• Inky
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This post confuses me. Why would code be simpler than the math notation? Both involve symbolic abstraction of basically the same complexity

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      119
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its got to be a relatively small group who knows enough to understand loops and is also afraid of math symbols.

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe not so small?

        I never encountered these math symbols but for loops are like step 3 in any programming language after variables and conditionals

        • stoneparchment@possumpat.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          lol, like 2.5% of the USA are programmers and even if we say twice that number have experimented and taken programming classes, that’s like 1 in 20 people who would even have ever encountered a for loop. This nsf report says ~70% of highschoolers have taken Algebra 2 or a more advanced math course, which is when sum notation is usually introduced. I think 70% is a little greater than 5%!

          • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s interesting to hear; somehow my algebra 2 skipped sum notation (and it wasn’t remedially covered in subsequent math classes) but I’ve been writing code for decades now and seeing it in code totally explains the sum notation for me

          • kartoffelsaft@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Huh. When I took Calculus II in community college, the professor introduced sum notation and like 2/3 of the class was like “wow that’s cool I didn’t know about that”. I don’t remember ever being formally taught it before that but it still surprises be how few people where already familiar with it.

          • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was great at maths in school, was in all the advanced classes and I found it so fun it didn’t feel like work to me. I learned a lot of the notation, but because I didn’t study maths further, I became rusty. With programming, I never really learned it, I just kept coming into contact with it as part of my post university work (in science), and gradually, I picked up some basics. The coding basics I did get feel much more familiar to me than the maths concepts now, because I literally couldn’t avoid coming into contact with coding in my work.

            The maths they teach in school also is generally very pure maths, and that can make the concepts remain quite abstract. Matrices, for example, made way more intuitive sense to me when I used them as a scientist than when they were taught to me as a maths student.

      • karstin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m in that group I think. I do like a liiitle bit of coding in some tiny specific progrqmming language in one piece of software that I use. I understand the basics but try to avoid having to do it. But while code is a little scary to me, math is much scarier lol

      • Choco1ateCh1p@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe this group could be bigger than some may think. I, and the team I work with, work with for loops similar to these on a regular basis. And only one of us has a bachelor’s degree in math. The rest of us don’t really understand the math unless it is applied.

      • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those of us born in the 70s… Doing anything with a computer required knowing at least a little programming, so we learned at 8 years old, then when we got to high school/college, we were taught by people who knew nothing about programming because they were already old and didn’t think they needed to learn anything new…

    • sf1tzp@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not really sure if this answers your question (I agree with you, ultimately), but here’s my experience:

      At the college I attended, these sigma/pi expressions weren’t taught until the end of Calculus 2, but I wanted to take an Algorithms class - which had calc 2 as a prerequisite.

      I got an exception from my advisor which allowed me to take Algorithms before the pre-req. In my experience, these concepts were easily learned in the context of algorithmic complexity.

      Some might be barred from learning important theory in computer science by “brutal” math classes at university. They might find solace in this post which translates sigma into ‘for’

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m a subscriber to her YouTube(one of my favourite videos of hers) and she has a bunch of videos aimed at helping game developers learn the maths concepts they need for making games, so her audience is mostly people with a coding background, I’m guessing.

      So it’s less that code is simpler than math notation, more that the maths notation looks scary to people without a maths background, but here’s a link to a different complex symbolic abstraction that you might already know

    • GTG3000@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Math notation is just terrible in general because a lot of it is shorthand made up by someone who likes single-letter variables. A symbol you can’t type, something above, something below.

      A for loop is clear and descriptive.
      Or if you’re feeling fancy, you could go functional with reduce(add, range(0, 5), 0).

      • Inky
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mathematical notation was designed to be written by hand. It is at least as clear and descriptive as any syntax from a programming language. You’re pretending that the abstraction behind a for loop is somehow less than that behind a sum or product notation.

    • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are the same difficulty level, sure, but that’s like saying f(x) and f’(x) are at the same difficulty level. Coming from one to the other in a process is the difficult part, and the code offers instructions to follow this process.

