'd almost say " Want to be a better person ?
Learn more Math .
" Except that one can , and some do , learn Math in isolation from other subjects , and it can sometimes help them little if at all in comprehending life in general and their own life in particular .
I know many sad stories in this regard .
But still , it 's good gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can read and write.
That implies you can count patterns of symbols and use them.
Combinatorics right there, and hence Number Theory, Set Theory, Number Theory, Group Theory, Number Theory, Logic, and Number Theory.
And of course Number Theory.
Did I mention Number Theory?A bit of background.
I studied Art as my major through school and breezed into Art College.
I'm good.
But I was also curious about stuff, and read philosophy, and got curiouser.
And then I realized I'd never be able to \_really\_ understand patterns of any kind without Math.
So I went and got a degree in Math and Physics (a highly recommendable combination).
Golly did it change how I see the world.I lament the poor teaching of the subject, the deplorable notation, the effortless and almost justified intellectual superiority of Mathematicians, and most of all the general ignorance of the subject and so the silly questions as to its utility.But someone interested in programming asking if Math is useful?
Gee, is being able to make marks handy for writing?
Is the sensory perception of sound waves good for vocal communication?
Is eyesight in any way a contributory skill for comprehending body language?
Sure one doesn't need to understand physics to use all three but it helps (and Physics uses Math ubiquitously, expressly, and inescapably).Programming \_IS\_ mathematics*.
It uses different languages to get the points across to a dumb computer, but without it we wouldn't have computers!
Yes it's great we've all these high level languages (Go LISP!
Go Haskell!
Go Prolog and Python!
) Yes, it's marvellous we've an incredibly rich set of interoperating libraries ("set", Uh huh huh huh!).
Yes we've got bleedin' amazing dev tools (emacs and vim :).
But you simply can't pretend to use them without Math.
Seriously, you can't.
I don't care if you're a HTML+CSS+JS drone in a cubical, or a script kiddy, or a logo-learner, you're using Math.Want to be a better programmer?
Learn more Math**.A bit more background.
I'm doing a lot of programming now, and most of the hard work is in learning the new Math I need to express my whims, and figuring out how to use the libraries to do so efficiently ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exergy\_efficiency [wikipedia.org] - Warning: Contains Math).
Paper and Pencil are essential tools at this stage.
The rest is a test of my concentration, short-term memory, and typing skills.So here's some advice.
Before making daft comments about well-established disciplines study them and their applications carefully.
You will spend less time being thought of as an ass.
You could do worse than start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Art\_of\_Computer\_Programming [wikipedia.org]Math for the win!
* Which is why patenting software is execrably idiotic.
** I'd almost say "Want to be a better person?
Learn more Math.
" Except that one can, and some do, learn Math in isolation from other subjects, and it can sometimes help them little if at all in comprehending life in general and their own life in particular.
I know many sad stories in this regard.
But still, it's good gear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608668</id>
	<title>Mathematics for social networking growth (Facebook</title>
	<author>Gnumbers</author>
	<datestamp>1269519300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Just yesterday I wrote a short article ( <a href="http://goo.gl/dko2" title="goo.gl" rel="nofollow">http://goo.gl/dko2</a> [goo.gl] ) after reading about how
Facebook are using Mathematics to help with Failure rates in their datastore clusters.
</p><p>
There is a 24 page presentation by Avinash Lakshman and Prashant Malik, which
describes (page 17 onwards), how the company are using Probability Theory to help them
detect failure in a datastore.
</p><p>
Probability Theory is just one area of Mathematics, and degree level Mathematics would
usually include at least one or two modules in Probability.
</p><p>
If I were an Operations Director or Development Team Leader at a large Social Networking company,
I would certainly view University Level Mathematics as +1 for anyone applying to join the team.
</p><p>
The short article is <a href="http://gnumbers.blogspot.com/2010/03/real-world-probability-failure-rates.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [blogspot.com] and the clickable link in that article should take you directly to somewhere (slideshare, etc)
where you can view the 24 page<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just yesterday I wrote a short article ( http : //goo.gl/dko2 [ goo.gl ] ) after reading about how Facebook are using Mathematics to help with Failure rates in their datastore clusters .
There is a 24 page presentation by Avinash Lakshman and Prashant Malik , which describes ( page 17 onwards ) , how the company are using Probability Theory to help them detect failure in a datastore .
Probability Theory is just one area of Mathematics , and degree level Mathematics would usually include at least one or two modules in Probability .
If I were an Operations Director or Development Team Leader at a large Social Networking company , I would certainly view University Level Mathematics as + 1 for anyone applying to join the team .
The short article is here [ blogspot.com ] and the clickable link in that article should take you directly to somewhere ( slideshare , etc ) where you can view the 24 page .pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Just yesterday I wrote a short article ( http://goo.gl/dko2 [goo.gl] ) after reading about how
Facebook are using Mathematics to help with Failure rates in their datastore clusters.
There is a 24 page presentation by Avinash Lakshman and Prashant Malik, which
describes (page 17 onwards), how the company are using Probability Theory to help them
detect failure in a datastore.
Probability Theory is just one area of Mathematics, and degree level Mathematics would
usually include at least one or two modules in Probability.
If I were an Operations Director or Development Team Leader at a large Social Networking company,
I would certainly view University Level Mathematics as +1 for anyone applying to join the team.
The short article is here [blogspot.com] and the clickable link in that article should take you directly to somewhere (slideshare, etc)
where you can view the 24 page .pdf
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608576</id>
	<title>Maths skill is necessary for some programming ....</title>
	<author>Unitedroad</author>
	<datestamp>1269517920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With only three years in the programming field with the backoffice of one of the top software companies in the world, I have got the feeling that most of the jobs do not require much mathematical skill. Especially in my kind of setup in this part of the world, because if you have the most rudimentary logical skills, then this is all you ever need to get your job done.
Our team maintains a product which was developed five years ago by handful of people who have all moved on. Since this product has become so stable that the most of the requirements seldom requires us to cut into the muscle to fix anything.
So our team spends all its time doing work which pretty much can be done by a high school grad or an arts student with little or no knowledge of,  or inclination towards, mathematics.
But does that give me a reason to think that Maths is not necessary at all for programming?   No, because I know I can not go very far with where I want to go if I don't have strong logic and mathematical skills, and the desire to learn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With only three years in the programming field with the backoffice of one of the top software companies in the world , I have got the feeling that most of the jobs do not require much mathematical skill .
Especially in my kind of setup in this part of the world , because if you have the most rudimentary logical skills , then this is all you ever need to get your job done .
Our team maintains a product which was developed five years ago by handful of people who have all moved on .
Since this product has become so stable that the most of the requirements seldom requires us to cut into the muscle to fix anything .
So our team spends all its time doing work which pretty much can be done by a high school grad or an arts student with little or no knowledge of , or inclination towards , mathematics .
But does that give me a reason to think that Maths is not necessary at all for programming ?
No , because I know I can not go very far with where I want to go if I do n't have strong logic and mathematical skills , and the desire to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With only three years in the programming field with the backoffice of one of the top software companies in the world, I have got the feeling that most of the jobs do not require much mathematical skill.
Especially in my kind of setup in this part of the world, because if you have the most rudimentary logical skills, then this is all you ever need to get your job done.
Our team maintains a product which was developed five years ago by handful of people who have all moved on.
Since this product has become so stable that the most of the requirements seldom requires us to cut into the muscle to fix anything.
So our team spends all its time doing work which pretty much can be done by a high school grad or an arts student with little or no knowledge of,  or inclination towards, mathematics.
But does that give me a reason to think that Maths is not necessary at all for programming?
No, because I know I can not go very far with where I want to go if I don't have strong logic and mathematical skills, and the desire to learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607968</id>
	<title>Flavors of Math - Simplex-Algo vs Countability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fond memories of the optimization-course I took based on Luenberger's "Linear and Nonlinear Programming", I think my mind was beneficially shaped by that although I've never directly used that knowledge for coding.<br>
On the other hand I once took a course titled "Functional Analysis" which kicked off with discussions of countability and the Cantor set - IMHO a total waste of time, I'll never get those hours back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fond memories of the optimization-course I took based on Luenberger 's " Linear and Nonlinear Programming " , I think my mind was beneficially shaped by that although I 've never directly used that knowledge for coding .
On the other hand I once took a course titled " Functional Analysis " which kicked off with discussions of countability and the Cantor set - IMHO a total waste of time , I 'll never get those hours back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fond memories of the optimization-course I took based on Luenberger's "Linear and Nonlinear Programming", I think my mind was beneficially shaped by that although I've never directly used that knowledge for coding.
On the other hand I once took a course titled "Functional Analysis" which kicked off with discussions of countability and the Cantor set - IMHO a total waste of time, I'll never get those hours back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609126</id>
	<title>Re:Strong Math Skills often get dumbed down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269524400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoken like a true wonderboy.  If you are the only one on your team that can understand your algorithms, then the problem is not with your team.  Why?  Well, the "inferior" skills of the others on your team would imply that you are not working on software that requires the most efficient algorithms.  In these cases, maintaining the software is more important than reducing memory footprint or a slight performance benefit.  If you were coding critical paths, then that would be different, but then you would probably be on a team that understands this.  Who knows, maybe you are and you are too arrogant to understand that others may know more about the situation than yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoken like a true wonderboy .
If you are the only one on your team that can understand your algorithms , then the problem is not with your team .
Why ? Well , the " inferior " skills of the others on your team would imply that you are not working on software that requires the most efficient algorithms .
In these cases , maintaining the software is more important than reducing memory footprint or a slight performance benefit .
If you were coding critical paths , then that would be different , but then you would probably be on a team that understands this .
Who knows , maybe you are and you are too arrogant to understand that others may know more about the situation than yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoken like a true wonderboy.
If you are the only one on your team that can understand your algorithms, then the problem is not with your team.
Why?  Well, the "inferior" skills of the others on your team would imply that you are not working on software that requires the most efficient algorithms.
In these cases, maintaining the software is more important than reducing memory footprint or a slight performance benefit.
If you were coding critical paths, then that would be different, but then you would probably be on a team that understands this.
Who knows, maybe you are and you are too arrogant to understand that others may know more about the situation than yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31617236</id>
	<title>Database programming needs Math</title>
	<author>tinker\_taylor</author>
	<datestamp>1269509940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One major component of mathematics is Set Theory and database programming uses Set Theory for unions, joins, etc. So yeah, Math knowledge is needed. On the other hand, mundane programming doesn't really need too much Math background, especially of the formulaic/formula-driven part of Math. What is needed is a sound understanding of Boolean algebra (which is what Digital Electronics --&gt; Building blocks of Electronic computing needs),  and thereby Logic. Do you need too much math background to do bubble-sorting, etc? Perhaps not.</p><p>Applications that are calculation intensive (statistical programs, scientific applications etc) do need Math background, but not necessarily beyond basic University level (provided there are statisticians, scientists who provide the underlying Math to the developer).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One major component of mathematics is Set Theory and database programming uses Set Theory for unions , joins , etc .
So yeah , Math knowledge is needed .
On the other hand , mundane programming does n't really need too much Math background , especially of the formulaic/formula-driven part of Math .
What is needed is a sound understanding of Boolean algebra ( which is what Digital Electronics -- &gt; Building blocks of Electronic computing needs ) , and thereby Logic .
Do you need too much math background to do bubble-sorting , etc ?
Perhaps not.Applications that are calculation intensive ( statistical programs , scientific applications etc ) do need Math background , but not necessarily beyond basic University level ( provided there are statisticians , scientists who provide the underlying Math to the developer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One major component of mathematics is Set Theory and database programming uses Set Theory for unions, joins, etc.
So yeah, Math knowledge is needed.
On the other hand, mundane programming doesn't really need too much Math background, especially of the formulaic/formula-driven part of Math.
What is needed is a sound understanding of Boolean algebra (which is what Digital Electronics --&gt; Building blocks of Electronic computing needs),  and thereby Logic.
Do you need too much math background to do bubble-sorting, etc?
Perhaps not.Applications that are calculation intensive (statistical programs, scientific applications etc) do need Math background, but not necessarily beyond basic University level (provided there are statisticians, scientists who provide the underlying Math to the developer).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610870</id>
	<title>Mathematics for Programmers</title>
	<author>Riventree</author>
	<datestamp>1269533040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like the above poster says: math comes in flavors. Choose the right ones

I've worked at small niche-tech companies, and big companies including Google and Amazon. In my experience, calculus and statistics are of *minor* use, but discrete mathematics, combinatorics, graph theory, big-O, etc are *ESSENTIAL* to being a top-tier contributor as a programmer. My degree required 3 semesters of calculus and 2 of statistics. They have been of almost no value at all on a month-to-month basis. I took 3 semesters of "elective" math in other areas (discrete/linear-A/combinatorics) which have helped me on a DAILY or HOURLY basis as a programmer. I'm confident that most of my peers would agree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the above poster says : math comes in flavors .
Choose the right ones I 've worked at small niche-tech companies , and big companies including Google and Amazon .
In my experience , calculus and statistics are of * minor * use , but discrete mathematics , combinatorics , graph theory , big-O , etc are * ESSENTIAL * to being a top-tier contributor as a programmer .
My degree required 3 semesters of calculus and 2 of statistics .
They have been of almost no value at all on a month-to-month basis .
I took 3 semesters of " elective " math in other areas ( discrete/linear-A/combinatorics ) which have helped me on a DAILY or HOURLY basis as a programmer .
I 'm confident that most of my peers would agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the above poster says: math comes in flavors.
Choose the right ones

I've worked at small niche-tech companies, and big companies including Google and Amazon.
In my experience, calculus and statistics are of *minor* use, but discrete mathematics, combinatorics, graph theory, big-O, etc are *ESSENTIAL* to being a top-tier contributor as a programmer.
My degree required 3 semesters of calculus and 2 of statistics.
They have been of almost no value at all on a month-to-month basis.
I took 3 semesters of "elective" math in other areas (discrete/linear-A/combinatorics) which have helped me on a DAILY or HOURLY basis as a programmer.
I'm confident that most of my peers would agree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609274</id>
	<title>Not for most web programming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269525120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer to this question hinges entirely on what sort of programming you want to do. Do you want to do game design? Do you want to model complex 3D visualizations? Do you want to program networks with sockets?</p><p>I personally got into web application development years ago because it's a pretty even split between design and computer programming. Also, while I'm not bad at math, I've never particularly enjoyed it. As a web developer (I swear it's still programming), I code Python, MySQL and Javascript everyday, and rarely, if ever, run into math tasks. While I must admit we've never had a client with incredibly math-heavy needs (some algebraic calculations here and there), I can honestly say I've never required any knowledge past high school for what we do. But we're not exactly in the business of computing Pi.</p><p>Define "programmer" and you'll have your answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to this question hinges entirely on what sort of programming you want to do .
Do you want to do game design ?
Do you want to model complex 3D visualizations ?
Do you want to program networks with sockets ? I personally got into web application development years ago because it 's a pretty even split between design and computer programming .
Also , while I 'm not bad at math , I 've never particularly enjoyed it .
As a web developer ( I swear it 's still programming ) , I code Python , MySQL and Javascript everyday , and rarely , if ever , run into math tasks .
While I must admit we 've never had a client with incredibly math-heavy needs ( some algebraic calculations here and there ) , I can honestly say I 've never required any knowledge past high school for what we do .
But we 're not exactly in the business of computing Pi.Define " programmer " and you 'll have your answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to this question hinges entirely on what sort of programming you want to do.
Do you want to do game design?
Do you want to model complex 3D visualizations?
Do you want to program networks with sockets?I personally got into web application development years ago because it's a pretty even split between design and computer programming.
Also, while I'm not bad at math, I've never particularly enjoyed it.
As a web developer (I swear it's still programming), I code Python, MySQL and Javascript everyday, and rarely, if ever, run into math tasks.
While I must admit we've never had a client with incredibly math-heavy needs (some algebraic calculations here and there), I can honestly say I've never required any knowledge past high school for what we do.
But we're not exactly in the business of computing Pi.Define "programmer" and you'll have your answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608746</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what you mean by "programming"</title>
	<author>Bipoha</author>
	<datestamp>1269520680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't need math skills for programming work.</p><p>You do need them for theoretical computer science, and in turn, you need theoretical computer science to invent something new that you could program. Most programmers don't do theoretical work themselves, and most theoretical computer scientists don't finish their software<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) It's a completely different type of job.</p></div><p>
I'd have to agree with this.  The programmers I work with have probably never written a quick\_sort() routine in their life, but surely they write code that implements a sorting routine somewhere.
</p><p>
We're in an age where, "There's an API for that!" and a complete newbie can jump in and make a program that functions fairly well.  Not to mention the consumer base is progressively becoming content with mediocrity, especially when it comes to programs.
</p><p>
Finding people who can program in assembly language, or C is probably getting more difficult. Are they needed? Of course, but not nearly much as the many high-level coders that we need today.
</p><p>
Today, coders can get away with nested if/then/else structures that run 70+ levels deep, because it works, and computers are fast enough to where speed is negligible until a user complains about it, and only THEN is it addressed.
</p><p>
Ask around and see what coders today say about Big-O notation or memory management. They just don't need to care about those things any more.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need math skills for programming work.You do need them for theoretical computer science , and in turn , you need theoretical computer science to invent something new that you could program .
Most programmers do n't do theoretical work themselves , and most theoretical computer scientists do n't finish their software ; - ) It 's a completely different type of job .
I 'd have to agree with this .
The programmers I work with have probably never written a quick \ _sort ( ) routine in their life , but surely they write code that implements a sorting routine somewhere .
We 're in an age where , " There 's an API for that !
" and a complete newbie can jump in and make a program that functions fairly well .
Not to mention the consumer base is progressively becoming content with mediocrity , especially when it comes to programs .
Finding people who can program in assembly language , or C is probably getting more difficult .
Are they needed ?
Of course , but not nearly much as the many high-level coders that we need today .
Today , coders can get away with nested if/then/else structures that run 70 + levels deep , because it works , and computers are fast enough to where speed is negligible until a user complains about it , and only THEN is it addressed .
Ask around and see what coders today say about Big-O notation or memory management .
They just do n't need to care about those things any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need math skills for programming work.You do need them for theoretical computer science, and in turn, you need theoretical computer science to invent something new that you could program.
Most programmers don't do theoretical work themselves, and most theoretical computer scientists don't finish their software ;-) It's a completely different type of job.
I'd have to agree with this.
The programmers I work with have probably never written a quick\_sort() routine in their life, but surely they write code that implements a sorting routine somewhere.
We're in an age where, "There's an API for that!
" and a complete newbie can jump in and make a program that functions fairly well.
Not to mention the consumer base is progressively becoming content with mediocrity, especially when it comes to programs.
Finding people who can program in assembly language, or C is probably getting more difficult.
Are they needed?
Of course, but not nearly much as the many high-level coders that we need today.
Today, coders can get away with nested if/then/else structures that run 70+ levels deep, because it works, and computers are fast enough to where speed is negligible until a user complains about it, and only THEN is it addressed.
Ask around and see what coders today say about Big-O notation or memory management.
They just don't need to care about those things any more.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611490</id>
	<title>Re:Math skills are becoming more important</title>
	<author>ImprovOmega</author>
	<datestamp>1269535020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All of those except combinatorics were *required* for my Bachelor's degree in CS.  The math curriculum at my university was so heavy that I took two extra classes (differential equations 1 &amp; 2) and walked out with a math minor on top of a CS major.  Combinatorics 1 &amp; 2 were two of my early grad school classes, and I can't honestly say they're all that useful for day-to-day programming, at least in my experience.<br> <br>However, I will say that any and every math class will help make you a better programmer just by helping you learn how to think properly about the problem put in front of you.  And the most useful part of my undergrad program was exactly that: proper styles of critical thinking for given problems.  Math helps immeasurably with that in CS because everything in CS has its roots in mathematics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of those except combinatorics were * required * for my Bachelor 's degree in CS .
The math curriculum at my university was so heavy that I took two extra classes ( differential equations 1 &amp; 2 ) and walked out with a math minor on top of a CS major .
Combinatorics 1 &amp; 2 were two of my early grad school classes , and I ca n't honestly say they 're all that useful for day-to-day programming , at least in my experience .
However , I will say that any and every math class will help make you a better programmer just by helping you learn how to think properly about the problem put in front of you .
And the most useful part of my undergrad program was exactly that : proper styles of critical thinking for given problems .
Math helps immeasurably with that in CS because everything in CS has its roots in mathematics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of those except combinatorics were *required* for my Bachelor's degree in CS.
The math curriculum at my university was so heavy that I took two extra classes (differential equations 1 &amp; 2) and walked out with a math minor on top of a CS major.
Combinatorics 1 &amp; 2 were two of my early grad school classes, and I can't honestly say they're all that useful for day-to-day programming, at least in my experience.
However, I will say that any and every math class will help make you a better programmer just by helping you learn how to think properly about the problem put in front of you.
And the most useful part of my undergrad program was exactly that: proper styles of critical thinking for given problems.
Math helps immeasurably with that in CS because everything in CS has its roots in mathematics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610294</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269530580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why community college / certificate programmers are just terrible, and never come up with any unique solutions to difficult problems they can't solve on google. As a math+CS major, my mathematical foundation isn't important *every day* but often enough that I'd be inferior without it. This harkens back to a person saying Knuth and his book were obsolete in this python/php/java/.net/cocoa/easy-to-code high level world we live in a few weeks ago in a comment. Its simply not true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why community college / certificate programmers are just terrible , and never come up with any unique solutions to difficult problems they ca n't solve on google .
As a math + CS major , my mathematical foundation is n't important * every day * but often enough that I 'd be inferior without it .
This harkens back to a person saying Knuth and his book were obsolete in this python/php/java/.net/cocoa/easy-to-code high level world we live in a few weeks ago in a comment .
Its simply not true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why community college / certificate programmers are just terrible, and never come up with any unique solutions to difficult problems they can't solve on google.
As a math+CS major, my mathematical foundation isn't important *every day* but often enough that I'd be inferior without it.
This harkens back to a person saying Knuth and his book were obsolete in this python/php/java/.net/cocoa/easy-to-code high level world we live in a few weeks ago in a comment.
Its simply not true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609020</id>
	<title>Re:Math skills are becoming more important</title>
	<author>mizhi</author>
	<datestamp>1269523440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Skill in statistics is essential.  CS curriculums tend to have heavy Calc, Discrete Math, and Logic components.  Statistics is usually relegated to a small component of the math requirements, poorly taught, and poorly understood.  If I had my way, Statistics would be weighted as much as calculus in terms of importance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skill in statistics is essential .
CS curriculums tend to have heavy Calc , Discrete Math , and Logic components .
Statistics is usually relegated to a small component of the math requirements , poorly taught , and poorly understood .
If I had my way , Statistics would be weighted as much as calculus in terms of importance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skill in statistics is essential.
CS curriculums tend to have heavy Calc, Discrete Math, and Logic components.
Statistics is usually relegated to a small component of the math requirements, poorly taught, and poorly understood.
If I had my way, Statistics would be weighted as much as calculus in terms of importance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611008</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>gy equals c</author>
	<datestamp>1269533520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps he's contributing 2\% of the speed of light, <i>c</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps he 's contributing 2 \ % of the speed of light , c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps he's contributing 2\% of the speed of light, c.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608208</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269511560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The much more important item is that with a hard math background you are already well trained and prepared for abstract thinking.</p><p>While most programmers might not need to know how to prove that a holomorph transform maps an open set onto an open set (except if the transform is constant)<br>the amount of abstract thinking skills this kind of background provides makes a very superior programmer to a java-ape that cant think outside of his ide.</p><p>It is no coincidence that all big/good/important programmers have been matehmaticians and not computer scientists. (Knuth, et al)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The much more important item is that with a hard math background you are already well trained and prepared for abstract thinking.While most programmers might not need to know how to prove that a holomorph transform maps an open set onto an open set ( except if the transform is constant ) the amount of abstract thinking skills this kind of background provides makes a very superior programmer to a java-ape that cant think outside of his ide.It is no coincidence that all big/good/important programmers have been matehmaticians and not computer scientists .
( Knuth , et al )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The much more important item is that with a hard math background you are already well trained and prepared for abstract thinking.While most programmers might not need to know how to prove that a holomorph transform maps an open set onto an open set (except if the transform is constant)the amount of abstract thinking skills this kind of background provides makes a very superior programmer to a java-ape that cant think outside of his ide.It is no coincidence that all big/good/important programmers have been matehmaticians and not computer scientists.
(Knuth, et al)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31614118</id>
	<title>Certain Math Knowledge and Skills Are Helpful</title>
	<author>KnowlerLongcloak</author>
	<datestamp>1269542880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I learned Boolean Algebra for a CS degree. The application the University intended for its use was for designing hardware circuits.</p><p>As a programmer, over the years I have had many cases where I had to write programs that did different things based on a list of inputs and their values. My knowledge of Boolean Algebra has helped me make the code simpler because I could reduce the input values to the lowest equivalent. My resulting code therefore has less conditionals (if..then..else and switch statements).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned Boolean Algebra for a CS degree .
The application the University intended for its use was for designing hardware circuits.As a programmer , over the years I have had many cases where I had to write programs that did different things based on a list of inputs and their values .
My knowledge of Boolean Algebra has helped me make the code simpler because I could reduce the input values to the lowest equivalent .
My resulting code therefore has less conditionals ( if..then..else and switch statements ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned Boolean Algebra for a CS degree.
The application the University intended for its use was for designing hardware circuits.As a programmer, over the years I have had many cases where I had to write programs that did different things based on a list of inputs and their values.
My knowledge of Boolean Algebra has helped me make the code simpler because I could reduce the input values to the lowest equivalent.
My resulting code therefore has less conditionals (if..then..else and switch statements).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172</id>
	<title>Strong Math Skills often get dumbed down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269510900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A coder with great math skills can write some really slick algorithms.  However, more often than not, despite how well their algorithms are documented, if they're working with a team of developers they are usually pushed to dumb down their code so as to accommodate the skills of everybody else on the team ('team' more accurately meaning  'project manager') to make it more 'readable'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A coder with great math skills can write some really slick algorithms .
However , more often than not , despite how well their algorithms are documented , if they 're working with a team of developers they are usually pushed to dumb down their code so as to accommodate the skills of everybody else on the team ( 'team ' more accurately meaning 'project manager ' ) to make it more 'readable' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A coder with great math skills can write some really slick algorithms.
However, more often than not, despite how well their algorithms are documented, if they're working with a team of developers they are usually pushed to dumb down their code so as to accommodate the skills of everybody else on the team ('team' more accurately meaning  'project manager') to make it more 'readable'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608448</id>
	<title>Divide by Zero</title>
	<author>EdgeyEdgey</author>
	<datestamp>1269515640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you do to avoid divide by zero errors?<ul>
<li>Don't spot them</li>
<li>Spot them, but ignore them</li>
<li>Return 0</li>
<li>Return error</li>
<li>Replace 0 with 0.00000000001</li>
<li>Go back to the original equation and solve the singularity</li>
</ul><p>
Mathematics is essential so that you can spot when things will break, and how to fix them.  You can't program solid algorithms without it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you do to avoid divide by zero errors ?
Do n't spot them Spot them , but ignore them Return 0 Return error Replace 0 with 0.00000000001 Go back to the original equation and solve the singularity Mathematics is essential so that you can spot when things will break , and how to fix them .
You ca n't program solid algorithms without it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you do to avoid divide by zero errors?
Don't spot them
Spot them, but ignore them
Return 0
Return error
Replace 0 with 0.00000000001
Go back to the original equation and solve the singularity

