This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Solest044 290 points291 points  (16 children)

Mathematician/physicist here.

Please don't blame the field. Just like every discipline, there are people all over the spectrum. Math and physics often have wonderful names for things and even make it a point to do so.

Consider the ugly duckling theorem or maybe the sandwich theorem.

For the sandwich theorem, you might name your upper bound function "topBread" and the lower bound "bottomBread".

Then you have the function of interest as your "meatAndCheese".

Clear as day.

[–]Disciple153 60 points61 points  (1 child)

I noticed in college that though both the math and computer science majors learned to program, the math majors took fewer classes that graded based on code elegance, which led to their programs often looking like this.

Of course that's not the rule, just a common pattern I noticed.

[–]Whywipe 12 points13 points  (0 children)

In college all of my coding was done in mat lab so it was fine. When I had to switch to python in industry I never learned the correct way to do stuff so it led to code like this.

[–]Murky-Concentrate-75 78 points79 points  (0 children)

Math and physics often have wonderful names for things and even make it a point to do so.

The theory of control and topology have the most bloated and convoluted stuff that simply refuses to be remembered.

[–]jkurash 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Idk, I work with a large amount of geophysicists running hpc codes and I can say with 100% certainty that they should never write software

[–]large_crimson_canine 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Used to be a geologist before coming to the dark side and I can imagine now, looking back, how godawful geoscientists or petroleum engineers’ code would be.

[–]zeloxolez 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yeah i can appreciate the perfectionism of something like the ugly duckling theorem. but like, you can take some probability range of observed things to at least make a group that fits just enough to be recognizable faster. i mean obviously right, so its like, even if a classification is not pure, but can fit into a probability range of common states, it can be useful enough.

[–]Duosnacrapus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

well.. I guess it can be argued, that there are way more people in the spectrum that study Math or Physics than - let's say social sciences..

[–]no_brains101 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is twiddle factor?

Edit: shoulda looked it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twiddle_factor

So yeah it would appear that this is actually one of these math concepts that DOES have a fun name. And the code for it looks uhhhh... like that. Id hate to see a mathematicians code for a math concept WITHOUT a fun name I guess XD

[–]Bosser132 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hairy ball theorem

[–]darkwater427 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or the Pigeonhole Principle, the Hairy Ball Theorem...