 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Speaking of which, the base of natural logarithms is "e". And sometimes
>>>> "e" means 1 + 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4... And sometimes "e" is just
>>>> another variable.
>>>
>>> You're missing some exclamation symbols.
>>
>> Oh, so it's actually 1/n! then? I didn't actually know that...
>
> Yep. What you listed diverges to infinity.
Hmm. Interesting...
Nice to know I fail basic math, eh? Fortunately, lives do not depend on
it. o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What's a chartered engineer?
Someone who has spent at least 5 years (usually) in an Engineering job, then
got professional membership with an accredited Engineering organisation.
This usually involves writing a report of what Engineering stuff you've done
in your job and passing an interview. Needless to say, Chartered Engineers
are "proper" Engineers, which is why it is a requirement for many jobs at
senior level, especially in safety critical industries like structural and
aeronautical engineering.
> And how do you know how many there are?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Engineer_%28UK%29
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sure, but not that much. I know people who've correctly used computers
> to do this while they thought that the integral of a product is the
> product of the integrals.
Let's hope they're not involved in any safety critical projects then :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I'm failing to see how equivalence and definition are different.
I'm thinking you have the choice of
x == y
x.isEqual(y)
and
(let x := y in (....)) or {const int x = y}
for equality, equivalence, and definition?
Two abstract structures can be equivalent without being equal. Definition is
an arbitrary assignment of a meaning to a formal name.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I'm failing to see how equivalence and definition are different.
> Two abstract structures can be equivalent without being equal.
Oh, I see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/17/09 09:50, scott wrote:
>> Sure, but not that much. I know people who've correctly used computers
>> to do this while they thought that the integral of a product is the
>> product of the integrals.
>
> Let's hope they're not involved in any safety critical projects then :-)
You're in the UK, and that may make the difference. I know that in the
distant past, it was significantly challenging to get admission into a
UK university to do engineering. So it would make sense if over there
it's common for engineers to use calculus. For lesser jobs, you have
people who don't have engineering degrees (technical degrees, associates
degrees, etc).
In the US, people with engineering degrees do both those kinds of jobs
- it spans a wider spectrum. Which is why perhaps most jobs here that
require an engineering degree often don't require calculus. Hence the
analogy with programming and computer science.
Sadly, here in the US it's common to have people graduating with a
bachelor's degree in engineering who've forgotten most of calculus (they
weren't bad at it - that person I mentioned never got less than an A in
any math course). So perhaps the industry in the US has somewhat shifted
not to expect them to know it, and thus most don't hire them for jobs
that require it.
Of course, some jobs simply *require* it (e.g. electromagnetics related
jobs). And they do hire people with BSc degrees. But of course, they
make sure they know calculus in the interview.
My experience is limited to electrical engineering. It may be different
in other engineerings.
--
Be independent! No, not that way! This way!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, the majority of people in the world have jobs
>> like... Telemarketing. Driving trucks. Working in an office doing filing.
>> Fitting central heating systems. Hotel receptionists.
>
> Yes, the majority of people do a wide variety of jobs :-)
And most natural numbers are very very big.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-11-2009 10:20, Invisible wrote:
>> * equivalence, equality, definition, EXNOR, assignment and perhaps one
>> or more that don't have names.
>
> I'm failing to see how equivalence and definition are different.
If you say that f(x)=x^2+4x+1 then that is an equivalence, because that
will allow you to conclude say that x^2+3x+3=f(x)-x+2. If, however, this
is the first time you mention f(x) it is probably meant as it's
definition. Difference is subtle and has mathematically no significance,
but it feels different. Just as x=5 seen as a statement that the
solution to the problem is when you take x to be 5, feels different from
viewing = as a boolean function of two variables, x and 5.
>(I know some people use the triple-line symbol for this though.)
>
> The main confusion is between assignment and equality, generally.
That is why most languages have separate symbols for both meanings (and
why I am advocating imperative languages without assignment).
> Or, in mathematics, between a test for equality and a statement of equality.
Can you give an example of that?
>> ** See also the concept of '=' in OO languages. Are two objects the
>> same if all fields are the same?
>
> You would first have to define the concept of fields being "the same". ;-)
spot on
> Fortunately, in a pure functional language, the question becomes a lot
> simpler.
Not so sure about that. Anyway even if that would be the case it doesn't
solve the 'problem' that in real life you have multiple views to look at
an equation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sadly, here in the US it's common to have people graduating with a
> bachelor's degree in engineering who've forgotten most of calculus
Yeh see I don't think that could happen here. My course was 4 years (as are
most Engineering degrees in the UK now), in the 1st year they *really*
quickly skipped over all A level maths (which was the foundations of
calculus) and then jumped on to fourier transforms (and friends), vector
calculus and stuff. The reason for this was clear, all the other lecturers
were obviously waiting for the maths course to be done so they could start
using the "real" maths in their courses.
> any math course). So perhaps the industry in the US has somewhat shifted
> not to expect them to know it, and thus most don't hire them for jobs that
> require it.
I don't think many jobs here explicitly require it, but it is kind of
expected that if you have an Engineering degree you will at least know how
to perform basic calculus by hand, and of course know the concepts.
I guess it's similar to whether you know how to write Excel macros or not -
hardly any job is going to ask for it, yet if you know how to do it it's
going to make life quite a lot easier in many situations that arise (and
make your boss think you are clever!).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> And most natural numbers are very very big.
Unnatural numbers FTW!
7
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
