I hated those kinds of classes because even if you had all the math knowledge, you could fail by not knowing the math of whatever problem space they wanted you to solve. It was a test of math knowledge and not math knowledge.

Like CS isn't math?

Not much of it is straight math but some of the concepts are mathematic in nature. Calculus for instance has no bearing on almost any cs subject except for the concept of algorithms.

Okay yes cs is math. If you really want to get down to it all a computer can do is math, but that isn't what Scott is talking about.

Scott is just bitching that some of his classes required more thinking than just "how 2 mak website"

Actually, not one class in high school or college every told me how to maek website. I had to figure that out entirely on my own. I know how to do all the other things.

I think it's just dumb to say "Well if you're good at one type of mathematics then you've obviously good at all of them". Just because I know calculus really well I'm not a master of physics.

I think it's just dumb to say "Well if you're good at one type of mathematics then you've obviously good at all of them". Just because I know calculus really well I'm not a master of physics.

Well, physics is applied calculus (and other branches of mathematics, but that's besides the point). Actually, probably more specifically, physics is modeling the world using math. The problem isn't so much not knowing the math -- it's how to apply the math to model the real world.

Using calculus as the example, if I told you to determine the velocity of an object whose path is described by the equation x = 2t, where x is the position and t is the time, and velocity is defined as the derivative of position with respect to time (dx/dt), you should have no problem solving this problem if you are a calculus wizard. The physics knowledge here is knowing that velocity is the derivative of position with respect to time. The math knowledge is purely knowing what the hell a derivative is and how to calculate one. Theoretical physics basically comes down to "I see all this crap going on in the universe -- how the hell do I figure out a bunch of mathematical equations to describe it?" The physics part is figuring out and/or learning what the mathematical equations are. The math part is solving said equations. In fact, many physicists often work with mathematicians in the real world because even though they're damned good at physics, some of the physics they work with uses mathematical equations that they struggle with solving. Therefore, they figure out what the equations are and ask their buddy over in the math department to solve the damned thing, which is something can be done without understanding any of the underlying physics of the problem.

A better example in your case would be to say, "just because I'm good at calculus, it doesn't mean I'm also good at linear algebra."

You are right, physics didn't fit was I was saying but I was trying to explain. The point I was trying to make (which you had made in your second paragraph) was that just because math is used in computer science doesn't mean that learning how to manipulate image data (which is a lot of linear algebra) just comes naturally. They're two totally different problem spaces.

You are right, physics didn't fit was I was saying but I was trying to explain. The point I was trying to make (which you had made in your second paragraph) was that just because math is used in computer science doesn't mean that learning how to manipulate image data (which is a lot of linear algebra) just comes naturally. They're two totally different problem spaces.

Fun fact: my alma mater is pretty renowned for its computer science department's computer graphics research. In fact, if you took a CS course on graphics, one of the most commonly used text books was written by a couple of the professors there. Anyway, one of the professors, who is one of the co-authors of said book, actually wasn't a CS guy. He was a math major whose only programming experience was a Fortran course that he got a B in. He was still hired to the department's graphics group, probably because of his mathematical knowledge. In particular, he told the story of how just after he started, the department was doing 3D animation all wrong and explained how using a mathematical concept called quaternions would make it much easier and smoother. The other folks in the department were like "Holy shit! How long have we been doing this the hard way!?"

I find it weird that of all the universities in the world the University of Utah has made some of the biggest strides in computer graphics.

Well, it helps that they hired Ivan Sutherland away from MIT and Harvard, somehow. He pretty much invented computer graphics back in the '50s. Evans & Sutherland, the company he founded with another pioneer and computer graphics professor at Utah, is also in Salt Lake City.

FYI, here's the graphics book I was talking about. Hughes was the professor I was talking about who taught the department about quaternions. Supposedly a new edition that's been updated for modern graphics hardware is coming out soon, so if you want to buy it, it's probably a good idea to wait, even though the book's still as relevant as ever when it comes to basic fundamentals.

## Comments

I'm a goddamn math genius look at me go.

Using calculus as the example, if I told you to determine the velocity of an object whose path is described by the equation

x= 2t, wherexis the position andtis the time, and velocity is defined as the derivative of position with respect to time (dx/dt), you should have no problem solving this problem if you are a calculus wizard. The physics knowledge here is knowing that velocity is the derivative of position with respect to time. The math knowledge is purely knowing what the hell a derivative is and how to calculate one. Theoretical physics basically comes down to "I see all this crap going on in the universe -- how the hell do I figure out a bunch of mathematical equations to describe it?" The physics part is figuring out and/or learning what the mathematical equations are. The math part is solving said equations. In fact, many physicists often work with mathematicians in the real world because even though they're damned good at physics, some of the physics they work with uses mathematical equations that they struggle with solving. Therefore, they figure out what the equations are and ask their buddy over in the math department to solve the damned thing, which is something can be done without understanding any of the underlying physics of the problem.A better example in your case would be to say, "just because I'm good at calculus, it doesn't mean I'm also good at linear algebra."

FYI, here's the graphics book I was talking about. Hughes was the professor I was talking about who taught the department about quaternions. Supposedly a new edition that's been updated for modern graphics hardware is coming out soon, so if you want to buy it, it's probably a good idea to wait, even though the book's still as relevant as ever when it comes to basic fundamentals.

Also, this is my new desktop.