      • Jee@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean they are both the exact same thing, I don’t see why summation is scray when the for loop isn’t. It’s the same thing written in a short and easy format.

      • uskok@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why not? If you don’t understand a meme it’s perfectly fine to ask for a context or explanation.

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    i hate that we all got so frightened about math. it’s genuinely fun to learn how it works when you’re not being forced to in a school setting, which was just a fucking nightmare for no reason. i had this former navy DI lady teacher in gifted kid algebra [so already a year ahead] yell at me for asking questions; she wasn’t going to ‘hold my hand’ thru the homework, which was quite literally her fucking job

    • Duckef@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Turning 35 in a month and I’ve just started learning maths again after being afraid of it because of a similar situation to yours.

      • Square Singer@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s surprisingly easy. I used tl give maths tutoring to finance my university degree. What I’d do is let the kids do one exercise task from their school books to see where their difficulties were. While they were on it, I quickly read through the relevant sections in the book, and it was so easy every time that I knew everything I needed to know after a few minutes. Like literally stuff that took weeks at school within minutes.

        School just sucks and makes it really hard to learn anything. Almost everything kids learn at school is actually really easy.

        • veroxii@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well it’s harder for them because they are kids and their brains are still developing. You’ve had a lifetime of experiences to draw from where you use math concepts subconsciously many times a day.

          • Square Singer@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Totally true. They haven’t learned to learn yet, they aren’t learning because they want to, or even because they need what they learned.

            But the point I was trying to make is, that many adults are still afraid (and many even strongly so) of maths, because it was hard for them at school. But it probably wouldn’t be hard for them now.

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      i completely agree. this sentiment was echoed pretty well in a (nontechnical and accessible) paper i read a few years ago. he says the current approach is like forcing people to learn music, but only teaching them how to read sheet music and not letting them touch any instruments. it hides the creativity and problem-solving of the discipline and reduces it to memorizing formulas.

    • electrogamerman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Im sorry you had awful teachers, but not all of them are bad. I had amazing teachers that were very worried for the students to learn. In contrast I had very shitty classmates that just didn’t care and would blame the teachers for their laziness.

    • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Idk man I’ve been doing my Cal 3 and 4 this semester and fuck me it’s hard. Yeah sure it’s cool sometimes but wrapping my head around it and often trying to think about things geometrically hurts. I sat there for a full hour trying to figure out why I couldn’t picture the equation I was trying to take a triple integral of only to realize it’s 4 dimensional and I almost cried

    • Dohnakun@lemmy.fmhy.mlB
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not about being frightened, it’s just that i know only a handful (mostly esoteric) languages with worse syntax.

    • passably9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fear fear fear. The same old, actually hollow from the inside, villian that bugs me everywhere

  • Lakso@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    1 year ago

    When you study CompSci (depending on where IG) you tend to see them that way when trying to mathematically prove something about an algorithm. It’s only really a good way of thinking if you’re into coding, but I don’t think a teacher for a non-coding related algebra class should show this, it can be really confusing for some people.

  • physicswizard@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    People who are arguing that one way of expressing these concepts is easier to learn/understand than the other are missing the whole point. Mathematical notation was not designed to teach students how to do math or explain how to design algorithms. It was invented to communicate precise, abstract ideas concisely between mathematicians who already understand what the symbols mean.

    Mathematicians require a notation that has the flexibility to manipulate mathematical objects/symbols in a way that naturally emphasizes their properties and relationships. Often they don’t even care whether the objects they’re studying are even computable or have a numerical representation. They just need them to have certain properties so that they can be manipulated appropriately.

    Discrete sums are a rare example of when the mathematical notation overlaps with the description of an algorithm for computing its value (and the overlap is not even complete; infinite sums are easily represented in math notation but are practically uncomputable when implemented naively). Every other advanced mathematical concept puts a premium on ease of symbol manipulation over computability: integrals, derivatives, matrix multiplication, abstract algebra, etc.

