From: H C (lphege@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 09 2005 - 18:24:11 MST
>From: "sam kayley" <thedeepervoid@btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: sl4@sl4.org
>To: <sl4@sl4.org>
>Subject: Re: the ways of child prodigies
>Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 18:01:47 -0000
>
>From: "H C" <lphege@hotmail.com>
> > Seeing as how abstract mathematical concepts are strictly useless
>(except
>as
> > some sort of "cognitive exercise") unless being used for an explicit
> > necessary purpose; it seems as though mathematics as a separate field
> > entirely outside of computer science is at best *potentially* useful,
>while
> > more realistically *a waste of time*. This doesn't include situations
>where
> > you recognize a specific mathematical field being necessary for
>background
> > foundational knowledge for a more specific implementation problem (such
>that
> > the utility of *knowing* abstract mathematical concepts is entirely
>derived
> > from a specific implementation necessity).
>
>The connection of computer science with creating an AI is close enough you
>would probably know if you needed a certain concept from computer science.
>Other fields of maths may be just as important, but in a more indirect way
>that would need deep familiarity to even know you needed it.
>
You need deep familiarity to *know how* to implement something. You only
need general knowledge to *judge whether or not it will be useful* to
implement that something. That is, if you know in general what some process
does (without specifically knowing HOW it is done), you can judge the
utility of the process (or at least, in effect, be aware of the process,
should something be deduced "useful" that concerns the nature of the effect
of the process).
-Hank
AIM: Th3Hegem0n
http://smarterhippie.blogspot.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:23:19 MST