Mathematics is essential so that you can spot when things will break, and how to fix them.
You can't program solid algorithms without it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613126</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269540000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No, absolutely not... Physics uses Math: Physics without Math is unthinkable. Math without Physics is absolutely possible. There was pretty much maths before physics. The old Greeks were more Mathematicians than Physicists."</p><p>You have an idealistic perspective. As do I in thinking that Ideas exist independent of their manifestation. The realist would say something like that we derive the ideas from manifestations.</p><p>So here's a question:    What does math look like when no physical universe exists (which therefore cannot give rise to any form of thinking/processing thing).</p><p>Math is a number of things. It can be stated basically as: categorization of patterns and relationships according to other pattern and relationships (logic).</p><p>If there are no patterns, no forms, no relationships, what does it mean to say "Math exists".</p><p>It's a deep philosophical situation that will forever be unresolved, because it makes no sense to ask the question in the first place. All answers are equally plausible, and neither are at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No , absolutely not... Physics uses Math : Physics without Math is unthinkable .
Math without Physics is absolutely possible .
There was pretty much maths before physics .
The old Greeks were more Mathematicians than Physicists .
" You have an idealistic perspective .
As do I in thinking that Ideas exist independent of their manifestation .
The realist would say something like that we derive the ideas from manifestations.So here 's a question : What does math look like when no physical universe exists ( which therefore can not give rise to any form of thinking/processing thing ) .Math is a number of things .
It can be stated basically as : categorization of patterns and relationships according to other pattern and relationships ( logic ) .If there are no patterns , no forms , no relationships , what does it mean to say " Math exists " .It 's a deep philosophical situation that will forever be unresolved , because it makes no sense to ask the question in the first place .
All answers are equally plausible , and neither are at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No, absolutely not... Physics uses Math: Physics without Math is unthinkable.
Math without Physics is absolutely possible.
There was pretty much maths before physics.
The old Greeks were more Mathematicians than Physicists.
"You have an idealistic perspective.
As do I in thinking that Ideas exist independent of their manifestation.
The realist would say something like that we derive the ideas from manifestations.So here's a question:    What does math look like when no physical universe exists (which therefore cannot give rise to any form of thinking/processing thing).Math is a number of things.
It can be stated basically as: categorization of patterns and relationships according to other pattern and relationships (logic).If there are no patterns, no forms, no relationships, what does it mean to say "Math exists".It's a deep philosophical situation that will forever be unresolved, because it makes no sense to ask the question in the first place.
All answers are equally plausible, and neither are at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607918</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you mean programmer?  Or script kiddy who can kludge together a crap program for windows or the web?</p><p>One WILL need math skills...  Guess which.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you mean programmer ?
Or script kiddy who can kludge together a crap program for windows or the web ? One WILL need math skills... Guess which .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you mean programmer?
Or script kiddy who can kludge together a crap program for windows or the web?One WILL need math skills...  Guess which.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608818</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what you mean by "programming"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269521880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best (and most accurate) answer I've seen so far.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best ( and most accurate ) answer I 've seen so far .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best (and most accurate) answer I've seen so far.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882</id>
	<title>Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one with more math is the one you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one with more math is the one you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one with more math is the one you want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31657420</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269878580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a Algarithm?????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a Algarithm ? ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a Algarithm????
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611268</id>
	<title>Inductive Proofs == Recursion &amp;&amp; math == f</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269534360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am always amazed when people understand recursion without having studied inductive proofs. I did not truly understand recursion until I wrote numerous inductive proofs in my second year discrete mathematics class. Everyone studying computer science needed to take this course at my university. I think the ability to understand and apply mathematics is what separates computer scientists from programmers. I have been both, and being a computer scientist is more fun to me. I actually believe that math can hinder some programmers - if you know a lot of advanced mathematics and you are being asked to change colors around on a web page, that seems like it would be a hindrance to me.</p><p>I would rather be using interesting math to help me with my programs than not.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Brian J. Stinar-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am always amazed when people understand recursion without having studied inductive proofs .
I did not truly understand recursion until I wrote numerous inductive proofs in my second year discrete mathematics class .
Everyone studying computer science needed to take this course at my university .
I think the ability to understand and apply mathematics is what separates computer scientists from programmers .
I have been both , and being a computer scientist is more fun to me .
I actually believe that math can hinder some programmers - if you know a lot of advanced mathematics and you are being asked to change colors around on a web page , that seems like it would be a hindrance to me.I would rather be using interesting math to help me with my programs than not .
      -Brian J. Stinar-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am always amazed when people understand recursion without having studied inductive proofs.
I did not truly understand recursion until I wrote numerous inductive proofs in my second year discrete mathematics class.
Everyone studying computer science needed to take this course at my university.
I think the ability to understand and apply mathematics is what separates computer scientists from programmers.
I have been both, and being a computer scientist is more fun to me.
I actually believe that math can hinder some programmers - if you know a lot of advanced mathematics and you are being asked to change colors around on a web page, that seems like it would be a hindrance to me.I would rather be using interesting math to help me with my programs than not.
      -Brian J. Stinar-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612708</id>
	<title>It's all greek to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269538740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've realized recently that I now have a problem in my math classes. I think part of it is that I haven't had to do any math in a few years... another part is that I'm extremely lazy and the math doesn't interest me so I don't put effort in, and unlike say, my ethics class... I can't just BS my way out. But the final problem is greek, I don't recognize it, if it was rewritten in a programming way I would be able to do most of what I have to look at. But a single greek symbol means nothing to me. Math's terseness confounds me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've realized recently that I now have a problem in my math classes .
I think part of it is that I have n't had to do any math in a few years... another part is that I 'm extremely lazy and the math does n't interest me so I do n't put effort in , and unlike say , my ethics class... I ca n't just BS my way out .
But the final problem is greek , I do n't recognize it , if it was rewritten in a programming way I would be able to do most of what I have to look at .
But a single greek symbol means nothing to me .
Math 's terseness confounds me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've realized recently that I now have a problem in my math classes.
I think part of it is that I haven't had to do any math in a few years... another part is that I'm extremely lazy and the math doesn't interest me so I don't put effort in, and unlike say, my ethics class... I can't just BS my way out.
But the final problem is greek, I don't recognize it, if it was rewritten in a programming way I would be able to do most of what I have to look at.
But a single greek symbol means nothing to me.
Math's terseness confounds me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608196</id>
	<title>Imagination</title>
	<author>lordmatrix</author>
	<datestamp>1269511320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think more important ability than being good at math is having a very active imagination than can be focused and having the ability to think outside the box. Personally, I have a very active imagination and an open mind and I found them very useful so far in my software engineering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think more important ability than being good at math is having a very active imagination than can be focused and having the ability to think outside the box .
Personally , I have a very active imagination and an open mind and I found them very useful so far in my software engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think more important ability than being good at math is having a very active imagination than can be focused and having the ability to think outside the box.
Personally, I have a very active imagination and an open mind and I found them very useful so far in my software engineering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607972</id>
	<title>Anecdotally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no more than basic math skills.  I don't do much programming, aside from the occasional butchered-together script.  I can grok SQL, parse C, and write some shell script and Perl, but only infrequently do I find a need to.</p><p>But then, I only know what my job needs me to know, and that changes daily.  I don't consider myself a programmer, but those around me in life seem to disagree.</p><p>That being whatever it is:  Discuss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no more than basic math skills .
I do n't do much programming , aside from the occasional butchered-together script .
I can grok SQL , parse C , and write some shell script and Perl , but only infrequently do I find a need to.But then , I only know what my job needs me to know , and that changes daily .
I do n't consider myself a programmer , but those around me in life seem to disagree.That being whatever it is : Discuss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no more than basic math skills.
I don't do much programming, aside from the occasional butchered-together script.
I can grok SQL, parse C, and write some shell script and Perl, but only infrequently do I find a need to.But then, I only know what my job needs me to know, and that changes daily.
I don't consider myself a programmer, but those around me in life seem to disagree.That being whatever it is:  Discuss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608580</id>
	<title>Algorithms vs. math knowledge</title>
	<author>sensei moreh</author>
	<datestamp>1269517980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although some of the programming I've done has involved mathematical calculations, I've never specifically needed a knowledge of real analysis or differential geometry in my programming efforts (which is a good thing, since I've probably forgotten 95\% of what I learned in those classes). Where my math background becomes useful is in developing algorithms. Developing an algorithm is like creating a math proof. Those who can do the latter well <b>should</b> be able to easily do the former. The converse is not, in general, true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although some of the programming I 've done has involved mathematical calculations , I 've never specifically needed a knowledge of real analysis or differential geometry in my programming efforts ( which is a good thing , since I 've probably forgotten 95 \ % of what I learned in those classes ) .
Where my math background becomes useful is in developing algorithms .
Developing an algorithm is like creating a math proof .
Those who can do the latter well should be able to easily do the former .
The converse is not , in general , true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although some of the programming I've done has involved mathematical calculations, I've never specifically needed a knowledge of real analysis or differential geometry in my programming efforts (which is a good thing, since I've probably forgotten 95\% of what I learned in those classes).
Where my math background becomes useful is in developing algorithms.
Developing an algorithm is like creating a math proof.
Those who can do the latter well should be able to easily do the former.
The converse is not, in general, true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610564</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1269532020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without physics, you don't exist, let alone math. Math is simply a way to describe physics. The universe would continue to operate whether or not humans invented math to describe it. Physics could care less about math. Math only matters to people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without physics , you do n't exist , let alone math .
Math is simply a way to describe physics .
The universe would continue to operate whether or not humans invented math to describe it .
Physics could care less about math .
Math only matters to people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without physics, you don't exist, let alone math.
Math is simply a way to describe physics.
The universe would continue to operate whether or not humans invented math to describe it.
Physics could care less about math.
Math only matters to people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609130</id>
	<title>Programmer != Web Developer</title>
	<author>Zoidbot</author>
	<datestamp>1269524400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is where this story falls down...<br>(for the web developers != means not equal to...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is where this story falls down... ( for the web developers ! = means not equal to... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is where this story falls down...(for the web developers != means not equal to...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Fluffeh</author>
	<datestamp>1269508080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did the highest level of maths in my Australian higher school certificate, but didn't really do much in the way of physics at school or Uni. Even with what I am programming in my spare time (a space based build/conquer/explore type game) I am finding that I have to resort to buying coffee for friends that DID do physics and higher levels of maths at Uni to get some of the formulas I need to work out the things here. Also, I work with numbers ALL day pretty much at work (Senior Performance Analyst for a multinational) - so I ain't exactly derpa derpa derpa when it comes to numbers.<br> <br>

Can I google and find the formulas? Sure, yeah, but do I have the level of understanding with all of Kelper's Laws and bits to change them to what I want for my game? Nope.<br> <br>

Anyone who says that maths isn't needed for a programmer is utterly kidding themselves - or working at the low end of the food chain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did the highest level of maths in my Australian higher school certificate , but did n't really do much in the way of physics at school or Uni .
Even with what I am programming in my spare time ( a space based build/conquer/explore type game ) I am finding that I have to resort to buying coffee for friends that DID do physics and higher levels of maths at Uni to get some of the formulas I need to work out the things here .
Also , I work with numbers ALL day pretty much at work ( Senior Performance Analyst for a multinational ) - so I ai n't exactly derpa derpa derpa when it comes to numbers .
Can I google and find the formulas ?
Sure , yeah , but do I have the level of understanding with all of Kelper 's Laws and bits to change them to what I want for my game ?
Nope . Anyone who says that maths is n't needed for a programmer is utterly kidding themselves - or working at the low end of the food chain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did the highest level of maths in my Australian higher school certificate, but didn't really do much in the way of physics at school or Uni.
Even with what I am programming in my spare time (a space based build/conquer/explore type game) I am finding that I have to resort to buying coffee for friends that DID do physics and higher levels of maths at Uni to get some of the formulas I need to work out the things here.
Also, I work with numbers ALL day pretty much at work (Senior Performance Analyst for a multinational) - so I ain't exactly derpa derpa derpa when it comes to numbers.
Can I google and find the formulas?
Sure, yeah, but do I have the level of understanding with all of Kelper's Laws and bits to change them to what I want for my game?
Nope. 

Anyone who says that maths isn't needed for a programmer is utterly kidding themselves - or working at the low end of the food chain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609730</id>
	<title>Depends on your specialization</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1269527760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I spent 2.5 semesters taking calculus, none of it was useful <em>for me</em>.</p><p>I'm now almost 6 years into my career and have never needed any of it.  Good design skills, languages and knowledge of patterns are way more useful as practical money making skills.  If the math <em>interests</em> you, by all means pursue it, if it doesn't, I'd try to get out of it.</p><p>Unless you want to get into a field where higher math is prevalent, and you'll actually be writing your own instead of using existing libraries written by people smarter than you, you probably won't need anything any mathematical operations but +, -, / and *.  However, <em>discrete</em> math is <em>very</em> useful in basically all aspects of computer science because the computer is a discrete machine.  And a lot of data fits well in concepts you'll learn there.  It's also a lot easier than calculus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I spent 2.5 semesters taking calculus , none of it was useful for me.I 'm now almost 6 years into my career and have never needed any of it .
Good design skills , languages and knowledge of patterns are way more useful as practical money making skills .
If the math interests you , by all means pursue it , if it does n't , I 'd try to get out of it.Unless you want to get into a field where higher math is prevalent , and you 'll actually be writing your own instead of using existing libraries written by people smarter than you , you probably wo n't need anything any mathematical operations but + , - , / and * .
However , discrete math is very useful in basically all aspects of computer science because the computer is a discrete machine .
And a lot of data fits well in concepts you 'll learn there .
It 's also a lot easier than calculus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spent 2.5 semesters taking calculus, none of it was useful for me.I'm now almost 6 years into my career and have never needed any of it.
Good design skills, languages and knowledge of patterns are way more useful as practical money making skills.
If the math interests you, by all means pursue it, if it doesn't, I'd try to get out of it.Unless you want to get into a field where higher math is prevalent, and you'll actually be writing your own instead of using existing libraries written by people smarter than you, you probably won't need anything any mathematical operations but +, -, / and *.
However, discrete math is very useful in basically all aspects of computer science because the computer is a discrete machine.
And a lot of data fits well in concepts you'll learn there.
It's also a lot easier than calculus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609500</id>
	<title>I wish Bill Gates would stop posting on here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269526680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi Bill,<br>Yes, good programmers still need a solid back ground in math.  Unless you are talking about web page developers.</p><p>Later,<br>Mike</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi Bill,Yes , good programmers still need a solid back ground in math .
Unless you are talking about web page developers.Later,Mike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi Bill,Yes, good programmers still need a solid back ground in math.
Unless you are talking about web page developers.Later,Mike</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31616722</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>tholomyes</author>
	<datestamp>1269508380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In most schools, Computer Science <i>is</i> a math discipline; it's largely <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete\_mathematics" title="wikipedia.org">discrete mathematics</a> [wikipedia.org]. Computer and Information Sciences degrees, however, tend to be less math and more application development oriented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In most schools , Computer Science is a math discipline ; it 's largely discrete mathematics [ wikipedia.org ] .
Computer and Information Sciences degrees , however , tend to be less math and more application development oriented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most schools, Computer Science is a math discipline; it's largely discrete mathematics [wikipedia.org].
Computer and Information Sciences degrees, however, tend to be less math and more application development oriented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608970</id>
	<title>Its about the context.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269523140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe programming in itself is just glorified typing.</p><p>Just kidding, but yea, programming in itself does not require any math skills or to know much about nothing, actually. But programming is always done in some particular context, and that context may require knowledge on other fields. In that sense, what I think he means is that more and more, every application you do will require you to know some math. I work in bioinformatics, and there is a lot of statistics there, and some molecular biology as well, but mostly statistics.</p><p>It has something to do with CS been a transversal field</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe programming in itself is just glorified typing.Just kidding , but yea , programming in itself does not require any math skills or to know much about nothing , actually .
But programming is always done in some particular context , and that context may require knowledge on other fields .
In that sense , what I think he means is that more and more , every application you do will require you to know some math .
I work in bioinformatics , and there is a lot of statistics there , and some molecular biology as well , but mostly statistics.It has something to do with CS been a transversal field</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe programming in itself is just glorified typing.Just kidding, but yea, programming in itself does not require any math skills or to know much about nothing, actually.
But programming is always done in some particular context, and that context may require knowledge on other fields.
In that sense, what I think he means is that more and more, every application you do will require you to know some math.
I work in bioinformatics, and there is a lot of statistics there, and some molecular biology as well, but mostly statistics.It has something to do with CS been a transversal field</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608682</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>vanderbosch</author>
	<datestamp>1269519600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those are all things I did as a CS undergrad, but there was also huge importance put on proofs. Everyone is talking about writing good code doing useful things quickly, but (and this is especially important in real time applications, such as autopilot on planes), if you can't prove that the code you have written is going to do what you want 100\% of the time or its not 100\% accurate, then really what is its worth.

Maths is vital (ok not if your connecting up a website, although it does have applications in scaling and databases) and should be being used in the design phase even before the programming starts, that way people might be able to cut out buggy crappy software.

I'm not sure how many people on my course got to grips with it, not many I think as most of then changed over to software engineering in our final year. I know I never did and I regret it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are all things I did as a CS undergrad , but there was also huge importance put on proofs .
Everyone is talking about writing good code doing useful things quickly , but ( and this is especially important in real time applications , such as autopilot on planes ) , if you ca n't prove that the code you have written is going to do what you want 100 \ % of the time or its not 100 \ % accurate , then really what is its worth .
Maths is vital ( ok not if your connecting up a website , although it does have applications in scaling and databases ) and should be being used in the design phase even before the programming starts , that way people might be able to cut out buggy crappy software .
I 'm not sure how many people on my course got to grips with it , not many I think as most of then changed over to software engineering in our final year .
I know I never did and I regret it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are all things I did as a CS undergrad, but there was also huge importance put on proofs.
Everyone is talking about writing good code doing useful things quickly, but (and this is especially important in real time applications, such as autopilot on planes), if you can't prove that the code you have written is going to do what you want 100\% of the time or its not 100\% accurate, then really what is its worth.
Maths is vital (ok not if your connecting up a website, although it does have applications in scaling and databases) and should be being used in the design phase even before the programming starts, that way people might be able to cut out buggy crappy software.
I'm not sure how many people on my course got to grips with it, not many I think as most of then changed over to software engineering in our final year.
I know I never did and I regret it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31628600</id>
	<title>wah wah wah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269626700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fags...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fags.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fags...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608704</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269519960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or he works for verizon.....</p><p>http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or he works for verizon.....http : //verizonmath.blogspot.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or he works for verizon.....http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>juasko</author>
	<datestamp>1269510540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find physics more important than math if I have to chose between them. But IMO math should be physics driven. There is little need for calculatign stuff you don't know what it's your calculating. So understanding first method second. Often you can figure out a method if you have the understanding first. That is much how i did physics though being the lazy one not always attending class missing out on some formulas and so. But usually I could figure out a way to come to the result in the tests. Maybe it wasn't the cleanest or simlpest way of calculating, but it's the problem solving and understanding that is meassured int the tests. Or should be if your teacher is worth a penny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find physics more important than math if I have to chose between them .
But IMO math should be physics driven .
There is little need for calculatign stuff you do n't know what it 's your calculating .
So understanding first method second .
Often you can figure out a method if you have the understanding first .
That is much how i did physics though being the lazy one not always attending class missing out on some formulas and so .
But usually I could figure out a way to come to the result in the tests .
Maybe it was n't the cleanest or simlpest way of calculating , but it 's the problem solving and understanding that is meassured int the tests .
Or should be if your teacher is worth a penny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find physics more important than math if I have to chose between them.
But IMO math should be physics driven.
There is little need for calculatign stuff you don't know what it's your calculating.
So understanding first method second.
Often you can figure out a method if you have the understanding first.
That is much how i did physics though being the lazy one not always attending class missing out on some formulas and so.
But usually I could figure out a way to come to the result in the tests.
Maybe it wasn't the cleanest or simlpest way of calculating, but it's the problem solving and understanding that is meassured int the tests.
Or should be if your teacher is worth a penny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608364</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessary</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1269514200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>bullshit! if you just botch together some code and are even unable to analyze the running time, let alone the correctness (since you don't even really know, what it's doing), then you are a tinkerer and your products will be shit! when they work, it'll be coincidence or luck that your customers don't get in the situations where your code fails.<br> <br>

and what do you do, when you don't find a library for some problem? or what do you do, if you have a library for doing something (say solving linear optimization problems), but you don't understand how to create its input from your problem (say it needs canonical linear programs)?<br> <br>

