You can do stuff in programming that you can’t do in math without a lot of complications. Math is a subset of programming but it’s not built on math.
Remember that horrid thing that happened with math and logic in the 20s/30s? I won’t name it as I know it’s painful.
It’s a direct result of the fundamental flaw in math that allowed for stepwise time and other marvelous things to be added like register memory and circuits.
I can compile a completely internally consistent program that is also wrong. This is very powerful because not all situations need two level of logical consistency.
computer programming is a way of cheating at maths at best.
Comp sci, is just how to cheat efficiently.
There are things you can do in physics that can’t be done in Math, not because physics is better. Just because it’s an application of math.
Just like comp sci.
It’s a cute little field. That’s fun to play around with when you can’t handle abstraction.
But it can never replace pure mathematics.
That’s the thing though. If math was all-encompassing, math could handle those things. But it can’t.
Pure mathematics *is* beautiful, it’s true. I have a friend who does topology and has been working in knots for a couple of decades. Amazing stuff that computers can barely even *think* of displaying because the calculations are too intense and yet the concepts can fit on a few lines with a glossary, words and imagination.
But programming is approachable. Pragmatic. Democratic. Sure, it’s commoners stuff but the tools are everywhere, accessible and increase’s the world’s general knowledge abilities by its usage.
Mathematics, to me, is a programming language for which computers have not been built yet to handle.
Um, sort of. I’ve made visualizations from other people’s work and efforts. I’ll see if this question was modeled somewhere in a cellular automata – hang on…
Contextually, poor people make good decisions.
If you have a safe cushion to work from, you can safely take risks and afford to lose. Over and over and over again. Your poor decisions are cushioned by your wealth.
But if you’re poor. you CANNOT AFFORD to make a mistake.
So what do you do? You plan for what’s reasonable. Risk assess and act.
If there is no cushion in your foreseeable future, you plan for the near future. You take the gains you can given the circumstances.
To someone sitting on top of a soft bed of safety, these decisions may seem like… well, “poor” decision-making. But wealthy people don’t HAVE TO make the decisions the poor do. The wealthy can afford to make untold mistakes that would cripple someone in poverty.
Example: Do you choose soap or underwear?
Ok. Let’s say you live in a warm climate with little or no air conditioning. Your sweat keeps you clean enough but you need to look presentable for your day’s work yet you need the wicking qualities of underwear to stay cool and keep your clothes from showing sweat marks.
Underwear might be smarter in that case.
It’s the assumptions that make modeling difficult to get right. I like automata because it turns everything into mostly independently thinking ants who can respond to quick social changes and it can model many non-linear things well.
But modeling is more of an art than anything. You tweak the model to fit the reality, use its results in the real world and hope you’ve accounted for enough variables.
Soap or a lottery ticket?
Doesn’t matter. If you can cook you can use almost anything.
I’ve used both. Charcoal does have its own magic when right, and propane imparts a gas smell when wrong.
But bad charcoal cooking is as bad as bad propane cooking.
Now a campfire is magical… and… probably… slightly carcinogenic but still… magical.