I find this wrong in so many levels. Also, the comments...sum into "maths confuse me, change them to unicorns".https://twitter.com/citnaj/status/1233076496584953856 …
LOL well I think that's a slight mischaracterization there... Can you expand on the many levels of wrong? I'm not offended. But you haven't explained it.
-
-
Yeah, I sounded like a dick. The reason is that I have seen many people that are good programmers but have no idea of the underlying math processes of their code. That quite often leads to accept results that should not have been accepted in the first place. 1/2
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
2/2 Now, being a shitty programmer but good in maths can lead to inefficiencies, badly written code and non flexible too, but by experience you will understand (hopefully) what a reasonable output is.
-
1/ So that all makes sense. Yeah, I'm not advocating try to avoid math as a "good programmer". What I'm trying to point out here is that the math is being doing in an unnecessarily obscure way- even when sticking with the notation.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Also, maths is a standard language and when you get a grasp of the topic is quite self-explanatory. Whereas, in languages like Python that is not always the case. For example, both PyMC3 and tf-probability are working on Bayesian stats. Knowing one doesn't translate to the other.
-
Yeah that's a big plus for mathematical notation there- standardization!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The same for using STAN in R and tf-prob in Python. The link are maths. If you know the maths then you get a grasp of the process and you can explain it to an R, C++, Python user
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.