If you can understand simple arithmetic, you've got all the math skill you need to be a LOUSY programmer! a script kiddie!<br>
I think your post is an insult to all the GOOD programmers, who develop the libraries you are using, you tinkerer!</htmltext>
<tokenext>bullshit !
if you just botch together some code and are even unable to analyze the running time , let alone the correctness ( since you do n't even really know , what it 's doing ) , then you are a tinkerer and your products will be shit !
when they work , it 'll be coincidence or luck that your customers do n't get in the situations where your code fails .
and what do you do , when you do n't find a library for some problem ?
or what do you do , if you have a library for doing something ( say solving linear optimization problems ) , but you do n't understand how to create its input from your problem ( say it needs canonical linear programs ) ?
If you can understand simple arithmetic , you 've got all the math skill you need to be a LOUSY programmer !
a script kiddie !
I think your post is an insult to all the GOOD programmers , who develop the libraries you are using , you tinkerer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bullshit!
if you just botch together some code and are even unable to analyze the running time, let alone the correctness (since you don't even really know, what it's doing), then you are a tinkerer and your products will be shit!
when they work, it'll be coincidence or luck that your customers don't get in the situations where your code fails.
and what do you do, when you don't find a library for some problem?
or what do you do, if you have a library for doing something (say solving linear optimization problems), but you don't understand how to create its input from your problem (say it needs canonical linear programs)?
If you can understand simple arithmetic, you've got all the math skill you need to be a LOUSY programmer!
a script kiddie!
I think your post is an insult to all the GOOD programmers, who develop the libraries you are using, you tinkerer!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31618130</id>
	<title>Necessary or Not?</title>
	<author>Mind Socket</author>
	<datestamp>1269513660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>== true</p><p>How did I do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>= = trueHow did I do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>== trueHow did I do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608350</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269514020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but everything that requires exact abstract thinking and has the properties of consistency and a formal and defined "language" to represent ideas.</p></div></blockquote><p>So you have redefined "maths" as computer science : the study of formal languages and their computational properties....</p><blockquote><div><p>So yes, mathematical approach is a must in programming.</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and then you point out that programming requires your redefined maths, which is actually CS. So yes, programming does require CS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but everything that requires exact abstract thinking and has the properties of consistency and a formal and defined " language " to represent ideas.So you have redefined " maths " as computer science : the study of formal languages and their computational properties....So yes , mathematical approach is a must in programming .
... and then you point out that programming requires your redefined maths , which is actually CS .
So yes , programming does require CS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but everything that requires exact abstract thinking and has the properties of consistency and a formal and defined "language" to represent ideas.So you have redefined "maths" as computer science : the study of formal languages and their computational properties....So yes, mathematical approach is a must in programming.
... and then you point out that programming requires your redefined maths, which is actually CS.
So yes, programming does require CS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610438</id>
	<title>Weight Lifting and Olympic Skiing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269531360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do they have in common?  Why should a skier spend all that time in a gym lifting weights when all he/she wants to so is ski faster than the other guy?  The mental excercises and thought discipline it takes to get through a math class qualify a person as capable and enhance his prospects in a career which requires similar skills.  I don't use the math per-se, but I the skills learned help me adapt to the needs of maintaining my career.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do they have in common ?
Why should a skier spend all that time in a gym lifting weights when all he/she wants to so is ski faster than the other guy ?
The mental excercises and thought discipline it takes to get through a math class qualify a person as capable and enhance his prospects in a career which requires similar skills .
I do n't use the math per-se , but I the skills learned help me adapt to the needs of maintaining my career .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do they have in common?
Why should a skier spend all that time in a gym lifting weights when all he/she wants to so is ski faster than the other guy?
The mental excercises and thought discipline it takes to get through a math class qualify a person as capable and enhance his prospects in a career which requires similar skills.
I don't use the math per-se, but I the skills learned help me adapt to the needs of maintaining my career.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608388</id>
	<title>Math &amp; linux audio?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269514500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue of programmer's lack of math skills is perhaps one of the biggest reasons of the sorry state of Linux audio that's existed pretty much to this very day.</p><p>It seems as if very few FOSS coders know how to write even the relatively simple signal-processing code that's needed for playing some files while doing any necessary sample-rate conversion or mixing, and while maintaining sync with the record-in.  And the ones with the skills are too busy working and getting paid to apply those skills to other people's problems.  (This isn't meant as a snide remark against coding for money - heck we all need to eat somehow - but more as a recognition that one of these days I owe it to myself and to the community to find the time and use these skills to improve the software I use and enjoy.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue of programmer 's lack of math skills is perhaps one of the biggest reasons of the sorry state of Linux audio that 's existed pretty much to this very day.It seems as if very few FOSS coders know how to write even the relatively simple signal-processing code that 's needed for playing some files while doing any necessary sample-rate conversion or mixing , and while maintaining sync with the record-in .
And the ones with the skills are too busy working and getting paid to apply those skills to other people 's problems .
( This is n't meant as a snide remark against coding for money - heck we all need to eat somehow - but more as a recognition that one of these days I owe it to myself and to the community to find the time and use these skills to improve the software I use and enjoy .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue of programmer's lack of math skills is perhaps one of the biggest reasons of the sorry state of Linux audio that's existed pretty much to this very day.It seems as if very few FOSS coders know how to write even the relatively simple signal-processing code that's needed for playing some files while doing any necessary sample-rate conversion or mixing, and while maintaining sync with the record-in.
And the ones with the skills are too busy working and getting paid to apply those skills to other people's problems.
(This isn't meant as a snide remark against coding for money - heck we all need to eat somehow - but more as a recognition that one of these days I owe it to myself and to the community to find the time and use these skills to improve the software I use and enjoy.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608304</id>
	<title>Re:How should I learn math?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269513060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note: I am not a mathematics lecturer but speaking from own experience.</p><p>I hate to sound like a jerk, but I think you need to pick up books along the first year univ./end year high school level and make sure you can treat it informally (as in, not treat it as a magical boogeyman). First year books on Calculus/Analysis, Probability theory, logic, linear algebra.  They don't need to be heavy, but they have to explain the basic ideas behind them (e.g. by the end you should know the meanings of the most often encountered words).</p><p>Once you get that sorted you can enjoy "picking up books" on interesting sounding topics.</p><p>Bottom line: you must do the "boring work" first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note : I am not a mathematics lecturer but speaking from own experience.I hate to sound like a jerk , but I think you need to pick up books along the first year univ./end year high school level and make sure you can treat it informally ( as in , not treat it as a magical boogeyman ) .
First year books on Calculus/Analysis , Probability theory , logic , linear algebra .
They do n't need to be heavy , but they have to explain the basic ideas behind them ( e.g .
by the end you should know the meanings of the most often encountered words ) .Once you get that sorted you can enjoy " picking up books " on interesting sounding topics.Bottom line : you must do the " boring work " first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note: I am not a mathematics lecturer but speaking from own experience.I hate to sound like a jerk, but I think you need to pick up books along the first year univ./end year high school level and make sure you can treat it informally (as in, not treat it as a magical boogeyman).
First year books on Calculus/Analysis, Probability theory, logic, linear algebra.
They don't need to be heavy, but they have to explain the basic ideas behind them (e.g.
by the end you should know the meanings of the most often encountered words).Once you get that sorted you can enjoy "picking up books" on interesting sounding topics.Bottom line: you must do the "boring work" first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609340</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what you mean by "programming"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269525540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say you need:</p><p>1st. Domain knowledge<br>joint 1st. Software engineering skills<br>2nd. Math<br>3rd. A good text editor<br>4th. Computer science</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say you need : 1st .
Domain knowledgejoint 1st .
Software engineering skills2nd .
Math3rd. A good text editor4th .
Computer science</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say you need:1st.
Domain knowledgejoint 1st.
Software engineering skills2nd.
Math3rd. A good text editor4th.
Computer science</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607934</id>
	<title>more than just 2+2</title>
	<author>saiha</author>
	<datestamp>1269508140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would hope that if you are in the computer programing world you understand that cranking out solutions to formulas is way more suited to computers than it is to humans.</p><p>If you want to solve a bunch of math problems then boot up maple, matlab, or any number of programs.</p><p>Doing a bunch of calculus or whatever is \_not\_ the reason that you want mathy people to be computer programmers. Analyzing and quantifying problems, applying appropriate algorithms, optimization, etc are all areas where someone who understands the math behind a problem can far outshine those who don't.</p><p>To be honest though I think most software devs are into math anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would hope that if you are in the computer programing world you understand that cranking out solutions to formulas is way more suited to computers than it is to humans.If you want to solve a bunch of math problems then boot up maple , matlab , or any number of programs.Doing a bunch of calculus or whatever is \ _not \ _ the reason that you want mathy people to be computer programmers .
Analyzing and quantifying problems , applying appropriate algorithms , optimization , etc are all areas where someone who understands the math behind a problem can far outshine those who do n't.To be honest though I think most software devs are into math anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would hope that if you are in the computer programing world you understand that cranking out solutions to formulas is way more suited to computers than it is to humans.If you want to solve a bunch of math problems then boot up maple, matlab, or any number of programs.Doing a bunch of calculus or whatever is \_not\_ the reason that you want mathy people to be computer programmers.
Analyzing and quantifying problems, applying appropriate algorithms, optimization, etc are all areas where someone who understands the math behind a problem can far outshine those who don't.To be honest though I think most software devs are into math anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608452</id>
	<title>yes, you need math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269515760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li>Just look up, what the "relational" in "relational database" means... it stems from purest mathematical logics!</li>
<li>You need linear algebra and even up to full algebra (anisotropy) for 3d engines</li>
<li>artificial intelligence has lots to do with mathematical logic</li>
<li>most optimization problems have to do with graph theory - and logic</li>
<li>randomized algorithms: pure probability theory</li>
<li>string processing, regular expressions, compiler generation: lots of automata theory (which is closely related to graph theory)</li>
<li>deep, deep analysis for running time bounds (esp. for recursive programs)</li>
<li>lots and lots of logic for semantics</li>
<li> etc. etc. etc.</li>
</ul><p>
without profound knowledge of math, you are a tinkerer. you program off the top of your head. To really, deeply understand what you are doing, you need math!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look up , what the " relational " in " relational database " means... it stems from purest mathematical logics !
You need linear algebra and even up to full algebra ( anisotropy ) for 3d engines artificial intelligence has lots to do with mathematical logic most optimization problems have to do with graph theory - and logic randomized algorithms : pure probability theory string processing , regular expressions , compiler generation : lots of automata theory ( which is closely related to graph theory ) deep , deep analysis for running time bounds ( esp .
for recursive programs ) lots and lots of logic for semantics etc .
etc. etc .
without profound knowledge of math , you are a tinkerer .
you program off the top of your head .
To really , deeply understand what you are doing , you need math !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Just look up, what the "relational" in "relational database" means... it stems from purest mathematical logics!
You need linear algebra and even up to full algebra (anisotropy) for 3d engines
artificial intelligence has lots to do with mathematical logic
most optimization problems have to do with graph theory - and logic
randomized algorithms: pure probability theory
string processing, regular expressions, compiler generation: lots of automata theory (which is closely related to graph theory)
deep, deep analysis for running time bounds (esp.
for recursive programs)
lots and lots of logic for semantics
 etc.
etc. etc.
without profound knowledge of math, you are a tinkerer.
you program off the top of your head.
To really, deeply understand what you are doing, you need math!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609082</id>
	<title>Re:How should I learn math?</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1269524040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What I would like to know is what are the best resources to learn math? </i></p><p>I doubt whether this addresses your needs, but I stumbled across the following some time ago and was impressed by the guy and what he's trying to do:</p><p><a href="http://www.khanacademy.org/" title="khanacademy.org">http://www.khanacademy.org/</a> [khanacademy.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I would like to know is what are the best resources to learn math ?
I doubt whether this addresses your needs , but I stumbled across the following some time ago and was impressed by the guy and what he 's trying to do : http : //www.khanacademy.org/ [ khanacademy.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I would like to know is what are the best resources to learn math?
I doubt whether this addresses your needs, but I stumbled across the following some time ago and was impressed by the guy and what he's trying to do:http://www.khanacademy.org/ [khanacademy.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31615698</id>
	<title>Don't be a lazy git.</title>
	<author>lythander</author>
	<datestamp>1269548100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take more math.  Everyone should.  English majors should.  Art students should.</p><p>The world would be a better place if more people understood math, in particular statistics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take more math .
Everyone should .
English majors should .
Art students should.The world would be a better place if more people understood math , in particular statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take more math.
Everyone should.
English majors should.
Art students should.The world would be a better place if more people understood math, in particular statistics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610092</id>
	<title>But it's not math skills in general</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269529680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For example, calculus hasn't been of great use to me in programming with large data sets.  Anything pertaining to patterns and iterations, on the other hand, has been invaluable.  Especially when trying to get run times down to something usable.  A slow process is nothing; a slow process repeated over 100,000 record while matching each record against a different data of 40,000 records . . . that's a pain in the ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , calculus has n't been of great use to me in programming with large data sets .
Anything pertaining to patterns and iterations , on the other hand , has been invaluable .
Especially when trying to get run times down to something usable .
A slow process is nothing ; a slow process repeated over 100,000 record while matching each record against a different data of 40,000 records .
. .
that 's a pain in the ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, calculus hasn't been of great use to me in programming with large data sets.
Anything pertaining to patterns and iterations, on the other hand, has been invaluable.
Especially when trying to get run times down to something usable.
A slow process is nothing; a slow process repeated over 100,000 record while matching each record against a different data of 40,000 records .
. .
that's a pain in the ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31617048</id>
	<title>There's a difference...</title>
	<author>Xunker</author>
	<datestamp>1269509280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a difference between "not knowing math", "not understanding math" and "not doing well at math."</p><p>I am horrible at math, and I've been bad at it all my life.  I failed Pre-Algebra THREE TERMS IN A ROW in High School.  I suck at math, period.</p><p>But, I am a successful programmer and developer and I've written a lot of code that does really complicated math... so how does that square?</p><p>The difference is that even though I can't do math, I know *what I can do* with it.  I know what an Interquartarial Mean will do for me, but I have to look it up in a book every time I use it to know *how* to do it.  In this case, yes, it is obvious that I would have a \_better\_time\_ if I knew how to do this stuff without looking in a book, but I've fared pretty well.  Lacking math skills doesn't mean I'm a suck programmer, it just means I may have a harder time with code that uses a lot of math.</p><p>Someone above posted "Two candidates, one knows math and one doesn't, you want the one who knows math"; that's true if all else is equal, but you never have two candidates for a job you are identical except for one thing.  You buy the whole package and if you think their other qualities outweigh their lack of math skills then that's one you choose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference between " not knowing math " , " not understanding math " and " not doing well at math .
" I am horrible at math , and I 've been bad at it all my life .
I failed Pre-Algebra THREE TERMS IN A ROW in High School .
I suck at math , period.But , I am a successful programmer and developer and I 've written a lot of code that does really complicated math... so how does that square ? The difference is that even though I ca n't do math , I know * what I can do * with it .
I know what an Interquartarial Mean will do for me , but I have to look it up in a book every time I use it to know * how * to do it .
In this case , yes , it is obvious that I would have a \ _better \ _time \ _ if I knew how to do this stuff without looking in a book , but I 've fared pretty well .
Lacking math skills does n't mean I 'm a suck programmer , it just means I may have a harder time with code that uses a lot of math.Someone above posted " Two candidates , one knows math and one does n't , you want the one who knows math " ; that 's true if all else is equal , but you never have two candidates for a job you are identical except for one thing .
You buy the whole package and if you think their other qualities outweigh their lack of math skills then that 's one you choose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference between "not knowing math", "not understanding math" and "not doing well at math.
"I am horrible at math, and I've been bad at it all my life.
I failed Pre-Algebra THREE TERMS IN A ROW in High School.
I suck at math, period.But, I am a successful programmer and developer and I've written a lot of code that does really complicated math... so how does that square?The difference is that even though I can't do math, I know *what I can do* with it.
I know what an Interquartarial Mean will do for me, but I have to look it up in a book every time I use it to know *how* to do it.
In this case, yes, it is obvious that I would have a \_better\_time\_ if I knew how to do this stuff without looking in a book, but I've fared pretty well.
Lacking math skills doesn't mean I'm a suck programmer, it just means I may have a harder time with code that uses a lot of math.Someone above posted "Two candidates, one knows math and one doesn't, you want the one who knows math"; that's true if all else is equal, but you never have two candidates for a job you are identical except for one thing.
You buy the whole package and if you think their other qualities outweigh their lack of math skills then that's one you choose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608842</id>
	<title>I'm a professional programmer</title>
	<author>Xpendable</author>
	<datestamp>1269522120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a professional programmer who has worked for one of the largest department store chains in the U.S. for more than 11 years.  I've never really needed anything more than very basic algebra and bitwise operations.  I've written hundreds and hundreds of programs, mostly in C, C++, C#, Java, VB6, and VB.NET.  I've worked with Informix, Microsoft SQL Server, and DB2 databases in my programs.  I've written code to process credit card transactions, print complicated multi-part receipts with multiple control breaks, and calculate tax.  I've been part of a team that has created brand new point-of-sale systems.  I've created numerous back-end processing programs, some of them even CICS programs.  I've written a messaging platform that handles the interaction between the cash registers, customer-pickup kiosks, and employee wireless hand-held devices.  I've built stand-alone web servers.  I've built tools that help us do Windows workstation builds.  I've built tools that completely automate the creation of the VirutalServer VirtualMachines.  I've built performance monitoring tools that display 2d graphs.  I've built signature capture code.  I've built rudamentary encryption/decryption routines  These are just some examples of the things I've done in my 11 years here.  I have never needed anything other than basic algebra for all of that.

The only time I ever needed more math was when I dabbled in game programming as a hobby.  I used linear algebra (which I had in school, but had to mostly relearn) and some calculus for 3d programming.  The linear algebra was for the transformation and rotation matrices and the calculus was for things like calculation the normal of a triangle so that light would be calculated correctly.  I didn't get real far with my game programming, but I did build a simple 3D engine that loaded my own 3D model format, rendered multi-level tesellated/textured terrain, had parallax scrolling sky billboards and a few other eye candy things.  I also wrote 3 different model exporters.  One for Lightwave 3D, one for 3D Studio Max, and one for Milkshape 3D.

Am I great with math?  Absolutely not.  Do I have a lot of mathematical training?  No.  Did I need a lot of mathematical training?  Not really.  I did have linear algebra in college and Calculus I.  I also had 1 statistics class.  I didn't do well in Calculus class because my professor was absolutely the worst teacher I've ever had.

I have a B.S. in Computer Science, if you are curious.

