Timeline for What should be offered in undergraduate mathematics that's currently not (or isn't usually)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2011 at 17:24 | comment | added | Neil Toronto | I wish I could vote this up twice. | |
| Jun 14, 2010 at 18:11 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | @Alan Stats will make the joint department a lot more money then theoretical computer science will. It's all about the bottom line. | |
| Jun 14, 2010 at 13:36 | comment | added | ADL | I agree wholeheartedly. I feel that Pure Maths is more relevant to, and has more in common with, CS than Stats, and yet my department is in the middle of combining with the Stats school. | |
| Jun 12, 2010 at 1:57 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | I'm one of a very large and growing number of graduate students whose training didn't require any serious computer science-and who deeply regrets it now. In many ways,computer science is one vast interrelated set of applications of mathematics to engineering.It DEFINITELY should be required of mathematics students and as early as possible in thier training.There's very good reason to unite the CS and mathematics departments as many universities do. | |
| May 20, 2010 at 2:23 | comment | added | Jacques Carette | Numerical methods should be considered a very advanced topic, even though it was historically 'early'. The beauty of computer science, as far as I am concerned, generally lies in those parts where everything is exact. The connections between a multitude of areas of mathematics and computer science seem to be exploding in the last few years - and generally with no numbers in sight! | |
| May 20, 2010 at 1:17 | comment | added | Gabe Cunningham | +1 for "Computer science isn't programming" and the great Dijkstra quote. | |
| May 20, 2010 at 0:53 | history | answered | Dan Piponi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |