[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: Clrs3.jpg (15 KB, 297x335)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
why are math majors so intimidated by picrel?
>>
>>12371957
are they? there's no hard math in that book
>>
>>12372021
no, we aren't. i've read it, it's very simple-minded.
>>
>>12372021
>>12372120
I don't think math majors are intimidated by the book, but it's clear if you've done any of the exercises in chapter past sorting that it isn't trivial nor """"simple-minded"""""


CLRS is good for breadth, but Sedgewick and Flajolet's analytic combinatorics is better for depth anyway
>>
>>12372188
forgot link:
http://algo.inria.fr/flajolet/Publications/book.pdf
>>
Why do people read this book?
I'm not "trying" to be condescending, because I know a lot of computer scientist are naturally very defensive of their field because of how much they are ridiculed by actual science fields.
I want to know what is the value of the information in the book.
I want to know everything.
>>
>>12372259
it's a textbook like any other... what do you mean? the purpose of a textbook is to teach or be used as teaching material.
>>
>>12371957
I have this book and there's nothing in here more intimidating than Rudin or H&K Lin Alg much less actual serious graduate level math texts lol. Idk who told you that this was difficult.
>>
This is literally freshman college CS book
I've started reading it as early as in first year of HS as a prep for contests
>>
>>12372265
I didn't ask what it was you dunce. I asked: "Why do people read this book?"
If someone were to waste the time to make a textbook it was for a reason.
for a grand design. a scheme.
>>
>>12372273
>much less actual serious graduate level math texts lol
It's an undergraduate text my dude.
>>
>>12372296
afaik the vast majority of CS undergrads don't take algorithms until maybe junior year. Am I mistaken or are there legions of freshman reading this thing?
>>
>>12372296
good for you pajeet.
>>
>>12372317
>>12372296
literally cope. its a 3rd year cs textbook. even graduate students use this text
>>
If you're actually intimidated by picrel take a look at the algorithm design manual ed 2/3. I found it much better at conveying the intuition behind the many of the same concepts
>>
>>12372306
Yes and it's below the level of first and second year math textbooks you seething brainlet dweeb. I wouldn't be so hostile to CSniggers if they didn't have this insane inferiority complex coupled with the lowest self awareness imaginable. No one cares what math you people learn as undergraduates. The graduate level math you do before you graduate is what counts. This is not a serious book for a mathematics major, it might be challenging for someone with significantly less exposure to formal math. You are a faggot, your thread is gay, and I hope you get banned for making it next time you little queer.
>>
>>12372296
>competitive programming!!
>>
>>12372328
>first year, second year.
>first semester, second semester.
you’re an actual NPC autistic sperglord.
>>
>>12372296
>>12372317
yeah, at a UC and we read this 3rd year. A motivated freshman could definintely do it though. The text requires very little math or other prior knowledge.
>>12372273
>intro to algos book for undergrads with little to no algo experience is easier than math grad texts
retard
>>
>>12372259
>I'm not "trying" to be condescending
>they are ridiculed by actual science fields.
lmao.
either way, they're not really ridiculed at all?
>I want to know what is the value of the information in the book.
it's the well known results in algorithms. it's good general knowledge
>>
>>12372273
>nothing in here more intimidating than Rudin
I'm just gonna say this: Rudin isn't really that fucking hard once you have a professor that gives problems that are regularly harder in analysis I. He's terse and occasionally tricky - he isn't impossibly hard.
>H&K
also a great text but nowhere near "serious graduate math texts"
CLRS isn't even a graduate text in algorithms...
Either way, CLRS isn't any less difficult than your average 300 level mathematics course in university, especially in the later chapters. The background is light, but you definitely need some maturity to go through it.
>>
>>12372355
It's easier than first year mathematics textbooks assigned in any good analysis or algebra course. you are delusional if you think this is high level abstraction.

By junior year you should be working through quite advanced material as a competent future mathematician, looking towards first year graduate level texts. From what I understand this book is really more of a 3rd or 4th year, perhaps 2nd year at a good school, venture for a CS major. So, it ought to be at the very least more complex than something expected of a first year mathematics student. It is not, I can tell you with this with some confidence since I have the book lol.
>>12372343
This isn't reddit your faggot expectation of agreeable assent to whatever brainlet standards of conduct and belief you and your peers hold to is not going to be tolerated without retaliation. If you don't like it you can go somewhere heavily moderated and ammenable to your childish understanding of human association. CS is itself a sophisticated and varied field of research, some aspects of it like computational geometry I happen to admire and have some interest in, however when you little niglet dweebs come here and whine and moan about how you are made fun of for struggling with material that many students gain some facility with by senior year of highschool no less it just makes people want to be cruel and to ridicule you. Understanding this is perhaps a sign of social intelligence, and if I am autistic for having a minute amount of disgust towards insecure pseudointellectuals that will almost certainly contribute nothing to the pure theory of their venerated research field(s) then perhaps you are not only autistic but a kind of repulsive entitled narcissist.
>>
>>12372328
>it's below the level of first and second year math textbooks
the fuck are you on about? It's not that hard a book but it's definitely nontrivial at the undergrad level.
> I wouldn't be so hostile to CSniggers if they didn't have this insane inferiority complex coupled with the lowest self awareness imaginable.
The only one who has an inferiority complex here is you - you seem assmad at the idea that anybody not a math majordoes anything of mathematical worth in undergrad You're the type of people who ree at material like >>12372192 despite the copious amounts of maturity needed and even more traditional nondiscrete mathematics (the majority of this book is literally just complex analysis)
>No one cares what math you people learn as undergraduates. The graduate level math you do before you graduate is what counts.
The same goes for math majors - until you hit your graduate material, everything is just training to get there.