Just my 2 cents worth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a professional programmer who has worked for one of the largest department store chains in the U.S. for more than 11 years .
I 've never really needed anything more than very basic algebra and bitwise operations .
I 've written hundreds and hundreds of programs , mostly in C , C + + , C # , Java , VB6 , and VB.NET .
I 've worked with Informix , Microsoft SQL Server , and DB2 databases in my programs .
I 've written code to process credit card transactions , print complicated multi-part receipts with multiple control breaks , and calculate tax .
I 've been part of a team that has created brand new point-of-sale systems .
I 've created numerous back-end processing programs , some of them even CICS programs .
I 've written a messaging platform that handles the interaction between the cash registers , customer-pickup kiosks , and employee wireless hand-held devices .
I 've built stand-alone web servers .
I 've built tools that help us do Windows workstation builds .
I 've built tools that completely automate the creation of the VirutalServer VirtualMachines .
I 've built performance monitoring tools that display 2d graphs .
I 've built signature capture code .
I 've built rudamentary encryption/decryption routines These are just some examples of the things I 've done in my 11 years here .
I have never needed anything other than basic algebra for all of that .
The only time I ever needed more math was when I dabbled in game programming as a hobby .
I used linear algebra ( which I had in school , but had to mostly relearn ) and some calculus for 3d programming .
The linear algebra was for the transformation and rotation matrices and the calculus was for things like calculation the normal of a triangle so that light would be calculated correctly .
I did n't get real far with my game programming , but I did build a simple 3D engine that loaded my own 3D model format , rendered multi-level tesellated/textured terrain , had parallax scrolling sky billboards and a few other eye candy things .
I also wrote 3 different model exporters .
One for Lightwave 3D , one for 3D Studio Max , and one for Milkshape 3D .
Am I great with math ?
Absolutely not .
Do I have a lot of mathematical training ?
No. Did I need a lot of mathematical training ?
Not really .
I did have linear algebra in college and Calculus I. I also had 1 statistics class .
I did n't do well in Calculus class because my professor was absolutely the worst teacher I 've ever had .
I have a B.S .
in Computer Science , if you are curious .
Just my 2 cents worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a professional programmer who has worked for one of the largest department store chains in the U.S. for more than 11 years.
I've never really needed anything more than very basic algebra and bitwise operations.
I've written hundreds and hundreds of programs, mostly in C, C++, C#, Java, VB6, and VB.NET.
I've worked with Informix, Microsoft SQL Server, and DB2 databases in my programs.
I've written code to process credit card transactions, print complicated multi-part receipts with multiple control breaks, and calculate tax.
I've been part of a team that has created brand new point-of-sale systems.
I've created numerous back-end processing programs, some of them even CICS programs.
I've written a messaging platform that handles the interaction between the cash registers, customer-pickup kiosks, and employee wireless hand-held devices.
I've built stand-alone web servers.
I've built tools that help us do Windows workstation builds.
I've built tools that completely automate the creation of the VirutalServer VirtualMachines.
I've built performance monitoring tools that display 2d graphs.
I've built signature capture code.
I've built rudamentary encryption/decryption routines  These are just some examples of the things I've done in my 11 years here.
I have never needed anything other than basic algebra for all of that.
The only time I ever needed more math was when I dabbled in game programming as a hobby.
I used linear algebra (which I had in school, but had to mostly relearn) and some calculus for 3d programming.
The linear algebra was for the transformation and rotation matrices and the calculus was for things like calculation the normal of a triangle so that light would be calculated correctly.
I didn't get real far with my game programming, but I did build a simple 3D engine that loaded my own 3D model format, rendered multi-level tesellated/textured terrain, had parallax scrolling sky billboards and a few other eye candy things.
I also wrote 3 different model exporters.
One for Lightwave 3D, one for 3D Studio Max, and one for Milkshape 3D.
Am I great with math?
Absolutely not.
Do I have a lot of mathematical training?
No.  Did I need a lot of mathematical training?
Not really.
I did have linear algebra in college and Calculus I.  I also had 1 statistics class.
I didn't do well in Calculus class because my professor was absolutely the worst teacher I've ever had.
I have a B.S.
in Computer Science, if you are curious.
Just my 2 cents worth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610616</id>
	<title>Re: Understand the Physics Conceptually First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269532200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes, we can understand the physics conceptually first. Other times, the math derivation explains the physical phenomena.</p><p>Partial differential equations began as a branch of Physics. The derived equations gave conceptual meaning, not numerical values. Here Are two examples:</p><p>The Wave Equation, Uxx = Utt, has the solution U(x, t) = F(x+t) + G(x-t). This describes two waveforms, single variable functions F(s) and G(s). I pluck a guitar string, and two waves go out in opposite directions.</p><p>The Diffusion Equation, Uxx = Ut, describes how a dye concentration U(x, t) spreads out over time. The Uxx term describes a "diffusion" based on the "second derivative rule" for "Maxima &amp; Minima" problems. Where Uxx &gt; 0 (concave up), the function U(x, t) wants to add material to smooth out the curve. Where Uxx  0 (concave down), the function U(x, t) wants to lose material to smooth out the curve. This is diffusion leading to a steady state time, when all points x have the same value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes , we can understand the physics conceptually first .
Other times , the math derivation explains the physical phenomena.Partial differential equations began as a branch of Physics .
The derived equations gave conceptual meaning , not numerical values .
Here Are two examples : The Wave Equation , Uxx = Utt , has the solution U ( x , t ) = F ( x + t ) + G ( x-t ) .
This describes two waveforms , single variable functions F ( s ) and G ( s ) .
I pluck a guitar string , and two waves go out in opposite directions.The Diffusion Equation , Uxx = Ut , describes how a dye concentration U ( x , t ) spreads out over time .
The Uxx term describes a " diffusion " based on the " second derivative rule " for " Maxima &amp; Minima " problems .
Where Uxx &gt; 0 ( concave up ) , the function U ( x , t ) wants to add material to smooth out the curve .
Where Uxx 0 ( concave down ) , the function U ( x , t ) wants to lose material to smooth out the curve .
This is diffusion leading to a steady state time , when all points x have the same value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes, we can understand the physics conceptually first.
Other times, the math derivation explains the physical phenomena.Partial differential equations began as a branch of Physics.
The derived equations gave conceptual meaning, not numerical values.
Here Are two examples:The Wave Equation, Uxx = Utt, has the solution U(x, t) = F(x+t) + G(x-t).
This describes two waveforms, single variable functions F(s) and G(s).
I pluck a guitar string, and two waves go out in opposite directions.The Diffusion Equation, Uxx = Ut, describes how a dye concentration U(x, t) spreads out over time.
The Uxx term describes a "diffusion" based on the "second derivative rule" for "Maxima &amp; Minima" problems.
Where Uxx &gt; 0 (concave up), the function U(x, t) wants to add material to smooth out the curve.
Where Uxx  0 (concave down), the function U(x, t) wants to lose material to smooth out the curve.
This is diffusion leading to a steady state time, when all points x have the same value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609092</id>
	<title>Math Skills Handy But Nkt Required.</title>
	<author>Prototerm</author>
	<datestamp>1269524100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been a professional (and quite successful) programmer for nearly 30 years, and am not too shy to admit that my math skills are practically non-existent. However, that being said, an equally poor memory has polished my *logic* skills to the point where I'm quite adept at designing and understanding computer software (particularly those written in C and assembly language). Although these days, I have the most success (and fun) writing "impossible" SQL queries.</p><p>So, I suppose the lesson here is that you can't really generalize that math is vital for computer programmers. Unless you include *logic* as math (and I never have -- it's really a very different animal IMHO). After all, that's why God created computers in the first place, right? To do the math *for* us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been a professional ( and quite successful ) programmer for nearly 30 years , and am not too shy to admit that my math skills are practically non-existent .
However , that being said , an equally poor memory has polished my * logic * skills to the point where I 'm quite adept at designing and understanding computer software ( particularly those written in C and assembly language ) .
Although these days , I have the most success ( and fun ) writing " impossible " SQL queries.So , I suppose the lesson here is that you ca n't really generalize that math is vital for computer programmers .
Unless you include * logic * as math ( and I never have -- it 's really a very different animal IMHO ) .
After all , that 's why God created computers in the first place , right ?
To do the math * for * us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been a professional (and quite successful) programmer for nearly 30 years, and am not too shy to admit that my math skills are practically non-existent.
However, that being said, an equally poor memory has polished my *logic* skills to the point where I'm quite adept at designing and understanding computer software (particularly those written in C and assembly language).
Although these days, I have the most success (and fun) writing "impossible" SQL queries.So, I suppose the lesson here is that you can't really generalize that math is vital for computer programmers.
Unless you include *logic* as math (and I never have -- it's really a very different animal IMHO).
After all, that's why God created computers in the first place, right?
To do the math *for* us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612998</id>
	<title>Mathematics is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269539580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a language.  Programmers are linguists.  Just like garbage in = garbage out, the quality of the code is directly related to the quality (mathematical skills) of the coder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a language .
Programmers are linguists .
Just like garbage in = garbage out , the quality of the code is directly related to the quality ( mathematical skills ) of the coder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a language.
Programmers are linguists.
Just like garbage in = garbage out, the quality of the code is directly related to the quality (mathematical skills) of the coder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608006</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>should\_be\_linear</author>
	<datestamp>1269508740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For graphics you obviously need trigonometry. Lots of things we used to develop earlier is now available as free libraries. Much more important then advanced mathematics is, IMHO, having good estimation of how will certain solution or algorithm perform in various situations. This is developed in programmers head with time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For graphics you obviously need trigonometry .
Lots of things we used to develop earlier is now available as free libraries .
Much more important then advanced mathematics is , IMHO , having good estimation of how will certain solution or algorithm perform in various situations .
This is developed in programmers head with time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For graphics you obviously need trigonometry.
Lots of things we used to develop earlier is now available as free libraries.
Much more important then advanced mathematics is, IMHO, having good estimation of how will certain solution or algorithm perform in various situations.
This is developed in programmers head with time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609940</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1269528780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds to me like you did not get too deep into either physics or math. It's easy to develop intuition about mechanical processes in the macro world. You can observe things and sort of figure it out.</p><p>Things get a little weirder when you step into theory of relativity (much less intuitive) and intuition completely breaks down when you get into quantum mechanics, which is more like pure math than physics.</p><p>Besides pure mathematicians do develop intuition about abstract mathematical theories with no "application" is sight. Pure mathematicians are willing to study properties of almost arbitrary axiomatic systems that have no bearing or "image" in observed universe (e..g non-eucledian geometries, but there are other examples).</p><p>It is exactly this quality of the mathematically trained mind that has developed this fifth sense for mastering abstraction that is most valuable rather than the concrete pure mathematical/physical knowledge or its applications.</p><p>A good mathematician will re-invent things on the spot when he needs them (and really good mathematicians don't learn proofs, but just key ideas, and they literally invent them on the spot in exam/application setting).</p><p>And this is also the ability that is most transferable to other disciplines. Why is psychology, biology and things like mind understanding (we don't have a theory of mind to this date) still so backward? Precisely because people who do these disciplines are not trained and good at creating theories and models and abstractions. This is why recently the fields have tried to recruit mathematicians for some help.</p><p>Computer science on the other hand is much much closer to mathematics itself and it's a natural extension of the field. Math skills are directly applicable to it. Yes, being a programming janitor may not require education of any kind, but personally I would hate to spend my whole life doing that kind of work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds to me like you did not get too deep into either physics or math .
It 's easy to develop intuition about mechanical processes in the macro world .
You can observe things and sort of figure it out.Things get a little weirder when you step into theory of relativity ( much less intuitive ) and intuition completely breaks down when you get into quantum mechanics , which is more like pure math than physics.Besides pure mathematicians do develop intuition about abstract mathematical theories with no " application " is sight .
Pure mathematicians are willing to study properties of almost arbitrary axiomatic systems that have no bearing or " image " in observed universe ( e..g non-eucledian geometries , but there are other examples ) .It is exactly this quality of the mathematically trained mind that has developed this fifth sense for mastering abstraction that is most valuable rather than the concrete pure mathematical/physical knowledge or its applications.A good mathematician will re-invent things on the spot when he needs them ( and really good mathematicians do n't learn proofs , but just key ideas , and they literally invent them on the spot in exam/application setting ) .And this is also the ability that is most transferable to other disciplines .
Why is psychology , biology and things like mind understanding ( we do n't have a theory of mind to this date ) still so backward ?
Precisely because people who do these disciplines are not trained and good at creating theories and models and abstractions .
This is why recently the fields have tried to recruit mathematicians for some help.Computer science on the other hand is much much closer to mathematics itself and it 's a natural extension of the field .
Math skills are directly applicable to it .
Yes , being a programming janitor may not require education of any kind , but personally I would hate to spend my whole life doing that kind of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds to me like you did not get too deep into either physics or math.
It's easy to develop intuition about mechanical processes in the macro world.
You can observe things and sort of figure it out.Things get a little weirder when you step into theory of relativity (much less intuitive) and intuition completely breaks down when you get into quantum mechanics, which is more like pure math than physics.Besides pure mathematicians do develop intuition about abstract mathematical theories with no "application" is sight.
Pure mathematicians are willing to study properties of almost arbitrary axiomatic systems that have no bearing or "image" in observed universe (e..g non-eucledian geometries, but there are other examples).It is exactly this quality of the mathematically trained mind that has developed this fifth sense for mastering abstraction that is most valuable rather than the concrete pure mathematical/physical knowledge or its applications.A good mathematician will re-invent things on the spot when he needs them (and really good mathematicians don't learn proofs, but just key ideas, and they literally invent them on the spot in exam/application setting).And this is also the ability that is most transferable to other disciplines.
Why is psychology, biology and things like mind understanding (we don't have a theory of mind to this date) still so backward?
Precisely because people who do these disciplines are not trained and good at creating theories and models and abstractions.
This is why recently the fields have tried to recruit mathematicians for some help.Computer science on the other hand is much much closer to mathematics itself and it's a natural extension of the field.
Math skills are directly applicable to it.
Yes, being a programming janitor may not require education of any kind, but personally I would hate to spend my whole life doing that kind of work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31654520</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1269856260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There should be philosophy at the end of that line of XKCD. The old Greeks were first and foremost philosophers, and only later mathematicians and physicists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be philosophy at the end of that line of XKCD .
The old Greeks were first and foremost philosophers , and only later mathematicians and physicists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be philosophy at the end of that line of XKCD.
The old Greeks were first and foremost philosophers, and only later mathematicians and physicists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607940</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would hope that people do not strive to be "typical programmers".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would hope that people do not strive to be " typical programmers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would hope that people do not strive to be "typical programmers".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621842</id>
	<title>Re:How should I learn math?</title>
	<author>ImNotAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1269536700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've found this site from MIT really helpful <a href="http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/" title="mit.edu">http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/</a> [mit.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found this site from MIT really helpful http : //ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/ [ mit.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found this site from MIT really helpful http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/ [mit.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607978</id>
	<title>Create value in your brain</title>
	<author>Statecraftsman</author>
	<datestamp>1269508560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Math is necessary for programmers but also for life. That wasn't the best thing in TFA though. The most insightful nugget in this piece was that we should think strategically about what we choose to learn. One the one hand, a programmer can chase the buzz...Rails, Struts, and the Twitter API and get jobs with the cool kids. Far better is to learn general tools that will be around a long time. This is why I like free software and gnu/*nix. The community has built a core set of tools(scripting/database/web) that stands to be around for 20-50 years or more. Just something to think about as you build your programmer/sysadmin toolset (assuming programming/sysadmin work isn't just a temporary thing for you).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Math is necessary for programmers but also for life .
That was n't the best thing in TFA though .
The most insightful nugget in this piece was that we should think strategically about what we choose to learn .
One the one hand , a programmer can chase the buzz...Rails , Struts , and the Twitter API and get jobs with the cool kids .
Far better is to learn general tools that will be around a long time .
This is why I like free software and gnu/ * nix .
The community has built a core set of tools ( scripting/database/web ) that stands to be around for 20-50 years or more .
Just something to think about as you build your programmer/sysadmin toolset ( assuming programming/sysadmin work is n't just a temporary thing for you ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math is necessary for programmers but also for life.
That wasn't the best thing in TFA though.
The most insightful nugget in this piece was that we should think strategically about what we choose to learn.
One the one hand, a programmer can chase the buzz...Rails, Struts, and the Twitter API and get jobs with the cool kids.
Far better is to learn general tools that will be around a long time.
This is why I like free software and gnu/*nix.
The community has built a core set of tools(scripting/database/web) that stands to be around for 20-50 years or more.
Just something to think about as you build your programmer/sysadmin toolset (assuming programming/sysadmin work isn't just a temporary thing for you).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608254</id>
	<title>Programming is a very broad category..</title>
	<author>Seth Kriticos</author>
	<datestamp>1269512340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you will have to have *some* understanding of math, but how much and what kind is really dependent on what you are developing. If it is a database fed, scripted web page, the required calculus won't be that much compared with a missile guidance system or a 3D rendering engine / driver (because it is a completely different problem domain).</p><p>In most development cases you have to break down complex problems to many simpler ones to make it maintainable. This breaking down strongly reduces the math complexity in most cases. Writing maintainable code is often more important than fiddling around with the fastest algorithm (but there are exceptions, few).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you will have to have * some * understanding of math , but how much and what kind is really dependent on what you are developing .
If it is a database fed , scripted web page , the required calculus wo n't be that much compared with a missile guidance system or a 3D rendering engine / driver ( because it is a completely different problem domain ) .In most development cases you have to break down complex problems to many simpler ones to make it maintainable .
This breaking down strongly reduces the math complexity in most cases .
Writing maintainable code is often more important than fiddling around with the fastest algorithm ( but there are exceptions , few ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you will have to have *some* understanding of math, but how much and what kind is really dependent on what you are developing.
If it is a database fed, scripted web page, the required calculus won't be that much compared with a missile guidance system or a 3D rendering engine / driver (because it is a completely different problem domain).In most development cases you have to break down complex problems to many simpler ones to make it maintainable.
This breaking down strongly reduces the math complexity in most cases.
Writing maintainable code is often more important than fiddling around with the fastest algorithm (but there are exceptions, few).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609726</id>
	<title>Depends on the Job</title>
	<author>jimwelch</author>
	<datestamp>1269527700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Programming is everywhere! (tm)<br>For the last 30 years, 90\% of the our new hires were EEs.<br>We do mostly embedded programming, so reading a schematic and a chip spec is just as important as math.<br>Basic (no pun) math skills are a daily need, but higher math is rare.<br>The other 10\% employees handle the hairy math and hairy programming, the rest of us are clean shaven (/pun).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Programming is everywhere !
( tm ) For the last 30 years , 90 \ % of the our new hires were EEs.We do mostly embedded programming , so reading a schematic and a chip spec is just as important as math.Basic ( no pun ) math skills are a daily need , but higher math is rare.The other 10 \ % employees handle the hairy math and hairy programming , the rest of us are clean shaven ( /pun ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programming is everywhere!
(tm)For the last 30 years, 90\% of the our new hires were EEs.We do mostly embedded programming, so reading a schematic and a chip spec is just as important as math.Basic (no pun) math skills are a daily need, but higher math is rare.The other 10\% employees handle the hairy math and hairy programming, the rest of us are clean shaven (/pun).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608518</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessary</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1269517020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and that library offers you bubble sort, insertion sort, quicksort and a few more. Which one do you choose?</p><p>Umm... bubble sort. Why? Umm... because I looked up "sort algos" in the msdn and it was alphabetically the first in the list. Why, what do you mean "depends on your problem", I wanna sort, that's my problem!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and that library offers you bubble sort , insertion sort , quicksort and a few more .
Which one do you choose ? Umm... bubble sort .
Why ? Umm... because I looked up " sort algos " in the msdn and it was alphabetically the first in the list .
Why , what do you mean " depends on your problem " , I wan na sort , that 's my problem !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and that library offers you bubble sort, insertion sort, quicksort and a few more.
Which one do you choose?Umm... bubble sort.
Why? Umm... because I looked up "sort algos" in the msdn and it was alphabetically the first in the list.
Why, what do you mean "depends on your problem", I wanna sort, that's my problem!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609122</id>
	<title>What part of Maths ?</title>
	<author>Nicolay77</author>
	<datestamp>1269524340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mathematics is a huge field with lots and lots of small ramifications.</p><p>You may want someone who understand statistics for your SEO stuff.</p><p>You may need someone who knows calculus for a physics simulation.</p><p>You need someone who knows a lot of linear algebra if you want to write a search engine.</p><p>You probably need someone who knows about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete\_Mathematics" title="wikipedia.org">concrete mathematics</a> [wikipedia.org] for almost all the rest.</p><p>For everyone who thinks that they do not use maths when programming:  what do you think regular expressions are?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mathematics is a huge field with lots and lots of small ramifications.You may want someone who understand statistics for your SEO stuff.You may need someone who knows calculus for a physics simulation.You need someone who knows a lot of linear algebra if you want to write a search engine.You probably need someone who knows about concrete mathematics [ wikipedia.org ] for almost all the rest.For everyone who thinks that they do not use maths when programming : what do you think regular expressions are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mathematics is a huge field with lots and lots of small ramifications.You may want someone who understand statistics for your SEO stuff.You may need someone who knows calculus for a physics simulation.You need someone who knows a lot of linear algebra if you want to write a search engine.You probably need someone who knows about concrete mathematics [wikipedia.org] for almost all the rest.For everyone who thinks that they do not use maths when programming:  what do you think regular expressions are?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613440</id>
	<title>Depends</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269541020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Computer Scientist? Yes<br>Working on computer programs that are used in mathmatics? Yes<br>Writing a desktop application? Not really needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer Scientist ?
YesWorking on computer programs that are used in mathmatics ?
YesWriting a desktop application ?
Not really needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer Scientist?
YesWorking on computer programs that are used in mathmatics?
YesWriting a desktop application?
Not really needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610234</id>
	<title>Anti-Redundancy???</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1269530280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought Slashdot was against redundancy???  We've gone over this before.  Programming is a result of math so if you can't do math, well you're retarded, but you can't do programming either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Slashdot was against redundancy ? ? ?
We 've gone over this before .
Programming is a result of math so if you ca n't do math , well you 're retarded , but you ca n't do programming either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Slashdot was against redundancy???
We've gone over this before.
Programming is a result of math so if you can't do math, well you're retarded, but you can't do programming either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609270</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269525060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either that or (s)he's contributing a not-inconsiderable 5 995 849.16 m/s to the discution, speeding it along to a satisfactory conclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either that or ( s ) he 's contributing a not-inconsiderable 5 995 849.16 m/s to the discution , speeding it along to a satisfactory conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either that or (s)he's contributing a not-inconsiderable 5 995 849.16 m/s to the discution, speeding it along to a satisfactory conclusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608688</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>francium de neobie</author>
	<datestamp>1269519720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's contributing 5 995 849.16 m/s, which is much faster than the max speed of your car, sir.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's contributing 5 995 849.16 m/s , which is much faster than the max speed of your car , sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's contributing 5 995 849.16 m/s, which is much faster than the max speed of your car, sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613296</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>DMUTPeregrine</author>
	<datestamp>1269540600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Proofs are somewhat overrated: you CAN prove that code matches a formal specification, but you can't prove that the specification is correct.<br>&ldquo;Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth<br>
You're right about the maths being important though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proofs are somewhat overrated : you CAN prove that code matches a formal specification , but you ca n't prove that the specification is correct.    Beware of bugs in the above code ; I have only proved it correct , not tried it .
" -- Donald Knuth You 're right about the maths being important though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proofs are somewhat overrated: you CAN prove that code matches a formal specification, but you can't prove that the specification is correct.“Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
" -- Donald Knuth
You're right about the maths being important though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608264</id>
	<title>Statistics not Maths</title>
	<author>DrInequality</author>
	<datestamp>1269512460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That and an understanding that the real world keeps trying to break down the barriers of the nice abstract models that computer science likes to use.
<p>

For example, the TCP protocol is hopelessly broken for any real time communications yet countless real time applications use it.  Same with the
use of blocking IO models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That and an understanding that the real world keeps trying to break down the barriers of the nice abstract models that computer science likes to use .
For example , the TCP protocol is hopelessly broken for any real time communications yet countless real time applications use it .
Same with the use of blocking IO models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That and an understanding that the real world keeps trying to break down the barriers of the nice abstract models that computer science likes to use.
For example, the TCP protocol is hopelessly broken for any real time communications yet countless real time applications use it.
Same with the
use of blocking IO models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31615904</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Citizen of Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1269548760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My required math as an undergrad was four calculus courses.  I aced them all, but as it turns out, this was almost completely worthless.  I haven't used calcuseless even once since then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My required math as an undergrad was four calculus courses .
I aced them all , but as it turns out , this was almost completely worthless .
I have n't used calcuseless even once since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My required math as an undergrad was four calculus courses.
I aced them all, but as it turns out, this was almost completely worthless.
I haven't used calcuseless even once since then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609428</id>
	<title>Re:Strong Math Skills often get dumbed down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269526200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the coder with great math skills also had half-decent coding skills then he'd package up his code into an easy-to-use API, add some documentation, and all the other developers can happily use it.</p><p>If that coder was a great developer, then they'd realise that someone has almost certainly already done that, and just download that library, use it, and get on with their real work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the coder with great math skills also had half-decent coding skills then he 'd package up his code into an easy-to-use API , add some documentation , and all the other developers can happily use it.If that coder was a great developer , then they 'd realise that someone has almost certainly already done that , and just download that library , use it , and get on with their real work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the coder with great math skills also had half-decent coding skills then he'd package up his code into an easy-to-use API, add some documentation, and all the other developers can happily use it.If that coder was a great developer, then they'd realise that someone has almost certainly already done that, and just download that library, use it, and get on with their real work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607916</id>
	<title>They Help</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1269507960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really does help to have math. There have been times when a software solution became ten times easier because I recognized it from a college math class.</p><p>Contrawise, when I work on software that uses math beyond my ability, I have trouble debugging it, and constantly have to rely on the math person I'm working with for help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really does help to have math .
There have been times when a software solution became ten times easier because I recognized it from a college math class.Contrawise , when I work on software that uses math beyond my ability , I have trouble debugging it , and constantly have to rely on the math person I 'm working with for help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really does help to have math.
There have been times when a software solution became ten times easier because I recognized it from a college math class.Contrawise, when I work on software that uses math beyond my ability, I have trouble debugging it, and constantly have to rely on the math person I'm working with for help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609678</id>
	<title>What's The Criterion?</title>
	<author>Not\_A\_Jew</author>
	<datestamp>1269527460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want a good programmer, pick the one who knows math.  If you want a good software designer, pick the one who can lie convincingly to damagement.

<br>
<br>
Hope this helps.
<br>
<br>

N.a.J.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want a good programmer , pick the one who knows math .
If you want a good software designer , pick the one who can lie convincingly to damagement .
Hope this helps .
N.a.J .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want a good programmer, pick the one who knows math.
If you want a good software designer, pick the one who can lie convincingly to damagement.
Hope this helps.
N.a.J.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608218</id>
	<title>My degree is in history and classical studies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269511740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next month marks my having worked professionally as a programmer for twenty years.</p><p>That is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next month marks my having worked professionally as a programmer for twenty years.That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next month marks my having worked professionally as a programmer for twenty years.That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607902</id>
	<title>Absolutely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269507840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Math KNOWLEDGE may be debatable, but Math skills are essential.<br>If you don't have the ability to break up and solve mathmatical formulas, how do you expect to be able to solve complex programming tasks?</p><p>Plus linear algrebra is awesome. And everytime I do anything even remotely 2d or 3d related, I always wish I had paid more attention in Geometry.</p><p>But more than anything, its good to know that there's an equation for that. Even if you don't remember what it is, or how it works, having the simple knowledge that it exists to look up is more than worth the time of taking the class.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Math KNOWLEDGE may be debatable , but Math skills are essential.If you do n't have the ability to break up and solve mathmatical formulas , how do you expect to be able to solve complex programming tasks ? Plus linear algrebra is awesome .
And everytime I do anything even remotely 2d or 3d related , I always wish I had paid more attention in Geometry.But more than anything , its good to know that there 's an equation for that .
Even if you do n't remember what it is , or how it works , having the simple knowledge that it exists to look up is more than worth the time of taking the class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math KNOWLEDGE may be debatable, but Math skills are essential.If you don't have the ability to break up and solve mathmatical formulas, how do you expect to be able to solve complex programming tasks?Plus linear algrebra is awesome.
And everytime I do anything even remotely 2d or 3d related, I always wish I had paid more attention in Geometry.But more than anything, its good to know that there's an equation for that.
Even if you don't remember what it is, or how it works, having the simple knowledge that it exists to look up is more than worth the time of taking the class.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608790</id>
	<title>The weak in math are usually the ones saying that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269521340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I often hear programmers saying Math is not important, and from my observations, it is often the programmers that are weak in Math.

Sure there are probably good programmers that aren't advance in Math, but when big critical, hard to solve problems occurs (field issues, bugs, etc), it is often those who are strong in Math that need to step up.

This does not even mention the fact that enhanced Math skills helps approach problems in different ways that sometimes leads to better success.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I often hear programmers saying Math is not important , and from my observations , it is often the programmers that are weak in Math .
Sure there are probably good programmers that are n't advance in Math , but when big critical , hard to solve problems occurs ( field issues , bugs , etc ) , it is often those who are strong in Math that need to step up .
This does not even mention the fact that enhanced Math skills helps approach problems in different ways that sometimes leads to better success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often hear programmers saying Math is not important, and from my observations, it is often the programmers that are weak in Math.
Sure there are probably good programmers that aren't advance in Math, but when big critical, hard to solve problems occurs (field issues, bugs, etc), it is often those who are strong in Math that need to step up.
This does not even mention the fact that enhanced Math skills helps approach problems in different ways that sometimes leads to better success.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608870</id>
	<title>discrete math is a must</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269522300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i just graduated from school.  the math classes that would directly relate more than any other were two discrete math courses.  much or the second course applied principle to many computer science problems such as traveling salesman, Dijkstra's shortest path, and big O notation.  was a neat additional viewpoint from a mostly pure mathematics perspective.  it was a little odd that not everyone in the department had to take it though.  it was required for software engineers but not for computer scientists.  I don't find many integrals or derivatives or much other calculus in my day to day programming</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i just graduated from school .
the math classes that would directly relate more than any other were two discrete math courses .
much or the second course applied principle to many computer science problems such as traveling salesman , Dijkstra 's shortest path , and big O notation .
was a neat additional viewpoint from a mostly pure mathematics perspective .
it was a little odd that not everyone in the department had to take it though .
it was required for software engineers but not for computer scientists .
I do n't find many integrals or derivatives or much other calculus in my day to day programming</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i just graduated from school.
the math classes that would directly relate more than any other were two discrete math courses.
much or the second course applied principle to many computer science problems such as traveling salesman, Dijkstra's shortest path, and big O notation.
was a neat additional viewpoint from a mostly pure mathematics perspective.
it was a little odd that not everyone in the department had to take it though.
it was required for software engineers but not for computer scientists.
I don't find many integrals or derivatives or much other calculus in my day to day programming</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31617062</id>
	<title>Re:Strong Math Skills often get dumbed down</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1269509340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually generally what happens is that one of your team members runs your really slick algorithm and realizes that it runs 10 times slower than the one that's built into the language in real world situations and rips it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually generally what happens is that one of your team members runs your really slick algorithm and realizes that it runs 10 times slower than the one that 's built into the language in real world situations and rips it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually generally what happens is that one of your team members runs your really slick algorithm and realizes that it runs 10 times slower than the one that's built into the language in real world situations and rips it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610498</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269531660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, he just works for verizon...</p><p>http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , he just works for verizon...http : //verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, he just works for verizon...http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608880</id>
	<title>define:math :)</title>
	<author>dragisha</author>
	<datestamp>1269522420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Math educaton goes deeper than proficiency with math aparatus. Disciplined mind is really useful when you have to think abstract and uknown. Something you do when doing anything software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Math educaton goes deeper than proficiency with math aparatus .
Disciplined mind is really useful when you have to think abstract and uknown .
Something you do when doing anything software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math educaton goes deeper than proficiency with math aparatus.
Disciplined mind is really useful when you have to think abstract and uknown.
Something you do when doing anything software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609074</id>
	<title>A related question</title>
	<author>sirrunsalot</author>
	<datestamp>1269523980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a related question that I run into more often, being on the math/engineering end of things:</p><p>Are programming skills required for math-types?</p><p>At least in engineering, the view seems to be that if you know your basic math and engineering principles, then all you need is some basic declarative programming commands, and everything else will follow.  Long story short, it ends with people solving optimization problems with exhaustive searches and letting programs run for a week or two that, done properly, should take a fraction of a second.  Data structures are generally out of the question.  It scares me to think that so many people don't realize the true status of their programming skills, but at the same time there generally isn't room in standard curricula for any more programming.  Am I being unrealistic to  think that people need these programming skills?  Is it just survival of the fittest?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a related question that I run into more often , being on the math/engineering end of things : Are programming skills required for math-types ? At least in engineering , the view seems to be that if you know your basic math and engineering principles , then all you need is some basic declarative programming commands , and everything else will follow .
Long story short , it ends with people solving optimization problems with exhaustive searches and letting programs run for a week or two that , done properly , should take a fraction of a second .
Data structures are generally out of the question .
It scares me to think that so many people do n't realize the true status of their programming skills , but at the same time there generally is n't room in standard curricula for any more programming .
Am I being unrealistic to think that people need these programming skills ?
Is it just survival of the fittest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a related question that I run into more often, being on the math/engineering end of things:Are programming skills required for math-types?At least in engineering, the view seems to be that if you know your basic math and engineering principles, then all you need is some basic declarative programming commands, and everything else will follow.
Long story short, it ends with people solving optimization problems with exhaustive searches and letting programs run for a week or two that, done properly, should take a fraction of a second.
Data structures are generally out of the question.
It scares me to think that so many people don't realize the true status of their programming skills, but at the same time there generally isn't room in standard curricula for any more programming.
Am I being unrealistic to  think that people need these programming skills?
Is it just survival of the fittest?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612888</id>
	<title>You're kidding, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269539160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A solid foundation in maths is critical to everything, and it teaches you to \_think\_.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A solid foundation in maths is critical to everything , and it teaches you to \ _think \ _ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A solid foundation in maths is critical to everything, and it teaches you to \_think\_.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31626834</id>
	<title>Math and Physics.</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1269620400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the high school level, tying math into physics would be a win.</p><p>I had a colleague, a math major, who also taught physics at the high school I worked at.</p><p>I asked him why he didn't teach calculus and physics in the same course?  He looked at me strangely.</p><p>"Look, velocity is the derivitive of position with respect to time.  Acceleration is the derivative of velocity."</p><p>He had never thought of it that way.</p><p>
&nbsp; Lots of high school physics is a lot easier with calculus.</p><p>In general lots of kids have real problems with abstract ideas.  Even in college you run into students who learn better from getting the concrete exampels first, then the theory.</p><p>As to programming:  While there is a bunch of abstract math that is likely unnecessary to most programmers, having a good sense of number is crucial.  I've run into students who had no clue that four level deep nested for loops with 10 iterations each meant that the inside loop executed 10,000 times, or were completely unaware that their calculations were garbage because they overflowed large int.</p><p>There's something to be said for a course in formal logic too.</p><p>Programmers need math:<br>They don't need the same math that physicists or engineers do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the high school level , tying math into physics would be a win.I had a colleague , a math major , who also taught physics at the high school I worked at.I asked him why he did n't teach calculus and physics in the same course ?
He looked at me strangely .
" Look , velocity is the derivitive of position with respect to time .
Acceleration is the derivative of velocity .
" He had never thought of it that way .
  Lots of high school physics is a lot easier with calculus.In general lots of kids have real problems with abstract ideas .
Even in college you run into students who learn better from getting the concrete exampels first , then the theory.As to programming : While there is a bunch of abstract math that is likely unnecessary to most programmers , having a good sense of number is crucial .
I 've run into students who had no clue that four level deep nested for loops with 10 iterations each meant that the inside loop executed 10,000 times , or were completely unaware that their calculations were garbage because they overflowed large int.There 's something to be said for a course in formal logic too.Programmers need math : They do n't need the same math that physicists or engineers do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the high school level, tying math into physics would be a win.I had a colleague, a math major, who also taught physics at the high school I worked at.I asked him why he didn't teach calculus and physics in the same course?
He looked at me strangely.
"Look, velocity is the derivitive of position with respect to time.
Acceleration is the derivative of velocity.
"He had never thought of it that way.
  Lots of high school physics is a lot easier with calculus.In general lots of kids have real problems with abstract ideas.
Even in college you run into students who learn better from getting the concrete exampels first, then the theory.As to programming:  While there is a bunch of abstract math that is likely unnecessary to most programmers, having a good sense of number is crucial.
I've run into students who had no clue that four level deep nested for loops with 10 iterations each meant that the inside loop executed 10,000 times, or were completely unaware that their calculations were garbage because they overflowed large int.There's something to be said for a course in formal logic too.Programmers need math:They don't need the same math that physicists or engineers do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610176</id>
	<title>Re:Strong Math Skills often get dumbed down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269530040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/me has been told that about regular expressions...  I told them that I could use a regexp or write 8 pages of buggy and impossible to fully debug loops to do this instead...  They grumbled.. When something works it's easy to do this.  When something is hard, and doesn't work yet, then you are at your weakest.  If you try something clever, you may be pressured then to do something in a stupider way that your current muckety muck can get their head around.  Without the complete solution you can be forced to restart from zero with a dumber strategy.  Mostly it's better to try an placate them until you figure it out.  This works if you are using a decent tool meant for real programmers, but if your tool is designed for er.. I'm posting AC so I guess I'll say it - amateurs then likely the maker of your tool hasn't anticipated that the users would be clever enough to do something smart and have not been so clever themselves as to design the tool in a way that won't *surprise* not do what it ought to, blocking<br>your reasonable plan.  Using a tool designed for programmers saves you such surprises.  You can have faith enough that if you come up with clever idea X and want to implement it in programming language X that there IS a way even if you haven<br>'t know what it is to do X using the programming language.  If you are using some kind of cantalope to 'code' with, then just because your idea is reasonable doesn't mean it's possible.  You have to have completed implementation of it in order to promise it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/me has been told that about regular expressions... I told them that I could use a regexp or write 8 pages of buggy and impossible to fully debug loops to do this instead... They grumbled.. When something works it 's easy to do this .
When something is hard , and does n't work yet , then you are at your weakest .
If you try something clever , you may be pressured then to do something in a stupider way that your current muckety muck can get their head around .
Without the complete solution you can be forced to restart from zero with a dumber strategy .
Mostly it 's better to try an placate them until you figure it out .
This works if you are using a decent tool meant for real programmers , but if your tool is designed for er.. I 'm posting AC so I guess I 'll say it - amateurs then likely the maker of your tool has n't anticipated that the users would be clever enough to do something smart and have not been so clever themselves as to design the tool in a way that wo n't * surprise * not do what it ought to , blockingyour reasonable plan .
Using a tool designed for programmers saves you such surprises .
You can have faith enough that if you come up with clever idea X and want to implement it in programming language X that there IS a way even if you have n't know what it is to do X using the programming language .
If you are using some kind of cantalope to 'code ' with , then just because your idea is reasonable does n't mean it 's possible .
You have to have completed implementation of it in order to promise it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/me has been told that about regular expressions...  I told them that I could use a regexp or write 8 pages of buggy and impossible to fully debug loops to do this instead...  They grumbled.. When something works it's easy to do this.
When something is hard, and doesn't work yet, then you are at your weakest.
If you try something clever, you may be pressured then to do something in a stupider way that your current muckety muck can get their head around.
Without the complete solution you can be forced to restart from zero with a dumber strategy.
Mostly it's better to try an placate them until you figure it out.
This works if you are using a decent tool meant for real programmers, but if your tool is designed for er.. I'm posting AC so I guess I'll say it - amateurs then likely the maker of your tool hasn't anticipated that the users would be clever enough to do something smart and have not been so clever themselves as to design the tool in a way that won't *surprise* not do what it ought to, blockingyour reasonable plan.
Using a tool designed for programmers saves you such surprises.
You can have faith enough that if you come up with clever idea X and want to implement it in programming language X that there IS a way even if you haven't know what it is to do X using the programming language.
If you are using some kind of cantalope to 'code' with, then just because your idea is reasonable doesn't mean it's possible.
You have to have completed implementation of it in order to promise it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609060</id>
	<title>Orthogonal concepts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269523920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no reason  that "most programming work" and "truly interesting work" would have anything in common.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no reason that " most programming work " and " truly interesting work " would have anything in common .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no reason  that "most programming work" and "truly interesting work" would have anything in common.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612676</id>
	<title>Math is boring</title>
	<author>Arawak</author>
	<datestamp>1269538620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "Skorks contends that if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field, math skills are essential"</p><p>"Interesting" is very subjective. I contend that truly interesting work in the software development field requires as few math skills as possible. Frankly, math isn't all that interesting to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Skorks contends that if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field , math skills are essential " " Interesting " is very subjective .
I contend that truly interesting work in the software development field requires as few math skills as possible .
Frankly , math is n't all that interesting to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Skorks contends that if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field, math skills are essential""Interesting" is very subjective.
I contend that truly interesting work in the software development field requires as few math skills as possible.
Frankly, math isn't all that interesting to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609602</id>
	<title>"After all..."</title>
	<author>maiden\_taiwan</author>
	<datestamp>1269527160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;"...after all linear algebra is no help when building database driven websites...."

<p>
Unless the web site is totally trivial, you definitely want math skills.  Any programmer who can't estimate the runtime of an algorithm (say, several interacting, nested loops) doesn't get a place on my project.  And combinatorics &amp; graph theory are a very good idea for any interesting web software.  And how the heck can you build a data structure of any complexity without understanding how fast you can insert, delete, and find members?
</p><p>
I'm sure there are thousands of mediocre developers who don't think about these issues and just build stuff that seems to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " ...after all linear algebra is no help when building database driven websites.... " Unless the web site is totally trivial , you definitely want math skills .
Any programmer who ca n't estimate the runtime of an algorithm ( say , several interacting , nested loops ) does n't get a place on my project .
And combinatorics &amp; graph theory are a very good idea for any interesting web software .
And how the heck can you build a data structure of any complexity without understanding how fast you can insert , delete , and find members ?
I 'm sure there are thousands of mediocre developers who do n't think about these issues and just build stuff that seems to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;"...after all linear algebra is no help when building database driven websites...."


Unless the web site is totally trivial, you definitely want math skills.
Any programmer who can't estimate the runtime of an algorithm (say, several interacting, nested loops) doesn't get a place on my project.
And combinatorics &amp; graph theory are a very good idea for any interesting web software.
And how the heck can you build a data structure of any complexity without understanding how fast you can insert, delete, and find members?
I'm sure there are thousands of mediocre developers who don't think about these issues and just build stuff that seems to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609510</id>
	<title>Math teaches more than math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269526680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maths (especially algebra) teaches you how to think abstractly. That skill in turn creates good problem solving skills which combined with good linguistic skills and good code knowledge is what I look for in a programmer. Linguistics are the same as maths - it teaches you a way of thinking and reasoning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maths ( especially algebra ) teaches you how to think abstractly .
That skill in turn creates good problem solving skills which combined with good linguistic skills and good code knowledge is what I look for in a programmer .
Linguistics are the same as maths - it teaches you a way of thinking and reasoning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maths (especially algebra) teaches you how to think abstractly.
That skill in turn creates good problem solving skills which combined with good linguistic skills and good code knowledge is what I look for in a programmer.
Linguistics are the same as maths - it teaches you a way of thinking and reasoning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608530</id>
	<title>great programmers vs great academics</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1269517260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>people who are almost universally respected  in our field as great programmers are also great mathematicians. I am talking people like Donald Knuth, Edsger W. Dijkstra, Noam Chomsky, Peter Norvig.</p></div><p>I don't think these are great programmers. My respect for programmers goes to Phil Katz, Steve Gibson, the author of the Dark Avenger Mutation Engine and generally the people who consider their work to be an art form of elegance, minimalism and speed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>people who are almost universally respected in our field as great programmers are also great mathematicians .
I am talking people like Donald Knuth , Edsger W. Dijkstra , Noam Chomsky , Peter Norvig.I do n't think these are great programmers .
My respect for programmers goes to Phil Katz , Steve Gibson , the author of the Dark Avenger Mutation Engine and generally the people who consider their work to be an art form of elegance , minimalism and speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people who are almost universally respected  in our field as great programmers are also great mathematicians.
I am talking people like Donald Knuth, Edsger W. Dijkstra, Noam Chomsky, Peter Norvig.I don't think these are great programmers.
My respect for programmers goes to Phil Katz, Steve Gibson, the author of the Dark Avenger Mutation Engine and generally the people who consider their work to be an art form of elegance, minimalism and speed.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608568</id>
	<title>math is no help?</title>
	<author>l3v1</author>
	<datestamp>1269517860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>linear algebra is no help when building database driven websites</i> <br> <br>
Oh for [whatever]'s sake, who on this earth started spreading the "wisdom" that all apps are database-driven web applications that do nothing more than displaying user-input two-line texts with images and videos?<br> <br>
I could list dozens of algorithms - even from my day-to-day use - that nobody on this earth would be able to correctly and efficiently implement without proper math skills. And even the term math is too broad, natural language-related stuff, image/video/vision content processing stuff, simulation stuff, overall machine learning stuff plus ai-related fields, control systems - and I could just go on forever - don't come without their associated - sometimes fairly deep - math topics.<br> <br>
The social web will come and go, but apps and algorithms that do something even remotely useful, won't ever be accomplished by math-knowledge-lacking code monkeys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>linear algebra is no help when building database driven websites Oh for [ whatever ] 's sake , who on this earth started spreading the " wisdom " that all apps are database-driven web applications that do nothing more than displaying user-input two-line texts with images and videos ?
I could list dozens of algorithms - even from my day-to-day use - that nobody on this earth would be able to correctly and efficiently implement without proper math skills .
And even the term math is too broad , natural language-related stuff , image/video/vision content processing stuff , simulation stuff , overall machine learning stuff plus ai-related fields , control systems - and I could just go on forever - do n't come without their associated - sometimes fairly deep - math topics .
The social web will come and go , but apps and algorithms that do something even remotely useful , wo n't ever be accomplished by math-knowledge-lacking code monkeys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>linear algebra is no help when building database driven websites  
Oh for [whatever]'s sake, who on this earth started spreading the "wisdom" that all apps are database-driven web applications that do nothing more than displaying user-input two-line texts with images and videos?
I could list dozens of algorithms - even from my day-to-day use - that nobody on this earth would be able to correctly and efficiently implement without proper math skills.
And even the term math is too broad, natural language-related stuff, image/video/vision content processing stuff, simulation stuff, overall machine learning stuff plus ai-related fields, control systems - and I could just go on forever - don't come without their associated - sometimes fairly deep - math topics.
The social web will come and go, but apps and algorithms that do something even remotely useful, won't ever be accomplished by math-knowledge-lacking code monkeys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607946</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>ahaubold</author>
	<datestamp>1269508320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I totally agree. Especially when it comes to implementation of complex problems.
Another part is graphical development. If you have do render or mess around with voxels, shaders and textures you truly need a solid basis of math.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree .
Especially when it comes to implementation of complex problems .
Another part is graphical development .
If you have do render or mess around with voxels , shaders and textures you truly need a solid basis of math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree.
Especially when it comes to implementation of complex problems.
Another part is graphical development.
If you have do render or mess around with voxels, shaders and textures you truly need a solid basis of math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612010</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269536580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but theoretical computer science is maths so yes, by his definition, maths is required. Of course, what he described is pretty much algebra, which again, is maths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but theoretical computer science is maths so yes , by his definition , maths is required .
Of course , what he described is pretty much algebra , which again , is maths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but theoretical computer science is maths so yes, by his definition, maths is required.
Of course, what he described is pretty much algebra, which again, is maths.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608040</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1269509160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Plus linear algrebra is awesome. And everytime I do anything even remotely 2d or 3d related, I always wish I had paid more attention in Geometry.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's nothing to do with programming itself.  That's to do with the subject you're programming about - the problem domain.</p><p>You could program perfectly well just knowing how to add, subtract, multiply and divide if you worked on (yawn) accounting systems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus linear algrebra is awesome .
And everytime I do anything even remotely 2d or 3d related , I always wish I had paid more attention in Geometry.That 's nothing to do with programming itself .
That 's to do with the subject you 're programming about - the problem domain.You could program perfectly well just knowing how to add , subtract , multiply and divide if you worked on ( yawn ) accounting systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus linear algrebra is awesome.
And everytime I do anything even remotely 2d or 3d related, I always wish I had paid more attention in Geometry.That's nothing to do with programming itself.
That's to do with the subject you're programming about - the problem domain.You could program perfectly well just knowing how to add, subtract, multiply and divide if you worked on (yawn) accounting systems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608658</id>
	<title>bottom line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269519120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>the bottom line is: yes, you can use libraries (for this, you don't need much math), but to be a GREAT programmer, you need to be able to program things yourself (for this, you need math). If you can only piece together other peoples code (which you don't even remotely understand), then you are a tinkerer. It will be complete coincidence, when your code works reliably and fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the bottom line is : yes , you can use libraries ( for this , you do n't need much math ) , but to be a GREAT programmer , you need to be able to program things yourself ( for this , you need math ) .
If you can only piece together other peoples code ( which you do n't even remotely understand ) , then you are a tinkerer .
It will be complete coincidence , when your code works reliably and fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the bottom line is: yes, you can use libraries (for this, you don't need much math), but to be a GREAT programmer, you need to be able to program things yourself (for this, you need math).
If you can only piece together other peoples code (which you don't even remotely understand), then you are a tinkerer.
It will be complete coincidence, when your code works reliably and fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31625316</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269614700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Now, if only maths graduates could program their way out of a wet cardboard box, then we could truly start designing giant flame breathing killer robots.

This guy's pretty good:  <a href="http://www.laptopmag.com/business/feature/25-most-influential-people-in-mobile-technology.aspx?page=4" title="laptopmag.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.laptopmag.com/business/feature/25-most-influential-people-in-mobile-technology.aspx?page=4</a> [laptopmag.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Now , if only maths graduates could program their way out of a wet cardboard box , then we could truly start designing giant flame breathing killer robots .
This guy 's pretty good : http : //www.laptopmag.com/business/feature/25-most-influential-people-in-mobile-technology.aspx ? page = 4 [ laptopmag.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Now, if only maths graduates could program their way out of a wet cardboard box, then we could truly start designing giant flame breathing killer robots.
This guy's pretty good:  http://www.laptopmag.com/business/feature/25-most-influential-people-in-mobile-technology.aspx?page=4 [laptopmag.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613604</id>
	<title>Best software designers know lots of math</title>
	<author>richieb</author>
	<datestamp>1269541500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Math teaches you how to think abstractly and see the patterns in what seems like unrelated pieces of data. I observed that programmers who know a lot math are great software designers - they can abstract common things in what seem like disjointed pieces of code.

Abstract math is the ultimate illustration of the DRY principal (DRY == Don't Repeat Yourself).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Math teaches you how to think abstractly and see the patterns in what seems like unrelated pieces of data .
I observed that programmers who know a lot math are great software designers - they can abstract common things in what seem like disjointed pieces of code .
Abstract math is the ultimate illustration of the DRY principal ( DRY = = Do n't Repeat Yourself ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math teaches you how to think abstractly and see the patterns in what seems like unrelated pieces of data.
I observed that programmers who know a lot math are great software designers - they can abstract common things in what seem like disjointed pieces of code.
Abstract math is the ultimate illustration of the DRY principal (DRY == Don't Repeat Yourself).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608578</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessary</title>
	<author>johny42</author>
	<datestamp>1269517920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even when you're only using libraries, math helps you a lot to pick the right one for the job. The difference between a TreeSet and a HashSet is just math. You also don't need to know what regular languages are to successfully use regular expressions, but for some problems, it might come handy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even when you 're only using libraries , math helps you a lot to pick the right one for the job .
The difference between a TreeSet and a HashSet is just math .
You also do n't need to know what regular languages are to successfully use regular expressions , but for some problems , it might come handy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even when you're only using libraries, math helps you a lot to pick the right one for the job.
The difference between a TreeSet and a HashSet is just math.
You also don't need to know what regular languages are to successfully use regular expressions, but for some problems, it might come handy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609304</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>B1oodAnge1</author>
	<datestamp>1269525240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally: Obligatory XKCD Link. [xkcd.com] (Of course, if you feel bitter about this comment, read the mouse-over text)</p></div><p>Sociology is just applied History....but that doesn't really make me feel any better.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-\</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally : Obligatory XKCD Link .
[ xkcd.com ] ( Of course , if you feel bitter about this comment , read the mouse-over text ) Sociology is just applied History....but that does n't really make me feel any better .
: - \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally: Obligatory XKCD Link.
[xkcd.com] (Of course, if you feel bitter about this comment, read the mouse-over text)Sociology is just applied History....but that doesn't really make me feel any better.
:-\
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609714</id>
	<title>XKCD</title>
	<author>Unique2</author>
	<datestamp>1269527640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/435/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">XKCD says it all.</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XKCD says it all .
[ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XKCD says it all.
[xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608324</id>
	<title>What is "interesting"?</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1269513480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Skorks says that if you want to do interesting work you need mathematics skills.  <br> <br>
But isn't it only interesting to those who are interested in maths?  In which case you'll have the skills already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Skorks says that if you want to do interesting work you need mathematics skills .
But is n't it only interesting to those who are interested in maths ?
In which case you 'll have the skills already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skorks says that if you want to do interesting work you need mathematics skills.
But isn't it only interesting to those who are interested in maths?
In which case you'll have the skills already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613958</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269542460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That or he works for Verizon.</p><p>http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That or he works for Verizon.http : //verizonmath.blogspot.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That or he works for Verizon.http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31625802</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1269616860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such proof for the actual software is intractable except in the most trivial case. That said, the chances are a lot better if the algorithm it implements is proven correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such proof for the actual software is intractable except in the most trivial case .
That said , the chances are a lot better if the algorithm it implements is proven correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such proof for the actual software is intractable except in the most trivial case.
That said, the chances are a lot better if the algorithm it implements is proven correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610896</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessary</title>
	<author>Rob the Bold</author>
	<datestamp>1269533160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you are a typical programmer, you'll be using libraries that already have the difficult math-y stuff worked out. If you can understand simple arithmetic, you've got all the math skill you need to be a programmer.</p></div><p>There's plenty of "math-y" stuff that the libraries can do for you, but if you don't know what to do with them they don't help much.</p><p>I'd like to see programmers knowing more about the basics of using math (or even arithmetic) at least for the application they're working in.</p><p>Example: When numbers are used to represent real-world values like quantities, volumes, speeds, and amounts of currency, you need to know how to properly handle such things as rounding and truncation for your particular application.  If a number is the result of a sensor measurement of mass (or if you prefer, weight of the mass at 1g), your sensor will have a certain precision.  Maybe you measure 2.608 pounds and your sensor is precise to +/-<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.001 pounds.  Your application needs to be able to present or store this in other metrics.  So you call PoundsToKg from your math library. You'd saved your pounds as a floating point number, so your result is floating point as well.  Perhaps you know the range of expected values well enough that you pick the proper size of float.  Well, I just did this with Google. They query "what is 2.608 pounds in kg" yields: "2.60800 pounds = 1.1829689 kilograms".  Google apparently assume that my 2.608 was accurate to the limit of single precision floating point.  If you ask about 1 pound, you get "1 pound = 0.45359237 kilograms".  So google's library knows the ratio of lb to kg to 8 significant figures.  So google's result is not only more precise than my original data (4 places) or even of google's assumption of my original data's precision (6 places), it's the 8 places from the kg/lb value it used.  In reality, we only know the result to be 1.183 kg.</p><p>Is the Google calculator wrong?  Not really, it's just behaving as a calculator or a math library.  This is where it's important for the user/programmer to know the limitations of the data and the libraries operating on the data.  I've had this situation come up with programmers.  I was an EE working with other EEs and Computer Engineers on a measurement and recording system.  When it came time to write the PC interface to the system, we brought in temporary CS-type guys to provide more manpower to the app written.  On multiple occasions, I had just this sort of problem with the programmers.  I'd tell them to round to the actual precision of the data and they'd be shocked, asking me why I would throw away all those perfectly good digits the libraries gave them!  In cases where this was merely cosmetic, I just let it slide because there was no way in Hell I was going to convince them that the computer was "wrong".  In more crucial areas, I noted where the problem was and came back to fix it after the temps were gone.</p><p>Lest anyone think that ignorance of this issue is unimportant, consider this example that predates the modern practice of "programming":
 <a href="http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/1929/NOV\_DEC\_1929/NOV\_DEC\_1929\_PAGES\_604\_609.pdf" title="army.mil">THE FIELD ARTILLERY JOURNAL - NOVEMBER - DECEMBER - 1929</a> [army.mil].</p><p>If you use numbers from the real world in your programming you need to know enough math to manipulate them properly, even if you are relying on your software libraries to do the heavy lifting.  Perhaps the errors/miscalculations/misrepresentations/etc. are trivial or cosmetic.  But if you don't know your math, how do you know that?  How do you even know to think of it?</p><p>And we haven't even begun to discuss the limitations of floating point representation itself.  Let alone all the other issues with numbers that can come up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a typical programmer , you 'll be using libraries that already have the difficult math-y stuff worked out .
If you can understand simple arithmetic , you 've got all the math skill you need to be a programmer.There 's plenty of " math-y " stuff that the libraries can do for you , but if you do n't know what to do with them they do n't help much.I 'd like to see programmers knowing more about the basics of using math ( or even arithmetic ) at least for the application they 're working in.Example : When numbers are used to represent real-world values like quantities , volumes , speeds , and amounts of currency , you need to know how to properly handle such things as rounding and truncation for your particular application .
If a number is the result of a sensor measurement of mass ( or if you prefer , weight of the mass at 1g ) , your sensor will have a certain precision .
Maybe you measure 2.608 pounds and your sensor is precise to + /- .001 pounds .
Your application needs to be able to present or store this in other metrics .
So you call PoundsToKg from your math library .
You 'd saved your pounds as a floating point number , so your result is floating point as well .
Perhaps you know the range of expected values well enough that you pick the proper size of float .
Well , I just did this with Google .
They query " what is 2.608 pounds in kg " yields : " 2.60800 pounds = 1.1829689 kilograms " .
Google apparently assume that my 2.608 was accurate to the limit of single precision floating point .
If you ask about 1 pound , you get " 1 pound = 0.45359237 kilograms " .
So google 's library knows the ratio of lb to kg to 8 significant figures .
So google 's result is not only more precise than my original data ( 4 places ) or even of google 's assumption of my original data 's precision ( 6 places ) , it 's the 8 places from the kg/lb value it used .
In reality , we only know the result to be 1.183 kg.Is the Google calculator wrong ?
Not really , it 's just behaving as a calculator or a math library .
This is where it 's important for the user/programmer to know the limitations of the data and the libraries operating on the data .
I 've had this situation come up with programmers .
I was an EE working with other EEs and Computer Engineers on a measurement and recording system .
When it came time to write the PC interface to the system , we brought in temporary CS-type guys to provide more manpower to the app written .
On multiple occasions , I had just this sort of problem with the programmers .
I 'd tell them to round to the actual precision of the data and they 'd be shocked , asking me why I would throw away all those perfectly good digits the libraries gave them !
In cases where this was merely cosmetic , I just let it slide because there was no way in Hell I was going to convince them that the computer was " wrong " .
In more crucial areas , I noted where the problem was and came back to fix it after the temps were gone.Lest anyone think that ignorance of this issue is unimportant , consider this example that predates the modern practice of " programming " : THE FIELD ARTILLERY JOURNAL - NOVEMBER - DECEMBER - 1929 [ army.mil ] .If you use numbers from the real world in your programming you need to know enough math to manipulate them properly , even if you are relying on your software libraries to do the heavy lifting .
Perhaps the errors/miscalculations/misrepresentations/etc .
are trivial or cosmetic .
But if you do n't know your math , how do you know that ?
How do you even know to think of it ? And we have n't even begun to discuss the limitations of floating point representation itself .
Let alone all the other issues with numbers that can come up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a typical programmer, you'll be using libraries that already have the difficult math-y stuff worked out.
If you can understand simple arithmetic, you've got all the math skill you need to be a programmer.There's plenty of "math-y" stuff that the libraries can do for you, but if you don't know what to do with them they don't help much.I'd like to see programmers knowing more about the basics of using math (or even arithmetic) at least for the application they're working in.Example: When numbers are used to represent real-world values like quantities, volumes, speeds, and amounts of currency, you need to know how to properly handle such things as rounding and truncation for your particular application.
If a number is the result of a sensor measurement of mass (or if you prefer, weight of the mass at 1g), your sensor will have a certain precision.
Maybe you measure 2.608 pounds and your sensor is precise to +/- .001 pounds.
Your application needs to be able to present or store this in other metrics.
So you call PoundsToKg from your math library.
You'd saved your pounds as a floating point number, so your result is floating point as well.
Perhaps you know the range of expected values well enough that you pick the proper size of float.
Well, I just did this with Google.
They query "what is 2.608 pounds in kg" yields: "2.60800 pounds = 1.1829689 kilograms".
Google apparently assume that my 2.608 was accurate to the limit of single precision floating point.
If you ask about 1 pound, you get "1 pound = 0.45359237 kilograms".
So google's library knows the ratio of lb to kg to 8 significant figures.
So google's result is not only more precise than my original data (4 places) or even of google's assumption of my original data's precision (6 places), it's the 8 places from the kg/lb value it used.
In reality, we only know the result to be 1.183 kg.Is the Google calculator wrong?
Not really, it's just behaving as a calculator or a math library.
This is where it's important for the user/programmer to know the limitations of the data and the libraries operating on the data.
I've had this situation come up with programmers.
I was an EE working with other EEs and Computer Engineers on a measurement and recording system.
When it came time to write the PC interface to the system, we brought in temporary CS-type guys to provide more manpower to the app written.
On multiple occasions, I had just this sort of problem with the programmers.
I'd tell them to round to the actual precision of the data and they'd be shocked, asking me why I would throw away all those perfectly good digits the libraries gave them!
In cases where this was merely cosmetic, I just let it slide because there was no way in Hell I was going to convince them that the computer was "wrong".
In more crucial areas, I noted where the problem was and came back to fix it after the temps were gone.Lest anyone think that ignorance of this issue is unimportant, consider this example that predates the modern practice of "programming":
 THE FIELD ARTILLERY JOURNAL - NOVEMBER - DECEMBER - 1929 [army.mil].If you use numbers from the real world in your programming you need to know enough math to manipulate them properly, even if you are relying on your software libraries to do the heavy lifting.
Perhaps the errors/miscalculations/misrepresentations/etc.
are trivial or cosmetic.
But if you don't know your math, how do you know that?
How do you even know to think of it?And we haven't even begun to discuss the limitations of floating point representation itself.
Let alone all the other issues with numbers that can come up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608310</id>
	<title>Maths is essential</title>
	<author>john.wingfield</author>
	<datestamp>1269513240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two very important parts of computer programming: the ability to follow a logical process; and the ability understand maths well, to at least high school level.  The first enables you to write a program that flows and the second means that you will be able to work with (e.g.) arrays without creating overflows.  Put simply, computer science is a branch of applied maths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two very important parts of computer programming : the ability to follow a logical process ; and the ability understand maths well , to at least high school level .
The first enables you to write a program that flows and the second means that you will be able to work with ( e.g .
) arrays without creating overflows .
Put simply , computer science is a branch of applied maths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two very important parts of computer programming: the ability to follow a logical process; and the ability understand maths well, to at least high school level.
The first enables you to write a program that flows and the second means that you will be able to work with (e.g.
) arrays without creating overflows.
Put simply, computer science is a branch of applied maths.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610056</id>
	<title>Better not try doing too much</title>
	<author>Arimus</author>
	<datestamp>1269529440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With any form of navigation software (try coding coordinate transforms without a maths background), any form of signal filtering, any accounting type programming, any statistical analysis, any audio / graphics processing etc etc etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With any form of navigation software ( try coding coordinate transforms without a maths background ) , any form of signal filtering , any accounting type programming , any statistical analysis , any audio / graphics processing etc etc etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With any form of navigation software (try coding coordinate transforms without a maths background), any form of signal filtering, any accounting type programming, any statistical analysis, any audio / graphics processing etc etc etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621932</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what you mean by "programming"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269537600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to see you write any signal processing code without math skills. De-bayering sensor output? Doing color transforms? Noise filtering. That's not theoretical CS, that's the code that makes your point and shoot work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see you write any signal processing code without math skills .
De-bayering sensor output ?
Doing color transforms ?
Noise filtering .
That 's not theoretical CS , that 's the code that makes your point and shoot work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see you write any signal processing code without math skills.
De-bayering sensor output?
Doing color transforms?
Noise filtering.
That's not theoretical CS, that's the code that makes your point and shoot work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609950</id>
	<title>People interested in math find math interesting?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269528840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field, math skills are essential"</p><p>A lot of programming tasks don't require much math. But it's up to each programmer whether these tasks are interesting. The work that I find most interesting does require a lot of math, but would a person withouth math skills find the work interesting? Probably not, since there is a reason why these people lack math skills. They lack the interest.</p><p>Interested in math =&gt; good at math =&gt; likes to solve math problems =&gt; finds programming work involving math to be interesting</p><p>Not interested in math =&gt; not good at math =&gt; doesn't like to solve math problems =&gt; doesn't find programming work involving math to be interesting</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field , math skills are essential " A lot of programming tasks do n't require much math .
But it 's up to each programmer whether these tasks are interesting .
The work that I find most interesting does require a lot of math , but would a person withouth math skills find the work interesting ?
Probably not , since there is a reason why these people lack math skills .
They lack the interest.Interested in math = &gt; good at math = &gt; likes to solve math problems = &gt; finds programming work involving math to be interestingNot interested in math = &gt; not good at math = &gt; does n't like to solve math problems = &gt; does n't find programming work involving math to be interesting</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field, math skills are essential"A lot of programming tasks don't require much math.
But it's up to each programmer whether these tasks are interesting.
The work that I find most interesting does require a lot of math, but would a person withouth math skills find the work interesting?
Probably not, since there is a reason why these people lack math skills.
They lack the interest.Interested in math =&gt; good at math =&gt; likes to solve math problems =&gt; finds programming work involving math to be interestingNot interested in math =&gt; not good at math =&gt; doesn't like to solve math problems =&gt; doesn't find programming work involving math to be interesting</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612832</id>
	<title>By writing code, you are writing math</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1269539040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that all logical equations are also mathematical equations I would say very clearly, if you can't do math you can't write software.  Also, just because your calculus skills are not up to snuff does not mean your Boolean algebra skills are not top notch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that all logical equations are also mathematical equations I would say very clearly , if you ca n't do math you ca n't write software .
Also , just because your calculus skills are not up to snuff does not mean your Boolean algebra skills are not top notch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that all logical equations are also mathematical equations I would say very clearly, if you can't do math you can't write software.
Also, just because your calculus skills are not up to snuff does not mean your Boolean algebra skills are not top notch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608426</id>
	<title>Its been a while since I did any coding but ...</title>
	<author>Liambp</author>
	<datestamp>1269515340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>isn't a bit of mathematics handy for working out complicated expressions to put into your computed gotos?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is n't a bit of mathematics handy for working out complicated expressions to put into your computed gotos ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isn't a bit of mathematics handy for working out complicated expressions to put into your computed gotos?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613104</id>
	<title>Mathematics and US Computer Science</title>
	<author>Alanonfire</author>
	<datestamp>1269539940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lately I've been reading a lot of ACM articles.  A while back I noticed they started this same argument with a number of articles, one concerning the hypothetical solution to the P vs NP problem and one that is more real, concerning US Computer Science students.<br> <br>
ACM blasted the US educational system for their lack of trained computer scientists.  They stated that US Universities are training Java api users and not computer scientists.  They pointed out that a number of companies had been outsourcing their work because the US school systems weren't teaching the correct mathematics that an employee needed to be useful.  According to ACM a number of companies even posted something along the lines of "US Applicants Need Not Apply."<br> <br>

