Yes, I like that a lot - 'Digital' Math. It does have a different sense than 'Discrete' Math.
However, down here in the trenches, I really don't expect that kind of distinction to be a part of math department discussions anytime soon. It will in fact come up for discussion in our department : ) , but it probably won't be taken seriously. As it stands, our curriculum presents AP Calc as the crown jewel of achievement. Everything points towards that goal. Along the way there are various acceptable exits for those who just need to graduate. 'Finite' Math / Prob Stat is one of those exits. It's basically 'Math for Dummies'. I really dislike that organization and would like to throw a monkey wrench into it. The good news is that this year I was given permission to create a Computational Analysis class, and I'm very happy with it. There are some amazing kids in there. I got a bunch of 3d puzzles in my room such as http://www.creativewhack.com/ , and there are some kids who take these things and create structures that just make me go 'Hmmm ... '. Truly remarkable. And there's one kid who is completely self-taught regarding Turing-completeness, the lambda calculus, and just about any programming language you name. He is way, way out there. I just kind of give him space to do whatever he needs. The cool thing is - he's not cocky about it. His attitude is so great. He just loves this stuff and is eager to share whatever he has found. So in the Computational Analysis class I am kind of bound to cover the Analysis curriculum, but I've been given permission to do it using computational approaches. One of the things I've noticed is that though our math courses are called 'Analysis', the texts all bear the title 'Precalculus'. I find that interesting, as there really is a difference between the terms. 'Precalc' tends to be an assortment of topics that one might need in calculus, but 'Analysis' historically arose after calculus in order to remove philosophical difficulties regarding continuity and infinity. So I've really focused on that as a theme - that here in the digital/information age the power of the discrete has proven itself, but the curriculum we study arose in an era that was concerned about continuity and the real numbers. I keep bringing up this continuous vs. discrete, or analog vs. digital, theme as something relevant to think about. During the first semester I focused mainly on programming in Python and using it for sequences, series, combinatorics, Boolean stuff, different base systems, and so on. I of course used the Litvins' Digital Age<http://www.skylit.com/mathandpython.html>for a lot of this. Second semester I plan to use Sage more as the primary tool and will get into trig and conics and other typical mathy things. I could easily see doing a lot of the first semester stuff in a course designated as 'Digital Math' that would not simply be a Finite Math dumping ground. That would be a such a great way to go. But ... one thing at a time. - Michel On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM, kirby urner <kirby.ur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Per the log entry below, I've been rubbing elbows > with Portlandia's "intelligencia" again (comic > book allusion), thanks to Chairman Steve (and > Elizabeth). > > Steve is walking towards my place as I write this, > having just met with the latter, the event organizer. > > Methinks "digital math" is gaining on "discrete > math" as what to decry as not being taught > (the ongoing media campaign I've been > updating y'all about). > > The latter has the disadvantage of sounding like > "discreet", whereas "digital" has these nice > reverberations with "analog" -- and that's precisely > the distinction "discrete" was trying to make > in keeping it quantized, as in "not continuous". > > People already know "analog vs digital" from > popular media. HDTV is digital. Shows like > 'The X-Files' get recorded as files, on magnetized > disks keeping ones and zeros, or in flash drives. > Analog records still sound good though; worth > keeping a turntable and watching video clips > about how they work. > > However, the reason this is probably not an > important argument is zip codes (e.g. 97214) > are free to vary as to what they adopt (or don't) > in terms of nomenclature. > > We might tell parents: "the Silicon Forest is > amazed and agog at how plugged up the > STEM pipeline has become, like why won't > schools share more digital math?", whereas in > a neighboring state we might say something > about how the lack of "computational thinking" > is quite stunning (and stunting). > > Why Johnny Can't Code is still a classic, though > I don't know why the author bothered to take an > ill-informed swipe at Python. Someone's partisan > agenda I suppose **. > > http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/01/why-johnny-cant-program.html > > There's no need to standardize on "the one right > way to talk" -- a sure way to get bogged down in > nonsensical little arguments. > > OK, back to mathfuture. > > Oh yes, and the log entry: > http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2011/02/open-secrets.html > > Steve will be joining you at Pycon soon. I'm > too booked up this year. I forget if Michelle will > be going, I think she said yes. > > Ah, Steve is here, > > Kirby Urner > 4dsolutions.net > > > Martian Math > Digital Math > Pythonic Math > "Gnu" Math > > ** > "The "scripting" languages that serve as entry-level > tools for today's aspiring programmers -- like Perl > and Python -- don't make this experience accessible > to students in the same way. BASIC was close enough > to the algorithm that you could actually follow the > reasoning of the machine as it made choices and > followed logical pathways. Repeating this point > for emphasis: You could even do it all yourself, > following along on paper, for a few iterations, > verifying that the dot on the screen was moving > by the sheer power of mathematics, alone. Wow!" > > ... sounds to me like this author doesn't have > clear concepts, is getting this fed to him 2nd hand, > not through personal experience. Since when is > Python "entry level" (compared to what? -- every > language has its newbies) and since when did we > stop "following along on paper, for a few iterations"? > OK, maybe not literal paper. > > > _______________________________________________ > Edu-sig mailing list > Edu-sig@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig > > -- "Computer science is the new mathematics." -- Dr. Christos Papadimitriou
_______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