    TL;DR math notation is complex because its intended audience is people who already understand it, want maximum flexibility of symbol manipulation, and historically didn’t really care about practical computation.

    • heimchen@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You are right the symbols weren’t created so students can learn them, but students have to learn them at one point and for me personally, a student that knows how to program, figuring out that these symbols kind of represent for loops made them easier to understand.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    These scary large math symbols aren’t scary at all and easily explained. The scary parts of maths lie elsewhere. They are discrete, nonlinear or high dimensional and sometimes even the numbers are complex… Or worse.

  • funkyb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yea that’s not explained better than a math teach. They just swapped notation common in math, for notation common in one specific programming language. it’s only easier for the audience who happens to be familiar with programming in general, and that language in particular.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      one specific programming language

      I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone with any sort of programming background, even just as a hobbyist, who doesn’t understand that for loop notation, whether or not they know the specific language it’s from. (I couldn’t even tell you what specific language that’s from, because that notation matches so many different ones.)

      I have a 15 year old son; he definitely has not seen summation in math classes yet, but he has far more than enough programming experience (even just from school) to understand the for loop.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the concept of a for loop is easier to learn, even for non-programmers, as biased as I may be.

      • cucumberbob@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Continuous.

        Instead of jumping from 1 to 2 to 3, we move smoothly across all (typically real) numbers. Obviously this would go to infinity almost every time because there are infinite real numbers between any two distinct real numbers. So instead, we merge it into a bunch of skinny rectangles with their bottom on the x axis and the top at the value of the function for the start of the rectangle. As we shrink the width of the rectangles, it approaches the continuous notion.

        Continuous means “smooth” - there are no jumps Discrete means there are jump

        Image

      • slampisko@czech-lemmy.eu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Short answer: Imagine that the integer used in the for loop is a float instead.

        Longer, a bit more precise answer: An integer can only have discrete values (i.e. -1, 0, 1, 2, …, 69, … etc.)

        A real number (~float with infinite precision) can have an infinite amount of values between two discrete values.

        An integral is, to put it simpy, a sum of all the results of taking those infinite values between two discrete values (an interval) and feeding them to the given function.

        It’s a for loop over an infinite set of real numbers rather than over a finite set of integers => a non-discrete for loop

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      if you take a modular approach and allow different measures to be used, it also lets the integral sign be a discrete for-loop

  • ShustOne@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe I’m crazy but they did teach me this in school. “This means so this operation until conditions are met”.

  • someacnt@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just notational difference other than presence of mutation… How is it harder to understand 3 + 6 + 9 + ... + 3n means compared to the for loop? Is repeated addition hard to grasp?

    • Kempeth@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      No it’s not harder to grasp, just less concise. Summation and Product notation exist for the same reason we don’t say “a discernible but subtle level of humidity” and just use “moist” instead - it’s more convenient. People can be taught to readily understand “moist” or the summation notation. It’s much harder to teach people to read the longer notation more quickly.

    • Stan@lemmywinks.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This thread makes me sad as fuck.

      Obviously you can integrate using Sigma notation, if it’s a definite integral.

  • SloppyPuppy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fuck! Im 40 and this is the first time I understand the sigma sign!! Thank you!

    Couldnt they just show this to me at 7th grade or something when i already learned pascal?

  • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The hard part of math isn’t understanding esoteric symbols it’s the theory behind it and it’s application. Number theory will mindbreak almost all people.

    • Stan@lemmywinks.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The hardest thing for me about math was the symbols. Greek, Roman, English.

      Once you get past that, the numbers are easy.

      • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Number theory and higher levels of math are a completely different beast. Once your exam is over 50% just writing proofs you will change your tune. Unless you are built for it.

  • garyyo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok but this is a bit of an unfair comparison given that Freya is pretty god tier at actually explaining math things.

  • proofofnothing@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    While I acknowledhe that I had some pretty awful math teachers, I would like to add that explaining math concepts in an edited video that you could spend a lot of time making has different demands than babysitting/teaching 30+ students at different levels multiple times a day with little prep time.