In my personal experience, I would not have my job if I wasn't a dual major in Applied Math &amp; Computer Science.  Every company I applied to only looked at my Math degree when matching me for jobs in programming or software/systems engineering.  3 potential employers stated something that was eerily similar, "You can teach a mathematician to program and design software, but its nearly impossible to teach a computer scientist mathematics because they think they don't need it."<br> <br>
I'm not really stating a case against or for the topic.  I'm stating the trends.  Unless you just want to be a programmer for your entire life, I suggest learning more mathematics.  Even if you don't feel its necessary now.  You may find in the future that it is necessary or that you wished you had learned these mathematical concepts as they make life easier when designing complex systems.<br> <br>
My statements are more geared towards computer science students/professionals and not people who just like writing code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lately I 've been reading a lot of ACM articles .
A while back I noticed they started this same argument with a number of articles , one concerning the hypothetical solution to the P vs NP problem and one that is more real , concerning US Computer Science students .
ACM blasted the US educational system for their lack of trained computer scientists .
They stated that US Universities are training Java api users and not computer scientists .
They pointed out that a number of companies had been outsourcing their work because the US school systems were n't teaching the correct mathematics that an employee needed to be useful .
According to ACM a number of companies even posted something along the lines of " US Applicants Need Not Apply .
" In my personal experience , I would not have my job if I was n't a dual major in Applied Math &amp; Computer Science .
Every company I applied to only looked at my Math degree when matching me for jobs in programming or software/systems engineering .
3 potential employers stated something that was eerily similar , " You can teach a mathematician to program and design software , but its nearly impossible to teach a computer scientist mathematics because they think they do n't need it .
" I 'm not really stating a case against or for the topic .
I 'm stating the trends .
Unless you just want to be a programmer for your entire life , I suggest learning more mathematics .
Even if you do n't feel its necessary now .
You may find in the future that it is necessary or that you wished you had learned these mathematical concepts as they make life easier when designing complex systems .
My statements are more geared towards computer science students/professionals and not people who just like writing code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lately I've been reading a lot of ACM articles.
A while back I noticed they started this same argument with a number of articles, one concerning the hypothetical solution to the P vs NP problem and one that is more real, concerning US Computer Science students.
ACM blasted the US educational system for their lack of trained computer scientists.
They stated that US Universities are training Java api users and not computer scientists.
They pointed out that a number of companies had been outsourcing their work because the US school systems weren't teaching the correct mathematics that an employee needed to be useful.
According to ACM a number of companies even posted something along the lines of "US Applicants Need Not Apply.
" 

In my personal experience, I would not have my job if I wasn't a dual major in Applied Math &amp; Computer Science.
Every company I applied to only looked at my Math degree when matching me for jobs in programming or software/systems engineering.
3 potential employers stated something that was eerily similar, "You can teach a mathematician to program and design software, but its nearly impossible to teach a computer scientist mathematics because they think they don't need it.
" 
I'm not really stating a case against or for the topic.
I'm stating the trends.
Unless you just want to be a programmer for your entire life, I suggest learning more mathematics.
Even if you don't feel its necessary now.
You may find in the future that it is necessary or that you wished you had learned these mathematical concepts as they make life easier when designing complex systems.
My statements are more geared towards computer science students/professionals and not people who just like writing code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888</id>
	<title>Not necessary</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1269507600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are a typical programmer, you'll be using libraries that already have the difficult math-y stuff worked out. If you can understand simple arithmetic, you've got all the math skill you need to be a programmer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a typical programmer , you 'll be using libraries that already have the difficult math-y stuff worked out .
If you can understand simple arithmetic , you 've got all the math skill you need to be a programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a typical programmer, you'll be using libraries that already have the difficult math-y stuff worked out.
If you can understand simple arithmetic, you've got all the math skill you need to be a programmer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621682</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269535080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Math is just applied logic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Math is just applied logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math is just applied logic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608174</id>
	<title>Re:Flavors of Math - Simplex-Algo vs Countability</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1269510900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because you've never used it were not shown its applications.  Functional analysis is one of the most powerful weapons in the applied mathematicians toolkit - it's essential to quantum theory and financial mathematics, for example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because you 've never used it were not shown its applications .
Functional analysis is one of the most powerful weapons in the applied mathematicians toolkit - it 's essential to quantum theory and financial mathematics , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because you've never used it were not shown its applications.
Functional analysis is one of the most powerful weapons in the applied mathematicians toolkit - it's essential to quantum theory and financial mathematics, for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609032</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269523560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To paraphrase Feynman "If we were to get rid of the field of mathematics, physics would be set back by about a week."<br>The math provides the language and structure to build the predictive models that elevates physics above the likes of biology and psychology.  Yes you can do math without some application but then how is it different then philosophy?  If I remember correctly, Plato even stated that mathematics was one step below philosophy in usefulness.  The best argument for research in pure mathematics is that it COULD be used in the future for some application.</p><p>So let me conclude with my favorite quote from grad school (in physics) about how the two are intertwined. 'Physics without calculus is like sex without a partner.'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To paraphrase Feynman " If we were to get rid of the field of mathematics , physics would be set back by about a week .
" The math provides the language and structure to build the predictive models that elevates physics above the likes of biology and psychology .
Yes you can do math without some application but then how is it different then philosophy ?
If I remember correctly , Plato even stated that mathematics was one step below philosophy in usefulness .
The best argument for research in pure mathematics is that it COULD be used in the future for some application.So let me conclude with my favorite quote from grad school ( in physics ) about how the two are intertwined .
'Physics without calculus is like sex without a partner .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To paraphrase Feynman "If we were to get rid of the field of mathematics, physics would be set back by about a week.
"The math provides the language and structure to build the predictive models that elevates physics above the likes of biology and psychology.
Yes you can do math without some application but then how is it different then philosophy?
If I remember correctly, Plato even stated that mathematics was one step below philosophy in usefulness.
The best argument for research in pure mathematics is that it COULD be used in the future for some application.So let me conclude with my favorite quote from grad school (in physics) about how the two are intertwined.
'Physics without calculus is like sex without a partner.
'
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31617482</id>
	<title>Re:yes, you need math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269510840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- If you want to work on any sort of simulation software (computational fluid dynamics and structural analysis come to mind) you need to have a very strong grasp of partial differential equations, and advanced linear algebra.<br>- If you want to work on any sort of CAD/CAM or visualization software, you need a strong grasp of algebraic and geometric topology and graph theory.<br>- To work on and understand calculations done by any of the above types of software, you should understand numerical analysis.</p><p>Yeah, I've taken a LOT of math.  I've found some interesting bugs related to the mathematics behind a *major* CAD system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- If you want to work on any sort of simulation software ( computational fluid dynamics and structural analysis come to mind ) you need to have a very strong grasp of partial differential equations , and advanced linear algebra.- If you want to work on any sort of CAD/CAM or visualization software , you need a strong grasp of algebraic and geometric topology and graph theory.- To work on and understand calculations done by any of the above types of software , you should understand numerical analysis.Yeah , I 've taken a LOT of math .
I 've found some interesting bugs related to the mathematics behind a * major * CAD system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- If you want to work on any sort of simulation software (computational fluid dynamics and structural analysis come to mind) you need to have a very strong grasp of partial differential equations, and advanced linear algebra.- If you want to work on any sort of CAD/CAM or visualization software, you need a strong grasp of algebraic and geometric topology and graph theory.- To work on and understand calculations done by any of the above types of software, you should understand numerical analysis.Yeah, I've taken a LOT of math.
I've found some interesting bugs related to the mathematics behind a *major* CAD system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906</id>
	<title>Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>TheRagingTowel</author>
	<datestamp>1269507900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another person who is ill defining mathematical thinking. I consider mathematical thinking not only Linear Algebra, Infi et al, but everything that requires exact abstract thinking and has the properties of consistency and a formal and defined "language" to represent ideas.</p><p>For that matter, I think that mathematical thinking should be defined more broadly, such as conceiving design ideas and representing them with, say, UML or DFDs as mathematical thinking as well.</p><p>So yes, mathematical approach is a must in programming.</p><p>Just my 0.02c of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another person who is ill defining mathematical thinking .
I consider mathematical thinking not only Linear Algebra , Infi et al , but everything that requires exact abstract thinking and has the properties of consistency and a formal and defined " language " to represent ideas.For that matter , I think that mathematical thinking should be defined more broadly , such as conceiving design ideas and representing them with , say , UML or DFDs as mathematical thinking as well.So yes , mathematical approach is a must in programming.Just my 0.02c of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another person who is ill defining mathematical thinking.
I consider mathematical thinking not only Linear Algebra, Infi et al, but everything that requires exact abstract thinking and has the properties of consistency and a formal and defined "language" to represent ideas.For that matter, I think that mathematical thinking should be defined more broadly, such as conceiving design ideas and representing them with, say, UML or DFDs as mathematical thinking as well.So yes, mathematical approach is a must in programming.Just my 0.02c of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608886</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1269522420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought it might be the other way around: With math knowledge, but little skills, one would still know what math to tell the computer to do (and find the libraries with the simple apis to do it).</p><p>Obviously, someone with skills but without knowledge is in a better position in the long run, since the knowledge is probably easier to aquire than the skills...</p><p>But, I don't know. I have very little of either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it might be the other way around : With math knowledge , but little skills , one would still know what math to tell the computer to do ( and find the libraries with the simple apis to do it ) .Obviously , someone with skills but without knowledge is in a better position in the long run , since the knowledge is probably easier to aquire than the skills...But , I do n't know .
I have very little of either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it might be the other way around: With math knowledge, but little skills, one would still know what math to tell the computer to do (and find the libraries with the simple apis to do it).Obviously, someone with skills but without knowledge is in a better position in the long run, since the knowledge is probably easier to aquire than the skills...But, I don't know.
I have very little of either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608102</id>
	<title>Honest answer</title>
	<author>R.Cad0r</author>
	<datestamp>1269509940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can answer this honestly, I've been 'programming' nearly 30 years now, I make a very comfortable living, and I actually consider myself to be one of the best at what I do.  But I have absolutely horrible math skills.</p><p>My math history consist of failing pre-algebra in 9th grade, having to suffer thru remedial math in 10th, an advancing all the way back to pre-algebra again in 11th grade. Where I went to school (GA in the 80's), the only required class in 12th grade was English, so no more math I took. Not that I was dense, I was actually in the gifted programs until I stopped caring about what school was teaching me, and was way more interested in what I was doing in my spare time on the computer.</p><p>Now I get paid to solve problems. Mainly big business problems that are worth millions of dollars to my clients.  This rarely involves much math.  My expertise lies in automating processes, integrating existing systems, and creating simple interfaces for people to work efficiently, with even less skills then myself.</p><p>I did eventually spend quite a bit of time teaching myself all the things I missed out on, like geometry and trig, but this was purely for personal reasons, I never use that kind of math in a business environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can answer this honestly , I 've been 'programming ' nearly 30 years now , I make a very comfortable living , and I actually consider myself to be one of the best at what I do .
But I have absolutely horrible math skills.My math history consist of failing pre-algebra in 9th grade , having to suffer thru remedial math in 10th , an advancing all the way back to pre-algebra again in 11th grade .
Where I went to school ( GA in the 80 's ) , the only required class in 12th grade was English , so no more math I took .
Not that I was dense , I was actually in the gifted programs until I stopped caring about what school was teaching me , and was way more interested in what I was doing in my spare time on the computer.Now I get paid to solve problems .
Mainly big business problems that are worth millions of dollars to my clients .
This rarely involves much math .
My expertise lies in automating processes , integrating existing systems , and creating simple interfaces for people to work efficiently , with even less skills then myself.I did eventually spend quite a bit of time teaching myself all the things I missed out on , like geometry and trig , but this was purely for personal reasons , I never use that kind of math in a business environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can answer this honestly, I've been 'programming' nearly 30 years now, I make a very comfortable living, and I actually consider myself to be one of the best at what I do.
But I have absolutely horrible math skills.My math history consist of failing pre-algebra in 9th grade, having to suffer thru remedial math in 10th, an advancing all the way back to pre-algebra again in 11th grade.
Where I went to school (GA in the 80's), the only required class in 12th grade was English, so no more math I took.
Not that I was dense, I was actually in the gifted programs until I stopped caring about what school was teaching me, and was way more interested in what I was doing in my spare time on the computer.Now I get paid to solve problems.
Mainly big business problems that are worth millions of dollars to my clients.
This rarely involves much math.
My expertise lies in automating processes, integrating existing systems, and creating simple interfaces for people to work efficiently, with even less skills then myself.I did eventually spend quite a bit of time teaching myself all the things I missed out on, like geometry and trig, but this was purely for personal reasons, I never use that kind of math in a business environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609056</id>
	<title>If you include statistics, the answer is "yes"</title>
	<author>mpsmps</author>
	<datestamp>1269523860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got a Ph.D. minus epsilon in Math, but never took a statistics course prior to dropping out during the dotcom boom to start a software company. I would trade most of the math I know (which I rarely use) for a solid background in statistics, which comes up all over the place, from the performance of data structures and algorithms, to dataflow analysis, to mining databases, to projecting performance failure rates, etc. This is not just basic statistics (which I managed to pick up on the street), but a deep knowledge of statistics can make a big difference. I just co-authored a paper on a very simple data structure for which the key step in analyzing its performance is to apply the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distribution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a Ph.D. minus epsilon in Math , but never took a statistics course prior to dropping out during the dotcom boom to start a software company .
I would trade most of the math I know ( which I rarely use ) for a solid background in statistics , which comes up all over the place , from the performance of data structures and algorithms , to dataflow analysis , to mining databases , to projecting performance failure rates , etc .
This is not just basic statistics ( which I managed to pick up on the street ) , but a deep knowledge of statistics can make a big difference .
I just co-authored a paper on a very simple data structure for which the key step in analyzing its performance is to apply the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a Ph.D. minus epsilon in Math, but never took a statistics course prior to dropping out during the dotcom boom to start a software company.
I would trade most of the math I know (which I rarely use) for a solid background in statistics, which comes up all over the place, from the performance of data structures and algorithms, to dataflow analysis, to mining databases, to projecting performance failure rates, etc.
This is not just basic statistics (which I managed to pick up on the street), but a deep knowledge of statistics can make a big difference.
I just co-authored a paper on a very simple data structure for which the key step in analyzing its performance is to apply the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distribution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608674</id>
	<title>Math skills are extremely important</title>
	<author>pacergh</author>
	<datestamp>1269519420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many fundamental programming elements require a firm grasp of math.  Otherwise you are just cutting and pasting code you don't understand.</p><p>Further, math enhances the ability to logically and efficiently organize code and a coding project.</p><p>Finally, the more I have delved into coding the more I realize how now-forgotten math skills would help me solve problems.  I remember what those skills could do, just not how to do them.</p><p>Any serious programmer also has to have some serious mathematical skills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many fundamental programming elements require a firm grasp of math .
Otherwise you are just cutting and pasting code you do n't understand.Further , math enhances the ability to logically and efficiently organize code and a coding project.Finally , the more I have delved into coding the more I realize how now-forgotten math skills would help me solve problems .
I remember what those skills could do , just not how to do them.Any serious programmer also has to have some serious mathematical skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many fundamental programming elements require a firm grasp of math.
Otherwise you are just cutting and pasting code you don't understand.Further, math enhances the ability to logically and efficiently organize code and a coding project.Finally, the more I have delved into coding the more I realize how now-forgotten math skills would help me solve problems.
I remember what those skills could do, just not how to do them.Any serious programmer also has to have some serious mathematical skills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609640</id>
	<title>The problem is time...</title>
	<author>jazcap</author>
	<datestamp>1269527220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Programmers work 50+ hour weeks, need to spend time maintaining skills they may not be using in their current job (to be ready for the next one), and need to spend time acquiring new skills (or else risk becoming obsolete). Add to this time for sleep, meals and the occasional shower.<br> <br>
So the question for me, as an early-career programmer, is: do I spend the 15 free minutes I have per week re-learning Linear Algebra, or studying Zizzmo++?
<br> <br>
And please don't make the obvious lewd suggestion about how to spend 15 free minutes -- I do that in the shower!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Programmers work 50 + hour weeks , need to spend time maintaining skills they may not be using in their current job ( to be ready for the next one ) , and need to spend time acquiring new skills ( or else risk becoming obsolete ) .
Add to this time for sleep , meals and the occasional shower .
So the question for me , as an early-career programmer , is : do I spend the 15 free minutes I have per week re-learning Linear Algebra , or studying Zizzmo + + ?
And please do n't make the obvious lewd suggestion about how to spend 15 free minutes -- I do that in the shower !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programmers work 50+ hour weeks, need to spend time maintaining skills they may not be using in their current job (to be ready for the next one), and need to spend time acquiring new skills (or else risk becoming obsolete).
Add to this time for sleep, meals and the occasional shower.
So the question for me, as an early-career programmer, is: do I spend the 15 free minutes I have per week re-learning Linear Algebra, or studying Zizzmo++?
And please don't make the obvious lewd suggestion about how to spend 15 free minutes -- I do that in the shower!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608250</id>
	<title>Food Chain Pyramid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269512340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of you are operating under the assumption that there isn't a need for lower-rung programmers.</p><p>Much of programming is understanding workflow, UI design and other things that don't involve complex math.</p><p>I'll take the guy who understands the APIs and doesn't know math over the guy who understands math and doesn't get the APIs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of you are operating under the assumption that there is n't a need for lower-rung programmers.Much of programming is understanding workflow , UI design and other things that do n't involve complex math.I 'll take the guy who understands the APIs and does n't know math over the guy who understands math and does n't get the APIs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of you are operating under the assumption that there isn't a need for lower-rung programmers.Much of programming is understanding workflow, UI design and other things that don't involve complex math.I'll take the guy who understands the APIs and doesn't know math over the guy who understands math and doesn't get the APIs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608126</id>
	<title>Programmer</title>
	<author>BlackHawk-666</author>
	<datestamp>1269510240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been a programmer for 29 years now. First in BASIC, then PASCAL, MODULA II, C, C++, SQL, C#, and the usual web technologies.</p><p>In all those 29 years I have never once needed math skills beyond what an education to Year 12 in Australia provides. It's true I did do the math classes, so had exposure to differentials, matrices, vectors, and other mathy stuff - but none of that was ever needed.</p><p>What I did need was logic, algorithms, an understanding of how an algorithm executes on a given piece of hardware, and the ability to convert business requirements into lines of code.</p><p>I worked on a range of software which included custom written software for businesses, event driven presentation software, high availability online applications for the London Stock Exchange and FTSE, and tools to manage and value instruments for financial markets.</p><p>The financial market tool took the longest to release (1.5 years to phase 2) and had the most intricate math requirements. Of course, all the actually tricky math was in a library with came from Bloomberg, so the hardest part was coming to terms with the various instruments, storing them, linking to the library to get values out using curves, Black-Scholes, or whatever.</p><p>As for the best programmers being mathematicians, the single worst programmer I have ever worked with was on this project and he had a masters in Maths. His code was sloppy, poorly written, badly documented, and make itself dependant on an extra framework he decided to add to the program because he always used it. He was also spectacularly boring as a person. This was the first project I have ever asked to be removed from.</p><p>Seems like the writer of the article likes maths and is trying to come up with conclusions from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been a programmer for 29 years now .
First in BASIC , then PASCAL , MODULA II , C , C + + , SQL , C # , and the usual web technologies.In all those 29 years I have never once needed math skills beyond what an education to Year 12 in Australia provides .
It 's true I did do the math classes , so had exposure to differentials , matrices , vectors , and other mathy stuff - but none of that was ever needed.What I did need was logic , algorithms , an understanding of how an algorithm executes on a given piece of hardware , and the ability to convert business requirements into lines of code.I worked on a range of software which included custom written software for businesses , event driven presentation software , high availability online applications for the London Stock Exchange and FTSE , and tools to manage and value instruments for financial markets.The financial market tool took the longest to release ( 1.5 years to phase 2 ) and had the most intricate math requirements .
Of course , all the actually tricky math was in a library with came from Bloomberg , so the hardest part was coming to terms with the various instruments , storing them , linking to the library to get values out using curves , Black-Scholes , or whatever.As for the best programmers being mathematicians , the single worst programmer I have ever worked with was on this project and he had a masters in Maths .
His code was sloppy , poorly written , badly documented , and make itself dependant on an extra framework he decided to add to the program because he always used it .
He was also spectacularly boring as a person .
This was the first project I have ever asked to be removed from.Seems like the writer of the article likes maths and is trying to come up with conclusions from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been a programmer for 29 years now.
First in BASIC, then PASCAL, MODULA II, C, C++, SQL, C#, and the usual web technologies.In all those 29 years I have never once needed math skills beyond what an education to Year 12 in Australia provides.
It's true I did do the math classes, so had exposure to differentials, matrices, vectors, and other mathy stuff - but none of that was ever needed.What I did need was logic, algorithms, an understanding of how an algorithm executes on a given piece of hardware, and the ability to convert business requirements into lines of code.I worked on a range of software which included custom written software for businesses, event driven presentation software, high availability online applications for the London Stock Exchange and FTSE, and tools to manage and value instruments for financial markets.The financial market tool took the longest to release (1.5 years to phase 2) and had the most intricate math requirements.
Of course, all the actually tricky math was in a library with came from Bloomberg, so the hardest part was coming to terms with the various instruments, storing them, linking to the library to get values out using curves, Black-Scholes, or whatever.As for the best programmers being mathematicians, the single worst programmer I have ever worked with was on this project and he had a masters in Maths.
His code was sloppy, poorly written, badly documented, and make itself dependant on an extra framework he decided to add to the program because he always used it.
He was also spectacularly boring as a person.
This was the first project I have ever asked to be removed from.Seems like the writer of the article likes maths and is trying to come up with conclusions from there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607970</id>
	<title>Math is not sufficient in most cases.</title>
	<author>Nowhere.Men</author>
	<datestamp>1269508500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To develop algorithms, Yes, you will need math skills but that will not be sufficient. you will need also the knowledge of the dataset you want to process. You do not analyse Facebook data the same way as Afganistan images from UAVs or LHC events.</p><p>So you will have specialists that will tell you how the data need to be analysed.<br>You as IT specialist will need the basic math skills to apply what they told you to.</p><p>Math is not sufficient in most cases.<br>The best mathematician in the world will not be able to tell you how to simulate a galaxy or how to go from a diffraction pattern to the structure of a protein.</p><p>If it is these stuff that you want to code. CS is not the major you should have chosen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To develop algorithms , Yes , you will need math skills but that will not be sufficient .
you will need also the knowledge of the dataset you want to process .
You do not analyse Facebook data the same way as Afganistan images from UAVs or LHC events.So you will have specialists that will tell you how the data need to be analysed.You as IT specialist will need the basic math skills to apply what they told you to.Math is not sufficient in most cases.The best mathematician in the world will not be able to tell you how to simulate a galaxy or how to go from a diffraction pattern to the structure of a protein.If it is these stuff that you want to code .
CS is not the major you should have chosen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To develop algorithms, Yes, you will need math skills but that will not be sufficient.
you will need also the knowledge of the dataset you want to process.
You do not analyse Facebook data the same way as Afganistan images from UAVs or LHC events.So you will have specialists that will tell you how the data need to be analysed.You as IT specialist will need the basic math skills to apply what they told you to.Math is not sufficient in most cases.The best mathematician in the world will not be able to tell you how to simulate a galaxy or how to go from a diffraction pattern to the structure of a protein.If it is these stuff that you want to code.
CS is not the major you should have chosen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608510</id>
	<title>Opportunities</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1269516960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where I'm working, I started out as a generic software developer.  Having some math <i>competency</i> permitted me to lead a really interesting software project in acoustic modeling.  I'm not developing the mathematical models, but I need some math fluency to be able to communicate effectively with the acousticians who <i>do</i> develop the models.</p><p>So at least for me, knowing a little math enabled me to be part of the best project of my career so far.</p><p>Obviously your mileage may vary, especially for more routine business information systems development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I 'm working , I started out as a generic software developer .
Having some math competency permitted me to lead a really interesting software project in acoustic modeling .
I 'm not developing the mathematical models , but I need some math fluency to be able to communicate effectively with the acousticians who do develop the models.So at least for me , knowing a little math enabled me to be part of the best project of my career so far.Obviously your mileage may vary , especially for more routine business information systems development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I'm working, I started out as a generic software developer.
Having some math competency permitted me to lead a really interesting software project in acoustic modeling.
I'm not developing the mathematical models, but I need some math fluency to be able to communicate effectively with the acousticians who do develop the models.So at least for me, knowing a little math enabled me to be part of the best project of my career so far.Obviously your mileage may vary, especially for more routine business information systems development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607998</id>
	<title>Math skills essential?  Of course, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one's going to argue that you need to understand arithmetic, basic algebra, maybe even some geometry, statistics, and trig depending on what you're doing.  That's true frankly not just for computer science and IT, but for any even semi-technical field.  But integral calculus?  Differential Equations?  Nonsense.  But yet most colleges require two to three years of calculus for CS majors.  A lot of this is probably because CS is part of the Engineering department and it's easier to just make the core requirements the same, and I'm sure a lot of it is just plain greed.
<br> <br>
Math <i>skills</i> are undeniably important; but there's no denying that, as with a lot of things, many universities take it to illogical extremes, which is more likely the origin of any math antipathy in the CS community.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one 's going to argue that you need to understand arithmetic , basic algebra , maybe even some geometry , statistics , and trig depending on what you 're doing .
That 's true frankly not just for computer science and IT , but for any even semi-technical field .
But integral calculus ?
Differential Equations ?
Nonsense. But yet most colleges require two to three years of calculus for CS majors .
A lot of this is probably because CS is part of the Engineering department and it 's easier to just make the core requirements the same , and I 'm sure a lot of it is just plain greed .
Math skills are undeniably important ; but there 's no denying that , as with a lot of things , many universities take it to illogical extremes , which is more likely the origin of any math antipathy in the CS community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one's going to argue that you need to understand arithmetic, basic algebra, maybe even some geometry, statistics, and trig depending on what you're doing.
That's true frankly not just for computer science and IT, but for any even semi-technical field.
But integral calculus?
Differential Equations?
Nonsense.  But yet most colleges require two to three years of calculus for CS majors.
A lot of this is probably because CS is part of the Engineering department and it's easier to just make the core requirements the same, and I'm sure a lot of it is just plain greed.
Math skills are undeniably important; but there's no denying that, as with a lot of things, many universities take it to illogical extremes, which is more likely the origin of any math antipathy in the CS community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608490</id>
	<title>If you live in the UK...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269516600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone ever see what a LTD company in the UK has to do to generate a VAT invoice. For eCommerce stuff maths is very important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone ever see what a LTD company in the UK has to do to generate a VAT invoice .
For eCommerce stuff maths is very important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone ever see what a LTD company in the UK has to do to generate a VAT invoice.
For eCommerce stuff maths is very important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608592</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269518100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; That, or you're just incredibly stingy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>He could also work for Verizon.</p><p>Though they usually make the inverse of that mistake...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; That , or you 're just incredibly stingy .
; - ) He could also work for Verizon.Though they usually make the inverse of that mistake.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; That, or you're just incredibly stingy.
;-)He could also work for Verizon.Though they usually make the inverse of that mistake...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608706</id>
	<title>First decide what you want out of programming...</title>
	<author>IMustBeNuts</author>
	<datestamp>1269520020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen great maths/physics experts who were lousy programmers, and some self taught people who were brilliant... and naturally I've seen the opposite too. What you really need is a person with a skill set that is appropriate for the role that they are to fill.  Myself, my math skills are basic at best, while my application of logic is quite solid - or so I've been told, and in my personal case, I work with Physics PHD's who understand the math way better than I do, but make the most elementary design mistakes if left to manage a project by themselves, this in spite of their having 6-10 years of programming "experience".  My role largely involves writing APIs, and is very people-oriented, so I find that I don't need the same level of math that my colleagues need.  Their role is to design algorithms, and yes, to dumb them down somewhat so that I and others in the team can make better use of such things so that our work integrates well with what our DSP engineers do.  I wouldn't be suited for something as math oriented as game theory, whereas I think my colleagues would actually be better suited to such a role.  I can however design and build relatively complex information systems, which tends to benefit more from a skill set where logic and people skills are more prominent.