Stop being salty because you think people took less work than you in undergrad.
>t. math grad
>>
>>12372367
>it's the well known results in algorithms. it's good general knowledge
Why are the results in algorithms important? do they have applications to real life or other concepts?
>>
>>12372376
(Ignoring the rest of the wall of text) what do you do with computational geometry? I happen to be getting into it myself.
>>
>>12372376
>It's easier than first year mathematics textbooks assigned in any good analysis or algebra course.
ehh not really, intro analysis and algebra doesn't tend to be that great out in Europe, and in the US, you don't tend to do that until late sophomore year. You might just be confused by US pedagogy
>you're delusional if blah blah
This is the usual /sci/ fallacy of thinking anything related to combinatorics is simple because it requires less structure - it's not that simple, and anybody who's done any of the book unrelated to the classic shit (sorting, basic tree results, etc) knows this is true.
You're making fun of material about trees and sorting...stuff that's taught in the first two semesters in CS. When people do CLRS in 3rd year algorithms, they do the actually interesting results that come from many other parts of the book, or they do topics that require way more mathematical structure like sketching algorithms.
>By junior year you should be working through quite advanced material as a competent future mathematician
>looking towards first year graduate level texts
the overwhelming majority of people in math schools do not do more than what's expected. Granted, they are more motivated math students than CS students, but most people don't take anything more than the basic algebra and analysis classes - many do not do anything past the basics of BABY rudin or the first 4 chapters of artin.

Your post is pseud as fuck, and you have very little idea of what you're criticizing - only that the beginning chapters of the book are trivial, and that the rest seems easy because "waaaah it doesn't use scary notation."
There's plenty of CS out there that's mathematically nontrivial.
>>
>>12372384
>Why are the results in algorithms important?
why do you think dipshit?
>do they have applications to real life or other concepts?
the fuck do you think algorithms do? every algorithm out there was studied to solve a problem out there. the serious lower bounds work gives solutions to problems with tight runtimes, while the serious methods work gives optimal solutions to real life problems.
>>
File: 1573307437825.jpg (63 KB, 500x495)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>12372259
>they are ridiculed by actual science fields.
>>
>>12372328
>It isn't as hard as a graduate math text but its on the level as real analysis
>Well ya it's an undergrad text
>YOU'RE A SEETHING HOSTILE CS NIGGER WITH AN INFERIORTY COMPLEX, IT'S BELOW THE LEVEL OF FIRST AND SECOND YEAR MATH TEXTBOOKS YOU'RE A FAGGOT, AND YOU'RE THREAD IS GAY (I didn't even make this thread?) NO ONE CARES ABOUT UNDERGRAD MATH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Dude are you ok? This was an unironic schizo response, you seem to be projecting hard.
>>
>>12372406
>but its on the level as real analysi
I misread the rudin point, so this is wrong but my overall point still stands.
>>
>>12372402
I also wouldn't consider statistics a science.
And anyone that is retarded enough to call math a science should probably be put in prison for criminal stupidity.
Also I am told it's more about computation than computers.
>>12372397
>why do you think dipshit?
If I knew I wouldn't be asking, faggot
>>
>>12372120
Not even close to a CS major but you're an actual fucking moron.
>>
I wrote at least 3 completely bs troll posts itt when I saw its pretentious tone and anons bought it and replied.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to guess which.
>>
>>12371957
0/8 bait

>>>/g/o back
>>
>>12372259
I think it's standard interview prep.
>>
>>12371957
Thank you for the suggestion, will read.
>>
>>12372579
>lol dude I was just trolling the entire time.
pathetic.
>>
bump
>>
>>12374569
faggot
>>
>>12371957
They aren't, but they're definitely intimidated by >>12372192
Shit's hard
>>
>>12371957
You will never in your life write a better sorting algorithm than your built in language library functions but learning time complexity is important
>>
>>12372192
>analytic combinatorics
>>
>>12374574
>faggot
Why the homophobia?
>>
>>12372120
this but unironically
alwats amazes me how CS fags think about this book



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.