burati@apollo.HP.COM (Mike Burati) (03/15/90)
I missed what started this conversation, but it's a subject I was hoping somebody would bring up... I'm not impressed with the way Math seems to be handled anywhere... As an undergrad, I had the following math courses (BSCS, math minor) Calc I,II,III (req) Linear Alg I,II (req) Discrete Str I,II (req) Diff Eq's (req?) Statistics for Eng (req) Advanced Math I,II (opt) (I can't think of any more...) Note, that these were fairly general math courses that all students seemed to take (except Discrete Structures, which was sort of CS oriented, but not enough). NOWHERE in those courses, did we learn enough about what Knuth terms CONCRETE mathematics (cf "Concrete Mathematics", KNUTH, GRAHAM, PATASHNIK). The math he presents in his new book are the fundamentals that you *need* for computer science, yet this course only seems to exist at Stanford (and the school that one of the other 2 authors teaches it at, which I can't recall). Generating functions, Recurrence relations and everything else you need to understand (and be able to reproduce yourself) KNUTH, Volume I, which incidentally, I currently need in a grad course I'm taking in analysis of algorithms. I can't believe that as a grad student, I finally have a book (the CONCRETE Math book) that tells me what I really need to know (even though I now have to learn it on my own, because CS assumes the MATH dept teaches that stuff...) It seems that there's not enough cooperation between math and cs (maybe math depts don't want other depts telling them how to teach?). Nobody ever told me in my math classes how what I was learning could be applied in CS... For example, everything I learned in Advanced Math I,II (surface equations, uv coordinate systems...) would have been great knowledge, if I had taken my computer graphics I,II courses immediately afterwards instead of a couple years later... At that time, the profs kept telling us that the only real use for AdvMath I,II was for Mechanical Engineering (and to help me get the extra 6 credits I needed for my minor :-) The majority of my Statistics class has been totally useless to me in all my other classes (including 4 grad CS classes so far), and the parts that I do need, could have been squeezed into one of the Calc classes... So, what's my point??? There should be more cooperation between CS & MATH depts to make requirements that fit what you need to know (don't get rid of requirements, just make sure they teach you what you really need...). A knowledge on the math depts side of what CS was going to do with the math would help both in how they teach it, *and* in getting students interested in learning it... I would have been much more interested in uv coord systems, surface intersection equations... if I had realized how much I was going to need it later on for graphics. If anybody of authority at *any* cs or math dept is listening, I'd strongly suggest looking into Knuth's Concrete Mathematics course. ..Mike Speaking for myself; not that anyone would claim knowing me, nevermind aggreeing with me... burati@apollo.hp.com ps: For those of you that know that I went to Univ of Lowell, this article is not meant to say anything bad about them. I think they have one of the best CS programs around. I'd just like to see all schools take a better approach to math for CS.
leech@vangogh.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (03/16/90)
In article <4932692a.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> burati@apollo.COM (Mike Burati) writes: >So, what's my point??? There should be more cooperation between CS & MATH depts >to make requirements that fit what you need to know (don't get rid of requirements, >just make sure they teach you what you really need...). Math departments don't just teach CS majors, so the burden of the cooperation is mostly on the CS folks to require courses they think are relevant, not on the math department to tailor their courses for CS majors. I agree that motivation is nice to have, but motivating with examples from CS is likely to bore the non-CS types. I find that a lot of the math subjects I took as an undergrad and was unmotivated by, have become more interesting; I've gained a broad enough background in other fields to start seeing the underlying similarities expressed by the math. Going out on a limb a bit, discrete math ("concrete math", if you prefer) is primarily of interest to theoretical computer scientists, who don't represent all that many people. I'm not denying it's worth knowing, but I don't think it's as essential as you seem to. Now, *my* pet peeve is that in general, BSCS have very poor preparation in physics and engineering mathematics, which are increasingly essential for graduate work in graphics. I'm sure people in other research areas have their own complaints. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "We were driving along, minding our own business, when there was a sudden flash of blue light which blotted out the stars. I thought it was a nuclear bomb going off and despaired for my career." - Keith Hughes
burati@apollo.HP.COM (Mike Burati) (03/20/90)
if (! i->already_have_book("Concrete Mathematics")) then read_this_msg(); I've gotten several requests for more info on the book I mentioned in my previous posting, and to avoid having to send a couple msgs a day as requests trickle in, here's the info: CONCRETE MATHEMATICS A Foundation For Computer Science Graham, Knuth, Patashnik Addison-Wesley (c) 1989 (2nd printing; Dec, 1988) ..Mike burati@apollo.hp.com ps: No, neither Apollo nor HP necessarily recommend this book (and probably wouldn't if they knew I liked it ;^), but I do...
doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) (03/21/90)
In article <4932692a.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> burati@apollo.COM (Mike Burati) writes: >So, what's my point??? There should be more cooperation between CS & MATH depts >to make requirements that fit what you need to know (don't get rid of requirements, >just make sure they teach you what you really need...). A knowledge on the >math depts side of what CS was going to do with the math would help both in how >they teach it, *and* in getting students interested in learning it... I would >have been much more interested in uv coord systems, surface intersection equations... >if I had realized how much I was going to need it later on for graphics. >If anybody of authority at *any* cs or math dept is listening, I'd strongly >suggest looking into Knuth's Concrete Mathematics course. Many of us mathematicians are aware of the general problem discussed by Mr. Burati and others: The content of the typical mathematics courses they are required to take for a cs major is not completely appropriate to their needs, and the mathematicians teaching them are often unaware of the applications to which the material may eventually be put. Concerning the first point, the problem is basically that we have to use the same calculus courses to satisfy every major---we don't give a calculus for computer scientists, for example---and so we run the risk of really satisfying no one. I'm opposed to special versions of the courses directed to this or that major, on the grounds that it forces students to commit themselves to a particular major too early in their education. We do give some introductory courses on discrete mathematics, but here again they have to serve diverse needs and so don't seem quite right for any one of them. In summary, we have to cram too much into too few courses, and nobody is happy with the result. The course content of the basic calculus sequence does evolve, but at a glacial pace. Eventually, I believe it will include more material on discrete mathematics and even computer-oriented applications. But it will take lots of time, because we have first to figure out what can be omitted to make room for the new material. John E. Doner | "The beginner...should not be discouraged if...he Mathematics, UCSB | finds that he does not have the prerequisites for Santa Barbara, CA 93106| reading the prerequisites." doner@henri.ucsb.edu | --Paul Halmos, Measure Theory
jbarnett@wpi.wpi.edu (Jonathan R Barnett) (03/21/90)
>John doner writes: >Many of us mathematicians are aware of the general problem discussed >by Mr. Burati and others: The content of the typical mathematics >courses they are required to take for a cs major is not completely >appropriate to their needs, and the mathematicians teaching them are >often unaware of the applications to which the material may eventually >be put. > >The course content of the basic calculus sequence does evolve, but at >a glacial pace. Eventually, I believe it will include more material >on discrete mathematics and even computer-oriented applications. But >it will take lots of time, because we have first to figure out what >can be omitted to make room for the new material. > At WPI our Math department has completly revamped the basic math sequence because of these problems. I don't think it was that difficult to decide what had to be eliminated to make room for modern methods...for example numerical integration is clearly more useful than the ability to deal with partial fractions. I am impressed with what I see as the end result of the new sequence....students with a reasonable calc background, but more important students able to attack an engineering problem using a numerical approach when an analytic one isn't obvious (something they are taught as part of the basic sequence). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Jonathan R. Barnett | jbarnett@wpi.wpi.edu Assistant Professor | Fire Protection Engineering | Work: (508) 831-5113 Interests: Fire, backpacking, cats, Theta Chi | Home: (508) 754-2898 Member: Society of Fire Protection Engineers | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~