It really is a case of "It depends".  If you're unsure and would like to keep your options wide open before you dive into the programming deep end, then yes, I'd suggest you delve into the maths a bit, and see where it leads you.  If you already know where your career is going, you can always learn more as you go, pick up the skills you need along the way to make yourself more marketable.  For my own roles, I've wished I studied more psychology (never thought I'd actually ever admit to that!!)... but that's just because of the nature of the type of products I've worked on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen great maths/physics experts who were lousy programmers , and some self taught people who were brilliant... and naturally I 've seen the opposite too .
What you really need is a person with a skill set that is appropriate for the role that they are to fill .
Myself , my math skills are basic at best , while my application of logic is quite solid - or so I 've been told , and in my personal case , I work with Physics PHD 's who understand the math way better than I do , but make the most elementary design mistakes if left to manage a project by themselves , this in spite of their having 6-10 years of programming " experience " .
My role largely involves writing APIs , and is very people-oriented , so I find that I do n't need the same level of math that my colleagues need .
Their role is to design algorithms , and yes , to dumb them down somewhat so that I and others in the team can make better use of such things so that our work integrates well with what our DSP engineers do .
I would n't be suited for something as math oriented as game theory , whereas I think my colleagues would actually be better suited to such a role .
I can however design and build relatively complex information systems , which tends to benefit more from a skill set where logic and people skills are more prominent .
It really is a case of " It depends " .
If you 're unsure and would like to keep your options wide open before you dive into the programming deep end , then yes , I 'd suggest you delve into the maths a bit , and see where it leads you .
If you already know where your career is going , you can always learn more as you go , pick up the skills you need along the way to make yourself more marketable .
For my own roles , I 've wished I studied more psychology ( never thought I 'd actually ever admit to that ! ! ) .. .
but that 's just because of the nature of the type of products I 've worked on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen great maths/physics experts who were lousy programmers, and some self taught people who were brilliant... and naturally I've seen the opposite too.
What you really need is a person with a skill set that is appropriate for the role that they are to fill.
Myself, my math skills are basic at best, while my application of logic is quite solid - or so I've been told, and in my personal case, I work with Physics PHD's who understand the math way better than I do, but make the most elementary design mistakes if left to manage a project by themselves, this in spite of their having 6-10 years of programming "experience".
My role largely involves writing APIs, and is very people-oriented, so I find that I don't need the same level of math that my colleagues need.
Their role is to design algorithms, and yes, to dumb them down somewhat so that I and others in the team can make better use of such things so that our work integrates well with what our DSP engineers do.
I wouldn't be suited for something as math oriented as game theory, whereas I think my colleagues would actually be better suited to such a role.
I can however design and build relatively complex information systems, which tends to benefit more from a skill set where logic and people skills are more prominent.
It really is a case of "It depends".
If you're unsure and would like to keep your options wide open before you dive into the programming deep end, then yes, I'd suggest you delve into the maths a bit, and see where it leads you.
If you already know where your career is going, you can always learn more as you go, pick up the skills you need along the way to make yourself more marketable.
For my own roles, I've wished I studied more psychology (never thought I'd actually ever admit to that!!)...
but that's just because of the nature of the type of products I've worked on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608136</id>
	<title>Only needed for game development</title>
	<author>mogness</author>
	<datestamp>1269510300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am a C programmer for an equities clearing company. Basically we just work with a lot of data. Higher math skills are completely unnecessary. To go against the programmer stereotype, I don't have a great interest in math. Math, so far as I've seen, is only necessary if you work in the game development world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a C programmer for an equities clearing company .
Basically we just work with a lot of data .
Higher math skills are completely unnecessary .
To go against the programmer stereotype , I do n't have a great interest in math .
Math , so far as I 've seen , is only necessary if you work in the game development world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a C programmer for an equities clearing company.
Basically we just work with a lot of data.
Higher math skills are completely unnecessary.
To go against the programmer stereotype, I don't have a great interest in math.
Math, so far as I've seen, is only necessary if you work in the game development world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608916</id>
	<title>Re:Strong Math Skills often get dumbed down</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1269522780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>that's called maintainable code, son, and if you don't understand that you'll never stick on a large-scale development team.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's called maintainable code , son , and if you do n't understand that you 'll never stick on a large-scale development team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's called maintainable code, son, and if you don't understand that you'll never stick on a large-scale development team.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607912</id>
	<title>math skills essential</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269507960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, Skorks contends that if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field, math skills are essential and furthermore, will become increasingly important as we are forced to work with ever larger data sets</p></div><p>Highly subjective - and it's not unreasonable to say that if the above holds for the field of computer science, then it pretty much holds for most other fields also. To do some truly interesting work, math skills are essential. Substitute your prefered value for "truly interesting".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , Skorks contends that if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field , math skills are essential and furthermore , will become increasingly important as we are forced to work with ever larger data setsHighly subjective - and it 's not unreasonable to say that if the above holds for the field of computer science , then it pretty much holds for most other fields also .
To do some truly interesting work , math skills are essential .
Substitute your prefered value for " truly interesting " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, Skorks contends that if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field, math skills are essential and furthermore, will become increasingly important as we are forced to work with ever larger data setsHighly subjective - and it's not unreasonable to say that if the above holds for the field of computer science, then it pretty much holds for most other fields also.
To do some truly interesting work, math skills are essential.
Substitute your prefered value for "truly interesting".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609064</id>
	<title>Math skills != knowledge of mathematical theory</title>
	<author>hlub</author>
	<datestamp>1269523920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a well-known story, when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl\_Friedrich\_Gauss" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Carl Friedrich Gauss</a> [wikipedia.org] was a little boy, his schoolteacher asked the class to add up the numbers from 1 up to 100 (1 + 2 +<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... + 100). Like many programmers would have done nowadays, his classmates sharpended their pencils, sighed deeply and started adding up: 1 + 2 = 3, 3 + 3 = 6,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... To the teacher's surprise and annoyance, Gauss came up with the correct answer right away, by re-ordering the numbers like this: (1 + 100) + (2 + 99) +<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... + (49+ 52) + (50+51) = 50 * 101 = 5050</p><p>Gauss clearly made use of his budding math skills here, and would have been a superb programmer had he been born two centuries later. But he hardly used mathematical "theory" to create this 200-year old "programming pearl"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a well-known story , when Carl Friedrich Gauss [ wikipedia.org ] was a little boy , his schoolteacher asked the class to add up the numbers from 1 up to 100 ( 1 + 2 + ... + 100 ) .
Like many programmers would have done nowadays , his classmates sharpended their pencils , sighed deeply and started adding up : 1 + 2 = 3 , 3 + 3 = 6 , .... To the teacher 's surprise and annoyance , Gauss came up with the correct answer right away , by re-ordering the numbers like this : ( 1 + 100 ) + ( 2 + 99 ) + ... + ( 49 + 52 ) + ( 50 + 51 ) = 50 * 101 = 5050Gauss clearly made use of his budding math skills here , and would have been a superb programmer had he been born two centuries later .
But he hardly used mathematical " theory " to create this 200-year old " programming pearl "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a well-known story, when Carl Friedrich Gauss [wikipedia.org] was a little boy, his schoolteacher asked the class to add up the numbers from 1 up to 100 (1 + 2 + ... + 100).
Like many programmers would have done nowadays, his classmates sharpended their pencils, sighed deeply and started adding up: 1 + 2 = 3, 3 + 3 = 6, .... To the teacher's surprise and annoyance, Gauss came up with the correct answer right away, by re-ordering the numbers like this: (1 + 100) + (2 + 99) + ... + (49+ 52) + (50+51) = 50 * 101 = 5050Gauss clearly made use of his budding math skills here, and would have been a superb programmer had he been born two centuries later.
But he hardly used mathematical "theory" to create this 200-year old "programming pearl"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613518</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Hotawa Hawk-eye</author>
	<datestamp>1269541260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Theorietically yes but without physics what would you use math for?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Well, there's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography" title="wikipedia.org">ensuring your online purchases are secure</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics" title="wikipedia.org">deciding how many people you need to survey to get a good sense of how the population at large would respond to that same survey</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank" title="wikipedia.org">determining relative "importance" of webpages on the Internet</a> [wikipedia.org], or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka\%E2\%80\%93Volterra\_equation" title="wikipedia.org">simulating how a biological system involving a predator and its prey will evolve over time</a> [wikipedia.org], to name a few.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theorietically yes but without physics what would you use math for ?
Well , there 's ensuring your online purchases are secure [ wikipedia.org ] , deciding how many people you need to survey to get a good sense of how the population at large would respond to that same survey [ wikipedia.org ] , determining relative " importance " of webpages on the Internet [ wikipedia.org ] , or simulating how a biological system involving a predator and its prey will evolve over time [ wikipedia.org ] , to name a few .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theorietically yes but without physics what would you use math for?
Well, there's ensuring your online purchases are secure [wikipedia.org], deciding how many people you need to survey to get a good sense of how the population at large would respond to that same survey [wikipedia.org], determining relative "importance" of webpages on the Internet [wikipedia.org], or simulating how a biological system involving a predator and its prey will evolve over time [wikipedia.org], to name a few.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31616352</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consistency?  Boy does Kurt G&#246;del have some news for you, my friend...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consistency ?
Boy does Kurt G   del have some news for you , my friend.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consistency?
Boy does Kurt Gödel have some news for you, my friend...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613232</id>
	<title>Re:No, but Logic is mandatory.</title>
	<author>cervo</author>
	<datestamp>1269540420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would add that the logic is easy.  I mean even as an 8th grader I could understand the and/or/xor/not.  The only thing that I really picked up from a math class was DeMorgan's laws (I kind of knew them by thinking through the problems...but not the name of the law or that you could apply it generically to any expression without thinking) and I have actually used them on occasion (I also picked up disjunctive/conjunctive normal form but I don't use those in programming....).  But actually I found that programming made the logic portion of discrete math super easy for me when I got to it because I wasn't really learning much new stuff.  Also even boolean Algebra was easy because A+B = A OR B and A*B = A AND B which mapped back to programming....<br> <br>
But anyway I also witnessed people struggle with logic and truth tables in college.  But as long as you understand AND/OR/NOT and how things map to them, you can easily enumerate out the possibilities for a truth table, and simplify most expressions.  DeMorgan's law is also useful for simplifying expressions sometimes, but mostly it doesn't matter.  You whether you use De Morgan's law or not, the expression will work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would add that the logic is easy .
I mean even as an 8th grader I could understand the and/or/xor/not .
The only thing that I really picked up from a math class was DeMorgan 's laws ( I kind of knew them by thinking through the problems...but not the name of the law or that you could apply it generically to any expression without thinking ) and I have actually used them on occasion ( I also picked up disjunctive/conjunctive normal form but I do n't use those in programming.... ) .
But actually I found that programming made the logic portion of discrete math super easy for me when I got to it because I was n't really learning much new stuff .
Also even boolean Algebra was easy because A + B = A OR B and A * B = A AND B which mapped back to programming... . But anyway I also witnessed people struggle with logic and truth tables in college .
But as long as you understand AND/OR/NOT and how things map to them , you can easily enumerate out the possibilities for a truth table , and simplify most expressions .
DeMorgan 's law is also useful for simplifying expressions sometimes , but mostly it does n't matter .
You whether you use De Morgan 's law or not , the expression will work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would add that the logic is easy.
I mean even as an 8th grader I could understand the and/or/xor/not.
The only thing that I really picked up from a math class was DeMorgan's laws (I kind of knew them by thinking through the problems...but not the name of the law or that you could apply it generically to any expression without thinking) and I have actually used them on occasion (I also picked up disjunctive/conjunctive normal form but I don't use those in programming....).
But actually I found that programming made the logic portion of discrete math super easy for me when I got to it because I wasn't really learning much new stuff.
Also even boolean Algebra was easy because A+B = A OR B and A*B = A AND B which mapped back to programming.... 
But anyway I also witnessed people struggle with logic and truth tables in college.
But as long as you understand AND/OR/NOT and how things map to them, you can easily enumerate out the possibilities for a truth table, and simplify most expressions.
DeMorgan's law is also useful for simplifying expressions sometimes, but mostly it doesn't matter.
You whether you use De Morgan's law or not, the expression will work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610084</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>halowolf</author>
	<datestamp>1269529620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a computer programmer. And going by the reaction of my peers, a good one. I enjoyed science, physics and chemistry theory were easy for me, but I never had any aptitude for mathematics (though I could do some mean stoichiometry). Simple stuff wasn't a problem, logic, stats, discrete mathematics, translating mathematical equations into computer code, all the basics I can handle, but when it came to the complex stuff I was just completely useless at it. I could program neural networks, but when it came to things like calculus I could barely hang on while others found it easy. <br> <br>
Everything says that I should be good at maths but I'm just not, but programming I have an aptitude for, the problem solving aspect of it, breaking things down, I just get. If I get a complex maths type problem to overcome in my job, then I know how to do the research to get me to a solution and get on with doing what I do best. I've finished systems that other programmers were fired from because they couldn't handle the complexity of what had to be done (and when I say finished, I mean I threw away what was there and started again because it was just so awful, just don't tell the boss lol). <br> <br>
I've worked with super smart people whose maths skills dwarf mine, but have produced the most awfully complex code that just wasn't necessary to get the job done. My philosophy, keep it as simple as possible all the time. I've had interesting work which required some good maths work to get done, while it wasn't my forte, I at least have a skill set where I can research what I need to get to an understanding to get the job done.<br> <br>
While I think TFA makes some good points, i don't think its the be all and end all if like me, your math just sucks, but you have an aptitude for programming itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a computer programmer .
And going by the reaction of my peers , a good one .
I enjoyed science , physics and chemistry theory were easy for me , but I never had any aptitude for mathematics ( though I could do some mean stoichiometry ) .
Simple stuff was n't a problem , logic , stats , discrete mathematics , translating mathematical equations into computer code , all the basics I can handle , but when it came to the complex stuff I was just completely useless at it .
I could program neural networks , but when it came to things like calculus I could barely hang on while others found it easy .
Everything says that I should be good at maths but I 'm just not , but programming I have an aptitude for , the problem solving aspect of it , breaking things down , I just get .
If I get a complex maths type problem to overcome in my job , then I know how to do the research to get me to a solution and get on with doing what I do best .
I 've finished systems that other programmers were fired from because they could n't handle the complexity of what had to be done ( and when I say finished , I mean I threw away what was there and started again because it was just so awful , just do n't tell the boss lol ) .
I 've worked with super smart people whose maths skills dwarf mine , but have produced the most awfully complex code that just was n't necessary to get the job done .
My philosophy , keep it as simple as possible all the time .
I 've had interesting work which required some good maths work to get done , while it was n't my forte , I at least have a skill set where I can research what I need to get to an understanding to get the job done .
While I think TFA makes some good points , i do n't think its the be all and end all if like me , your math just sucks , but you have an aptitude for programming itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a computer programmer.
And going by the reaction of my peers, a good one.
I enjoyed science, physics and chemistry theory were easy for me, but I never had any aptitude for mathematics (though I could do some mean stoichiometry).
Simple stuff wasn't a problem, logic, stats, discrete mathematics, translating mathematical equations into computer code, all the basics I can handle, but when it came to the complex stuff I was just completely useless at it.
I could program neural networks, but when it came to things like calculus I could barely hang on while others found it easy.
Everything says that I should be good at maths but I'm just not, but programming I have an aptitude for, the problem solving aspect of it, breaking things down, I just get.
If I get a complex maths type problem to overcome in my job, then I know how to do the research to get me to a solution and get on with doing what I do best.
I've finished systems that other programmers were fired from because they couldn't handle the complexity of what had to be done (and when I say finished, I mean I threw away what was there and started again because it was just so awful, just don't tell the boss lol).
I've worked with super smart people whose maths skills dwarf mine, but have produced the most awfully complex code that just wasn't necessary to get the job done.
My philosophy, keep it as simple as possible all the time.
I've had interesting work which required some good maths work to get done, while it wasn't my forte, I at least have a skill set where I can research what I need to get to an understanding to get the job done.
While I think TFA makes some good points, i don't think its the be all and end all if like me, your math just sucks, but you have an aptitude for programming itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31617618</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269511440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That, or"</p><p>Neither, he works (or worked) for Verizon.</p><p>See, proofs for 100\% certainty in programming \_are\_ important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That , or " Neither , he works ( or worked ) for Verizon.See , proofs for 100 \ % certainty in programming \ _are \ _ important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That, or"Neither, he works (or worked) for Verizon.See, proofs for 100\% certainty in programming \_are\_ important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611460</id>
	<title>Differential Equations</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1269534900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never paid much attention in Diff Equ's class and I wish I had.  Or rather I wish the material was presented in a much more practical applications way.  Every time I went to a SIGGraph course or paper presentation on dynamics, the speaker would say something nebulous like "We implemented a 4th order adaptive Runge-Kutta solver" or "We implemented the Navier-Stokes equations".  Sure you did.  Let me see the damn source code, smartass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never paid much attention in Diff Equ 's class and I wish I had .
Or rather I wish the material was presented in a much more practical applications way .
Every time I went to a SIGGraph course or paper presentation on dynamics , the speaker would say something nebulous like " We implemented a 4th order adaptive Runge-Kutta solver " or " We implemented the Navier-Stokes equations " .
Sure you did .
Let me see the damn source code , smartass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never paid much attention in Diff Equ's class and I wish I had.
Or rather I wish the material was presented in a much more practical applications way.
Every time I went to a SIGGraph course or paper presentation on dynamics, the speaker would say something nebulous like "We implemented a 4th order adaptive Runge-Kutta solver" or "We implemented the Navier-Stokes equations".
Sure you did.
Let me see the damn source code, smartass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609832</id>
	<title>essential skill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269528300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>math is essential skill for any programmer, i have found myself quite a few times lacking the math skills to make something work. week(s) of mathematical brainfuck usually follow when it happens. i really wish i had better understanding of maths</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>math is essential skill for any programmer , i have found myself quite a few times lacking the math skills to make something work .
week ( s ) of mathematical brainfuck usually follow when it happens .
i really wish i had better understanding of maths</tokentext>
<sentencetext>math is essential skill for any programmer, i have found myself quite a few times lacking the math skills to make something work.
week(s) of mathematical brainfuck usually follow when it happens.
i really wish i had better understanding of maths</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610856</id>
	<title>Re:bottom line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269532980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BullShitMan.</p><p>So you are arguing that instead of reading a paper on xorshift after googling for fast and simple PRNGs with good output and going with that, I should learn up to the level of the bearded professor who wrote the paper and try to invent something on that level myself?</p><p>When I have had too much time on my hands, I have tried using my math knowledge to attack some hard problems with real world applications. But as you see, I am not rich and still post on Slashdot.</p><p>Thus, I prefer to do it my way, thank you.</p><p>BTW, do you get paid for staying at home dreaming of numbers and greek letters?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BullShitMan.So you are arguing that instead of reading a paper on xorshift after googling for fast and simple PRNGs with good output and going with that , I should learn up to the level of the bearded professor who wrote the paper and try to invent something on that level myself ? When I have had too much time on my hands , I have tried using my math knowledge to attack some hard problems with real world applications .
But as you see , I am not rich and still post on Slashdot.Thus , I prefer to do it my way , thank you.BTW , do you get paid for staying at home dreaming of numbers and greek letters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BullShitMan.So you are arguing that instead of reading a paper on xorshift after googling for fast and simple PRNGs with good output and going with that, I should learn up to the level of the bearded professor who wrote the paper and try to invent something on that level myself?When I have had too much time on my hands, I have tried using my math knowledge to attack some hard problems with real world applications.
But as you see, I am not rich and still post on Slashdot.Thus, I prefer to do it my way, thank you.BTW, do you get paid for staying at home dreaming of numbers and greek letters?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613758</id>
	<title>Mathematics Degree</title>
	<author>cervo</author>
	<datestamp>1269541920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an undergrad, one of the schools I went to tried to sell either a Mathematics dual major or a minor to the computer science students...  The argument was that mathematics classes aren't necessarily going to be useful in what you do, there are many jobs where solving a differential equation does not matter....  But that by solving the math problems you learn to pay attention to the details and to analyze things breaking complex processes into pieces.  The physics teacher used the same argument for physics saying it makes you better pay attention to detail and problem solve.<br> <br>
Anyway I don't know if any of that is true or not.  I had a mathematics major friend who claimed that by locking himself away for a few years and solving some proof, somehow it would magically increase his analytic skills and make him more employable.  I don't know about that...<br> <br>
I have a math minor, I'm not sure it helps that much.  I have a "normal" programming job.  And looking on the various job sites, most programming jobs seem to be linking some type of data to a database, either processing it, creating a web front end for it, etc... basic corporate development.  Mostly it doesn't require more than high school algebra on the math skills.  I see a lot of people considered "good programmers" who don't even understand Big O notation.  But it's good enough for most stuff.  Many of them intuitively know that a hash table is fast for lookups, and a sorted list is good if you need fast lookups and an order even though they don't know BIG O notation.  In my jobs, the only really "advanced" math skill I pulled out was topological sorting for dependencies because I made a calculation engine.  Also once I saw some code for a bisection method, which was mislabeled newton's method and obviously cut and pasted online.  But an awful lot of the numerical methods have the formulas posted online with directions, so it seems like even the occasional numeric method is no problem.  Most people's business reports are full of averages and percent increases which are all easy to do...</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an undergrad , one of the schools I went to tried to sell either a Mathematics dual major or a minor to the computer science students... The argument was that mathematics classes are n't necessarily going to be useful in what you do , there are many jobs where solving a differential equation does not matter.... But that by solving the math problems you learn to pay attention to the details and to analyze things breaking complex processes into pieces .
The physics teacher used the same argument for physics saying it makes you better pay attention to detail and problem solve .
Anyway I do n't know if any of that is true or not .
I had a mathematics major friend who claimed that by locking himself away for a few years and solving some proof , somehow it would magically increase his analytic skills and make him more employable .
I do n't know about that.. . I have a math minor , I 'm not sure it helps that much .
I have a " normal " programming job .
And looking on the various job sites , most programming jobs seem to be linking some type of data to a database , either processing it , creating a web front end for it , etc... basic corporate development .
Mostly it does n't require more than high school algebra on the math skills .
I see a lot of people considered " good programmers " who do n't even understand Big O notation .
But it 's good enough for most stuff .
Many of them intuitively know that a hash table is fast for lookups , and a sorted list is good if you need fast lookups and an order even though they do n't know BIG O notation .
In my jobs , the only really " advanced " math skill I pulled out was topological sorting for dependencies because I made a calculation engine .
Also once I saw some code for a bisection method , which was mislabeled newton 's method and obviously cut and pasted online .
But an awful lot of the numerical methods have the formulas posted online with directions , so it seems like even the occasional numeric method is no problem .
Most people 's business reports are full of averages and percent increases which are all easy to do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an undergrad, one of the schools I went to tried to sell either a Mathematics dual major or a minor to the computer science students...  The argument was that mathematics classes aren't necessarily going to be useful in what you do, there are many jobs where solving a differential equation does not matter....  But that by solving the math problems you learn to pay attention to the details and to analyze things breaking complex processes into pieces.
The physics teacher used the same argument for physics saying it makes you better pay attention to detail and problem solve.
Anyway I don't know if any of that is true or not.
I had a mathematics major friend who claimed that by locking himself away for a few years and solving some proof, somehow it would magically increase his analytic skills and make him more employable.
I don't know about that... 
I have a math minor, I'm not sure it helps that much.
I have a "normal" programming job.
And looking on the various job sites, most programming jobs seem to be linking some type of data to a database, either processing it, creating a web front end for it, etc... basic corporate development.
Mostly it doesn't require more than high school algebra on the math skills.
I see a lot of people considered "good programmers" who don't even understand Big O notation.
But it's good enough for most stuff.
Many of them intuitively know that a hash table is fast for lookups, and a sorted list is good if you need fast lookups and an order even though they don't know BIG O notation.
In my jobs, the only really "advanced" math skill I pulled out was topological sorting for dependencies because I made a calculation engine.
Also once I saw some code for a bisection method, which was mislabeled newton's method and obviously cut and pasted online.
But an awful lot of the numerical methods have the formulas posted online with directions, so it seems like even the occasional numeric method is no problem.
Most people's business reports are full of averages and percent increases which are all easy to do...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611498</id>
	<title>Get to it slaves!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269535020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a BSME degree, and had to learn lots of math to get it. But out in the real world, no one uses math, it is all done on the computer, so learn the math, and get busy programming, slave, or the we will return to the stone age!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a BSME degree , and had to learn lots of math to get it .
But out in the real world , no one uses math , it is all done on the computer , so learn the math , and get busy programming , slave , or the we will return to the stone age !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a BSME degree, and had to learn lots of math to get it.
But out in the real world, no one uses math, it is all done on the computer, so learn the math, and get busy programming, slave, or the we will return to the stone age!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608810</id>
	<title>In a competetive environment</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1269521700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The broad-based American educated candidate will win over the specialised European candidate in both the short and the long term. Math, psych, philosophy, writing, all are necessary over the long term.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The broad-based American educated candidate will win over the specialised European candidate in both the short and the long term .
Math , psych , philosophy , writing , all are necessary over the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The broad-based American educated candidate will win over the specialised European candidate in both the short and the long term.
Math, psych, philosophy, writing, all are necessary over the long term.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608440</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>X10</author>
	<datestamp>1269515520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Math KNOWLEDGE may be debatable, but Math skills are essential.<br>If you don't have the ability to break up and solve mathmatical formulas, how do you expect to be able to solve complex programming tasks?</p></div><p>I couldn't agree more. It's about the ability to make complex abstractions and to create a complex model in your mind. People with proven skills in math or physics have that ability. You don't have the ability, you're not an excellent programmer.</p><p>I'm used to working in or with teams of programmers that have proper university education in science. This week, I left a job because the programmers in my team did not have proper education in math. I could see it in their code.</p><p>Proper math skills are essential.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Math KNOWLEDGE may be debatable , but Math skills are essential.If you do n't have the ability to break up and solve mathmatical formulas , how do you expect to be able to solve complex programming tasks ? I could n't agree more .
It 's about the ability to make complex abstractions and to create a complex model in your mind .
People with proven skills in math or physics have that ability .
You do n't have the ability , you 're not an excellent programmer.I 'm used to working in or with teams of programmers that have proper university education in science .
This week , I left a job because the programmers in my team did not have proper education in math .
I could see it in their code.Proper math skills are essential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math KNOWLEDGE may be debatable, but Math skills are essential.If you don't have the ability to break up and solve mathmatical formulas, how do you expect to be able to solve complex programming tasks?I couldn't agree more.
It's about the ability to make complex abstractions and to create a complex model in your mind.
People with proven skills in math or physics have that ability.
You don't have the ability, you're not an excellent programmer.I'm used to working in or with teams of programmers that have proper university education in science.
This week, I left a job because the programmers in my team did not have proper education in math.
I could see it in their code.Proper math skills are essential.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609856</id>
	<title>Re:Strong Math Skills often get dumbed down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269528420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Readability is never about complexity of the algorithm.  It's about proper coding standards and encapsulation.  If your *dumb* project manager can't figure it out it's likely that the next *math guy* will find it annoyingly difficult to follow too and that's more of a reflection on your skill as a developer than the fact that you got the algorithm to work in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Readability is never about complexity of the algorithm .
It 's about proper coding standards and encapsulation .
If your * dumb * project manager ca n't figure it out it 's likely that the next * math guy * will find it annoyingly difficult to follow too and that 's more of a reflection on your skill as a developer than the fact that you got the algorithm to work in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Readability is never about complexity of the algorithm.
It's about proper coding standards and encapsulation.
If your *dumb* project manager can't figure it out it's likely that the next *math guy* will find it annoyingly difficult to follow too and that's more of a reflection on your skill as a developer than the fact that you got the algorithm to work in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608316</id>
	<title>Only maths makes for truly interesting work?</title>
	<author>mrjb</author>
	<datestamp>1269513300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Skorks contends that if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field, math skills are essential and furthermore, will become increasingly important as we are forced to work with ever larger data sets (making math-intensive algorithm analysis skills a priority).</p></div></blockquote><p>

