in reply to Re: Programming and math in thread Programming and math
That's not math, that's symbolic logic! (Which, to be fair, a lot of people learn in math classes.) And even though De Morgan probably had some mathematical application in mind, De Morgan's rules are a reformulation of some of Occam's teachings, which (al)most certainly did not have mathematics as their basis. And while knowing about finite state automata may be useful for some applications, I don't really see them as something that can't be learned along the way, should a programmer ever need to know how to implement them. In any case, a lot of smart programmers come up with this kind of thing on their own and are often surprised to hear it has a name. :)
(That said, possessing more knowledge only enhances your ability to solve problems.)

Allolex
Re: Re: Re: Programming and math by Boots111 (Hermit) on Aug 11, 2003 at 01:41 UTC 
Allolex~
While you are right that De Morgan's law is part of logic, I consider logic to be part of Math. This might be a slightly contentious claim, but I know a few logicians who agree with me about this. Plus you can prove some nifty isomorphisms between abelian algebras and various logics.
But I have a fairly wide view of what qualifies as Math...
Boots

Computer science is merely the postTuring decline of formal systems theory.
???  [reply] 

Symbolic logic is no more a subset of Mathematics than it is a subset of Philosophy. Symbolic logic is a discipline unto itself. There are several different symbolic logics, most convertible one to the other.
And, symbolic logic is not the sole necessity to be a good programmer, but more on that in the main thread.
 We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. The idea is a little like C++ templates, except not quite so brainmeltingly complicated.  TheDamian, Exegesis 6 Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.
 [reply] 
Re: Re: Re: Programming and math by Anonymous Monk on Oct 03, 2003 at 20:47 UTC 
 [reply] 

 [reply] 
