Why do we learn shit like integration by parts when computers can solve that shit just as well?
>pic related
>>7653262
>Why do we learn shit like integration by parts when computers can solve that shit just as well?
who do you think is programming the computers?
>>7653265
Creating software for symbolic math is a pretty small niche
>>7653262
Because part of understanding how to develop efficient logic is understanding what makes a solution process inefficient in the first place.
>>7653262
Because computers wouldn't know how to solve it without human guidance. How do you think computers work? They just know all math questions ever?
>>7653270
So you think engineers, economists, scientists, etc should just learn to solve integrals by plugging numbers into a mysterious black box with no intuition about what it's doing or what problem it's actually solving?
I'm all for delegating tedious rote computation to computers, but c'mon man.
>>7653270
dude, i'm not talking about full blown software suites. run of the mill engineers make little solver apps all the time, usually its something industry specific.
>>7653290
That's why they teach you to mathematically prove your algorithms, so you know they can be trusted. Once you've done that, there's no need to engage in trivialities.
>>7653315
How are you going to prove the algorithm without being able to solve the problem in the first place?
>>7653262
>computers computers
Some things can't be solved numerically.
>>7653315
you still have to do it the first time.
>>7653315
Who proves the proofs though?
>>7653322
>Some things can't be solved numerically.
but most things do.
>>7653322
Not yet. That's why Math majors still have jobs.
>>7653262
and yet if you do finite elements method, you need to do shit like integration by parts BY HAND (not the actual computation, but you need to write it).
lel
>>7653262
>when computers can solve that shit just as well
Actually computer integration sucks
>>7653395
Pretty sure Mathematica is better at solving that shit than you're
>>7653262
Why do we learn shit like multiplication and division, when computers can solve that shit just as well?
Why do we learn shit like handwriting, when computers can do that shit just as well?
Why do we learn shit like walking, when bicycles can do that shit just as well?
Why do we do anything?
>>7653262
>Why do we learn shit like integration by parts when computers can solve that shit just as well?
because you must know (at least) the basics of how things works
>>7653321
I missed that part. I assumed we were already over that fence.
>>7653262
im currently finishing my doctoral thesis on triple integrals. mainly for bragging rights
>>7653407
your*
>>7653582
In the year 2525, if man is still alive
If woman can survive, they may find...
>>7653262
Don't worry we're headed there eventually. Cellphones already work by magic and it's only a matter of time before people stop learning how to innovate because they don't know how a single fucking piece of technology works.
Honestly, I understand where people come from when they don't see the direct application of learning something, but why not feel better knowing it instead of being ruled over by computer that just knows the answer.
Once people stop learning how things work, this way of thinking is going to force its way down into applied until no one knows how to innovate anything and we're just copying things that have already been created.
Have a good future.
