|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Schools could use it to replace Latin
De gustibus non disputandum est 
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Computer science deals with algorithms, complexity, etc.
And the techniques used for creating computers. Time-sharing, data storage, etc.
Not so much applying computers to different domains.
|
|
|
|
|
Define calculus.
I don't understand why double integrals are a required part of doing science.
Do I really need to know Euler projections to be able to reason about and collect data?
Or, how to formulate arguments for and against the calculation of an area, bounded by formula that contains i.
None of this has made me a better scientist.
Doing the legwork and chugging along until I gather enough high quality data, that's what made me a scientist.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's good to have some understanding of the maths which can be a tool in helping to show patterns in data - but in the end it still requires, or did require until the advent of AI, a human eye/brain/experience to be able to see patterns.
Maths is not my strong point and I used to work as a production analyst with medical data - I was able to spot trends in data that some of the more mathematically competent scientists were not able to spot because I knew how to plot the data in graphs and interpret the "story" the graph was telling.
Plotting data in graphs is something of a skill in itself as, depending on the choice of graph, trends can be exposed to the eye that even sometimes advanced statisticians cannot see in the raw figures.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, we're talking about maths.
I see, I agree with that notion 100%.
It's probably lost in translation, but the difference between discrete calculus and theoretical calculus are like day and night. Calculus refers to theoretical calculus, no exceptions.
Or else my former professor will rise from the grave and fail me from beyond, just to spite me.
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't that assertion confuse statistics (data we have) with probability (data we should have got if it followed the rules) ?
Calculus follows the latter idea of `simple rules will predict complex data`.![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
it seems you have the answer to your own question .
|
|
|
|
|
IF COVID taught us ANYTHING is that scientist rarely agree when they don't want to agree.
What I mean is this.
From the first data that the CDC posted many data scientists tracked projections and posted the results to have nearly everyone say they were wrong. I watched at virologists who had 1000's of case studies under their belts get slammed as quacks. I too ran the same calculations and came to the same conclusions and lost respect for people who just discounted the math out of hand.
Roll forward to just this year when the real final numbers came out and nearly all of the people who were mocked and dismissed were right. The numbers told us then and tell us the same thing today the difference is now people agree.
We assumed these statistics, from the majority, were from people, with a high understanding of the math. Turns out the majority were wrong and the few got it right....
So the question to me is
Does knowing Calculus make you a good data scientist?
NO emphatically not.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say calculus would be needed, but it somewhat depends on the definition of a data scientist. It's certainly possible to be proficient in statistics without needing to get to a deep level of understanding.
Are you the engineer designing the plane or the pilot flying it?
|
|
|
|
|
On a side note, I've often wondered why getting a CS degree requires calculus when few programmers ever use it.
CS is based on logic more than math. I minored in philosophy as an undergrad, and the symbolic logic classes I took taught me a lot more about logic than I ever learned in math or CS classes. That served me well, I use logic in every programming project, but I've never had to integrate anything (which is good, because I've forgotten how).
I think there's long been a misunderstanding about what CS is based on. It's logic not math, Turing wasn't doing math when he invented the programmable computer, he was reading analytic philosophy (Bertrand Russell, in particular) and imagining an automated logical machine based on that. Digital computers are logical machines, they can do math because logic is the foundation of math.
|
|
|
|
|
Calculus is actually pretty easy. One thing that really surprises me is how many music majors claim they don't like math. In reality, Calculus I and Music Theory Two are probably about the same level of difficulty. Things really don't start getting ugly in the math world until you reach junior level ABET engineering courses and apply the Calculus you learn. Calculus I-III and even DiffEq generally aren't that hard depending on *where* you take them, but at some point, you will be expected to apply it and things get more difficult there.
To answer your question, I'm guessing one can skate by in the world of Data Science without knowing Calculus and used pre-boxed algorithms and/or numerical analysis techniques to make observations. After all, a person can write a 3D game now without necessarily knowing classic Physics or Linear Algebra since that person can likely rely on a gaming engine to do that "hard stuff". I think much of Data Analysis these days might be in using low-level Tensor Flow or higher-level Auto ML or super easy regression analysis packages. You don't necessarily need to have a deep understanding of how these things work to use wrapper libraries.
With that said, don't avoid Calculus. It's much easier than you think and there are probably software tutors out there...
|
|
|
|
|
So my wife wanted to leave me 3 years ago. For over a year I drank about 20 standard drinks a night. Recently it's been 3-5, one cocktail while I cook, one with dinner and one in the evening. I went to the GP and he told me I have 70% kidney function and my liver is waving a white flag. So I just gave up, that day. I'll still have the odd cocktail when I take my wife to dinner, but that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
Good job, Christian! I go through a lot of scotch, but so far my liver is being a trooper. But then, I'm not in the 20 drinks per night class; more like 5 or 6.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I had a rough few years. But I'm autistic so I just do what I want to do, it's not complicated 
|
|
|
|
|
That makes me feel much better about my levels.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember a college friend that wanted to drink 24 cans of beer every 24 hours for Spring Break. Yes, he looked like a mess on day 3. He also ended up flunking out of college. 
|
|
|
|
|
LOL!!! I managed to hold down a job, despite starting drinking at 3
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: So my wife wanted to leave me 3 years ago. For over a year I drank about 20 standard drinks a night.
Well, you partied a lot.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
No, I drank alone and cried
|
|
|
|
|
![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
That was rather presumptuous. The message you responded to, that is, not your response.
|
|
|
|
|
My post was an, admittedly silly, attempt at humour.
Since it was a while ago and Christian has completely recovered, I supposed it was innocuous.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough.
Tone never gets communicated very well over plain text. To me, it came across, probably way harsher than you ever intended.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: probably way harsher
not probably, entirely surely - Carlo is one of the kindest CPian around.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm fully willing to take you at your word.
|
|
|
|
|
Hope Christian didn't get offended.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
