On Feb 13, 2008 11:37 AM, SJS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > begin quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as of Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:33:10AM -0800: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:52:25PM -0800, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > > > Now, to be fair, if the book really deals with non-linear mechanics, > > > then computer simulation is a pretty good way to go as *all* of our > > > non-linear analysis methods are approximate. However, that's a far cry > > > from "precise and unambiguous". > > > > No. Sussman isn't claiming the physics theories he presents are perfect or > > unable to be improved. He is claiming that by communicating said > > theories with software his *communication* of those potentially > > imperfect theories is precise and unambiguous. Big difference. > > I think the comparision to teaching is a better one. > > When you program the computer to solve a problem, you are teaching > a particularly stupid student to solve the problem. > > It's the act that assists in understanding, not the product. >
I like this. I often use programming to teach myself something new. If you are reasonably fluent in almost any programming language then it seems a very natural mode of expression that is far more felxible and precise for many purposes than say, English. I find that the ability to branch and iterate makes a programming langauge often, though not always, easier to use for expressive purposes than convetional mathematics, especially when one would like to get some numenrical results and say some graphs. I do _not_ feel dogmatic about this though. I am _not_ trying to prove anything. I am simply trying to learn something. I will have to pick up Sussman's mecahnics book and see what he has to say. An aside: When I was an undergaduate we had an advanced mechanics course based on a Classic book by Herbert Goldstein. See http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-3rd-Herbert-Goldstein/dp/0201657023 The book was beautifully written and a joy to read. The course was on eof those intended to sort the men from the boys. If you could get through this advanced mechanics course than you might just have a chance at becoming a physicist. One night I was studying at a table in the commons romm of our college and Carruth McGehee, who is now a professor emeritus of mathematics at LSU, looked up and said to me, "Bob, did you know that 'the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariant plane?'" Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202 Not often remembered is Goldstein's droll introdcution, "Hence the vaguely Jabberwockian statement ... " Odd, how some things stick in our minds. Even then Carruth McGehee was a great teacher. He went on to write a very important mathematic's text: An Introduction to Complex Analysis. See http://www.math.lsu.edu/~mcgehee/ So it goes, BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