It partially depends on the definition of "Truly interesting work".<br> <br>
The point of math skills is mostly that they are problem solving skills. You want programmers to have those skills.<br> <br>I think the point of 'ever larger data sets' is moot. Sure- someone will have to be on the forefront and develop the truly interesting algorithms- but for handling large data sets, this has already been taken into consideration long ago: heap sort will perform in O(N*2log(N)), quicksort will run in O(n*log(n)) but can be run in parallel to run in O(n). It's a done deal. Truly interesting work may not be to reinvent the wheel once again, but instead to just use libraries and actually get neat stuff done.<br> <br>
One could argue as easily that the "truly interesting work" does not involve a lot of maths but electronics instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Skorks contends that if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field , math skills are essential and furthermore , will become increasingly important as we are forced to work with ever larger data sets ( making math-intensive algorithm analysis skills a priority ) .
It partially depends on the definition of " Truly interesting work " .
The point of math skills is mostly that they are problem solving skills .
You want programmers to have those skills .
I think the point of 'ever larger data sets ' is moot .
Sure- someone will have to be on the forefront and develop the truly interesting algorithms- but for handling large data sets , this has already been taken into consideration long ago : heap sort will perform in O ( N * 2log ( N ) ) , quicksort will run in O ( n * log ( n ) ) but can be run in parallel to run in O ( n ) .
It 's a done deal .
Truly interesting work may not be to reinvent the wheel once again , but instead to just use libraries and actually get neat stuff done .
One could argue as easily that the " truly interesting work " does not involve a lot of maths but electronics instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skorks contends that if you want to do truly interesting work in the software development field, math skills are essential and furthermore, will become increasingly important as we are forced to work with ever larger data sets (making math-intensive algorithm analysis skills a priority).
It partially depends on the definition of "Truly interesting work".
The point of math skills is mostly that they are problem solving skills.
You want programmers to have those skills.
I think the point of 'ever larger data sets' is moot.
Sure- someone will have to be on the forefront and develop the truly interesting algorithms- but for handling large data sets, this has already been taken into consideration long ago: heap sort will perform in O(N*2log(N)), quicksort will run in O(n*log(n)) but can be run in parallel to run in O(n).
It's a done deal.
Truly interesting work may not be to reinvent the wheel once again, but instead to just use libraries and actually get neat stuff done.
One could argue as easily that the "truly interesting work" does not involve a lot of maths but electronics instead.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609070</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269523980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes  I do know this, It's not that I dont understand the realtion between them. Physics do require math. But before you start calulating friction or plank constant you need to know what it's your trying to figure out. You need a perpose four your math.

But to be presice I do not belive math could exist without physics or wiser versa. Theorietically yes but without physics what would you use math for?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes I do know this , It 's not that I dont understand the realtion between them .
Physics do require math .
But before you start calulating friction or plank constant you need to know what it 's your trying to figure out .
You need a perpose four your math .
But to be presice I do not belive math could exist without physics or wiser versa .
Theorietically yes but without physics what would you use math for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes  I do know this, It's not that I dont understand the realtion between them.
Physics do require math.
But before you start calulating friction or plank constant you need to know what it's your trying to figure out.
You need a perpose four your math.
But to be presice I do not belive math could exist without physics or wiser versa.
Theorietically yes but without physics what would you use math for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612794</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>benj\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1269538980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spot on.  I use nearly all those on a daily basis doing GIS development.  I am just now finishing up a tool that creates isopleth maps from soil sample data, and have also created code to make choropleth maps from all kinds of sales data. That's Linear Algebra, Graph Theory, and Stats in a big way.</p><p>When I was a Math student, back in the day, Programming was considered by many to be a branch of Applied Mathematics. I still hold that to be true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spot on .
I use nearly all those on a daily basis doing GIS development .
I am just now finishing up a tool that creates isopleth maps from soil sample data , and have also created code to make choropleth maps from all kinds of sales data .
That 's Linear Algebra , Graph Theory , and Stats in a big way.When I was a Math student , back in the day , Programming was considered by many to be a branch of Applied Mathematics .
I still hold that to be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spot on.
I use nearly all those on a daily basis doing GIS development.
I am just now finishing up a tool that creates isopleth maps from soil sample data, and have also created code to make choropleth maps from all kinds of sales data.
That's Linear Algebra, Graph Theory, and Stats in a big way.When I was a Math student, back in the day, Programming was considered by many to be a branch of Applied Mathematics.
I still hold that to be true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608008</id>
	<title>Necessary.</title>
	<author>Draele</author>
	<datestamp>1269508800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if you don't end up doing any actual high-level math, the ability to work with complex problems in a mathematical fashion is essential.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you do n't end up doing any actual high-level math , the ability to work with complex problems in a mathematical fashion is essential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you don't end up doing any actual high-level math, the ability to work with complex problems in a mathematical fashion is essential.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610954</id>
	<title>Re:Math skills are becoming more important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269533340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Calculus includes the Newton-Raphson method to find algebraic roots. So, some Calculus is well suited to computer programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Calculus includes the Newton-Raphson method to find algebraic roots .
So , some Calculus is well suited to computer programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calculus includes the Newton-Raphson method to find algebraic roots.
So, some Calculus is well suited to computer programming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31634682</id>
	<title>What is truly interesting?</title>
	<author>mini me</author>
	<datestamp>1269610200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion, the most fascinating aspect of computer programming is user interfaces and user interaction. While math certainly still applies, I feel that training in design and psychology would serve you better than mathematics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion , the most fascinating aspect of computer programming is user interfaces and user interaction .
While math certainly still applies , I feel that training in design and psychology would serve you better than mathematics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion, the most fascinating aspect of computer programming is user interfaces and user interaction.
While math certainly still applies, I feel that training in design and psychology would serve you better than mathematics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612696</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>warrior</author>
	<datestamp>1269538680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're going to do anything in the way of signal processing you will need much more advanced math skills.  You're going to need to know calculus, fourier transforms, laplace transforms along with their discrete versions (dft, fft, z).  These are extremely useful, powerful mathematical techniques for analyzing data.  The mathematics behind them are amazing and elegant.  Examples of their use include the enabling of the 'digital' content age through video and audio compression.  That's just one example, they can be used to analyze any data stream.  It is amazing using DSP to find data in a sea of noise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to do anything in the way of signal processing you will need much more advanced math skills .
You 're going to need to know calculus , fourier transforms , laplace transforms along with their discrete versions ( dft , fft , z ) .
These are extremely useful , powerful mathematical techniques for analyzing data .
The mathematics behind them are amazing and elegant .
Examples of their use include the enabling of the 'digital ' content age through video and audio compression .
That 's just one example , they can be used to analyze any data stream .
It is amazing using DSP to find data in a sea of noise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to do anything in the way of signal processing you will need much more advanced math skills.
You're going to need to know calculus, fourier transforms, laplace transforms along with their discrete versions (dft, fft, z).
These are extremely useful, powerful mathematical techniques for analyzing data.
The mathematics behind them are amazing and elegant.
Examples of their use include the enabling of the 'digital' content age through video and audio compression.
That's just one example, they can be used to analyze any data stream.
It is amazing using DSP to find data in a sea of noise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607956</id>
	<title>depends, becoming more important I think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a math degree and worked many years as a programmer without using any math at all.  But in the past year or two I've had to use quite a lot, including hitting the books (well, the web) and learning a bunch that I didn't know before.  The issue is large data collections, social networks, high volumes of web server logs, etc.  Sure you can run logalyzer and find your most popular pages, but if you really want to figure out anything about user behavior, you've got to start using more serious statistical/machine learning methods, and if you want an advantage over the other guys, that means you have to be doing stuff that they're not, so you can't just run some canned package.  You don't have to have the Google/AT&amp;T/Microsoft research department at your fingertips, but you've got to be able to put through some mathematical analysis that applies to your own situation.  By using just a bit of imagination and some home-cooked math from wikipedia, my underfunded 3-person group was able to beat the results of 100-person teams of corporate java monkeys.  I think that is going to become more and more typical.  Day to day programming work now hits problems with lots more mathematical angles than in the old days.</p><p>Want to know one of the hardest real world math problems that a regular programmer should care about?  Look up "Netflix challenge".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a math degree and worked many years as a programmer without using any math at all .
But in the past year or two I 've had to use quite a lot , including hitting the books ( well , the web ) and learning a bunch that I did n't know before .
The issue is large data collections , social networks , high volumes of web server logs , etc .
Sure you can run logalyzer and find your most popular pages , but if you really want to figure out anything about user behavior , you 've got to start using more serious statistical/machine learning methods , and if you want an advantage over the other guys , that means you have to be doing stuff that they 're not , so you ca n't just run some canned package .
You do n't have to have the Google/AT&amp;T/Microsoft research department at your fingertips , but you 've got to be able to put through some mathematical analysis that applies to your own situation .
By using just a bit of imagination and some home-cooked math from wikipedia , my underfunded 3-person group was able to beat the results of 100-person teams of corporate java monkeys .
I think that is going to become more and more typical .
Day to day programming work now hits problems with lots more mathematical angles than in the old days.Want to know one of the hardest real world math problems that a regular programmer should care about ?
Look up " Netflix challenge " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a math degree and worked many years as a programmer without using any math at all.
But in the past year or two I've had to use quite a lot, including hitting the books (well, the web) and learning a bunch that I didn't know before.
The issue is large data collections, social networks, high volumes of web server logs, etc.
Sure you can run logalyzer and find your most popular pages, but if you really want to figure out anything about user behavior, you've got to start using more serious statistical/machine learning methods, and if you want an advantage over the other guys, that means you have to be doing stuff that they're not, so you can't just run some canned package.
You don't have to have the Google/AT&amp;T/Microsoft research department at your fingertips, but you've got to be able to put through some mathematical analysis that applies to your own situation.
By using just a bit of imagination and some home-cooked math from wikipedia, my underfunded 3-person group was able to beat the results of 100-person teams of corporate java monkeys.
I think that is going to become more and more typical.
Day to day programming work now hits problems with lots more mathematical angles than in the old days.Want to know one of the hardest real world math problems that a regular programmer should care about?
Look up "Netflix challenge".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610862</id>
	<title>Re:Given two programmers</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1269532980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with that is that most math that is usefull for a programer won't come intuitively from physics. Of course, you can always map you favorite mechanics into information theory, or something like that, but you won't learn it at first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with that is that most math that is usefull for a programer wo n't come intuitively from physics .
Of course , you can always map you favorite mechanics into information theory , or something like that , but you wo n't learn it at first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with that is that most math that is usefull for a programer won't come intuitively from physics.
Of course, you can always map you favorite mechanics into information theory, or something like that, but you won't learn it at first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232</id>
	<title>Re:Ah there it goes again</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1269511980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just my 0.02c of course.</p></div></blockquote><p>In a world where people contribute an ostentatious $0.02 to a discussion, you are contributing 0.02c. Your humility amazes me sir!</p><p>That, or you're just incredibly stingy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just my 0.02c of course.In a world where people contribute an ostentatious $ 0.02 to a discussion , you are contributing 0.02c .
Your humility amazes me sir ! That , or you 're just incredibly stingy .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just my 0.02c of course.In a world where people contribute an ostentatious $0.02 to a discussion, you are contributing 0.02c.
Your humility amazes me sir!That, or you're just incredibly stingy.
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31614762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31620494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31654520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31625802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31617482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31616744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31628164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31626834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31614534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31625316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31615904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31617618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31616352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31622952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31617062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_0312233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31616722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31620494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31617062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31616744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31614762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31617618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31614534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31616352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31611476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608208
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31616722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608340
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31628164
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31625316
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609588
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31615904
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612696
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612040
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608682
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613296
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31625802
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612794
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609220
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608450
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609304
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610702
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31626834
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609070
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613518
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610564
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31613126
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609032
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31621682
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609254
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31622952
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608718
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610084
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610452
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610616
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610862
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609086
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609768
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31654520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31609940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31610614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31617482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31612102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31608878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_0312233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_0312233.31607932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
