Redpill me on CS and related directions...

Jealousy

I'm busy building an self learning AI that can read written arguments and determine their validity

Oh, but I'm not solving the reihhman hypothesis or raving about yet another theoretial particle that will never be relevant to anyone so I guess I'm a brainlet

mathematical physics is FAR from dick sucking

it doesn't. you knowing the definition of a fourier transform doesn't mean you know jack shit about harmonic analysis

You know, it almost makes it seem like you frequent that board from the times you mentioned it.

And please don't jump to conclusions
You're not a spechul snowflake, harmonic analysis is baby tier shit to us

Here are a few common programs in science {Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, Computer Science, Engineering, Physics}, in terms of conceptual difficulty they probably go {Mathematics, Computer Science, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Biology). If you go into a legitimate CS degree (Requires discrete math in the lower division, requires TOC, AOA I and II, Numerical Analysis, full sequence of calc and LA, and abstract algebra), you'll actually learn how to write a proof, which is more than most physics/engineering guys can say. The problems you work on are just as challenging as the mathematician's (if you're actually good, not of the "i liek coding xD xD womXn in coding xD xD" ilk) and have more important ramifications. Proving the lonely runner conjecture is a big intellectual achievement, but so is finding a fast integer factorization algorithm, and the latter will actually impact the world outside of mathematics.

Software Engineering and /g/ related material is for tards and spergs. Computer Science proper is mathematics. Anyone who says otherwise is trolling.

In terms of difficulty I this is how I have found these subjects(hardest to easiest)

>Pure mathematics (Pretty fucking tough stuff)
>Applied mathematics and Physics (Applying what you know through logic and formulae)
>Chemistry (Not much experience but I found it to be a little rote memorisation, "if I mix an acid and an alkali I get water and a salt", mixed with some math)
>Computer Science (It's probably my favourite subject, besides math, but its the " easy A" of mathematical studies, because its just coming up with solutions to problems or making X do Y, through logic and reason, it is described in math terms, and I found pure/applied math useful for this subject)
>Biology (Rote fucking memorisation, I enjoyed the subject, but there's so little mathematical reasoning I found I had to memorise the WHOLE text book to pass the exam, unlike other subjects were I would just memorise formulae and reasons why)

Love all of these subjects but computer science is easy as FUCK.

What's AOA?

>AOA
analysis of algorithms

This

Hate to break it to ya, but if the person who solves the Reimann Hypothesis decided to focus all his intellect on CS his creations would be along the lines of using machines to design and manufacture other machines to automate the mining of other planets.

And to be even more clear the most prominent unanswered question in CS, P=NP, will have to be proved by a mathematician.

CS is a branch of mathematics, mostly combinatorics.

>memory management
>CS

>Engineers work with Hamiltonians all the time.
I thought they used Matlab.

Because the majority of CS majors are idiots. I have literally met college CS majors who fail to grasp simple concepts like multiplication. There's also "Self taught" programmers who have learned the bare bones of what they need to program something but have zero understanding of how anything actually works and panic at the sight of math.

t. CS major.

Good answer

It is true, most CS Majors are untermensch. Do a double major in Statistics and Probability or Mathematics (Major in one and minor in the other). If your school is one of those weirdos that consider the stats and math identical, take courses in both and minor is something like Physics or Philosophy or Econ.

Chemistry and Physics should be lower, no proofs = no respek.

I might argue putting Applied Mathematics above Pure. In a lot of schools they are different programs and I'd argue the former is more difficult (More analysis REQUIRED which is considered the more difficult area).

I'm a math major and I spent 4 years learning how to operate a pencil. I'm gonna do a PhD so I can spend another four years learning how to use a pen!

>he doesn't know self-learner => brainlet
>furious keks

At least do your graduate studies in Operations Research or Statistics, desu. Pure mathematics beyond an undergraduate degree isn't good for anything but cognitive pleasure.

I started my first year of undergrad doing a Major in math and a minor in Philosophy, but some counselors/professors/family convinced me to switch my minor to CS instead for employ-ability's sake.
Believe me when I say this, Computer science is actually less work than fucking Philosophy; partly because Professors spend half their time translating stuff for illiterate Pajeets, and the other half arguing with them over dumb shit.

Now that I switched, I actually have more time to go to the bar and talk with all the interesting Veeky Forums people and girls I met in Philo.

1/10

>Chemistry
>Biology
>memorization

Once again, mathfag ignores the fact that humans are more than just brains floating in the ether. You're wrong, dolt. Biology and chemistry involve DOING THINGS in the REAL WORLD, not flipping around numbers in your head and calling it "research" or whatever. If you mathematicians are so smart, how come you spend your days scribbling Greek letters on a chalk board instead of extending lives and making billions of dollars by curing cancer or Alzheimer's. The truly intelligent people are those who can devise models with accurate predictive power, based on empirical observations of the natural world. Mathematics is simply a tool to be used by real scientists in order to model the real world which makes mathematicians little more than hammer-makers.

Here's the ACTUAL list in terms of difficulty:

1a. Particle Physicists. Creating a mathematical model that describes the elements of the universe has always been the ultimate goal for natural philosophers.

1b. Neuroscientists. Understanding how macromolecules can be arranged so as to create consciousness is the other question of the universe.

2a. Computer scientists and programmers.
2b. Molecular biology and chemistry.
All of these people have to create models and devise experiments to test their models in order to learn more about whatever system they are studying.

10000. Mathematicians.
Bottom of the barrel, hardly even qualify as scientists. A bunch of oafs who would probably poison or maim themselves if placed in an actual laboratory. Confined to computer labs and desks where they can study things that no one cares about without hurting themselves or anyone else.

Because ME is Newton Math.

"Self-learning AI"
As engineer this is literally only a Matlab command for me.

>implying maths isn't the conceptual foundation for items #1 to #999

>And to be even more clear the most prominent unanswered question in CS, P=NP, will have to be proved by a mathematician.

Define mathematician?

His argument could be converted over to millitary/political science also, he syaing that there is the lonely dolt Machiavelli who writes the book "The Prince" but has no title, no power, while he is exiled for making the dumbest political choice of all time. He is clearly a smart guy but is a total cuck.

Then there is the kings/rulers with actual power throughout the ages that read his book and apply it better than he ever could to real life situations.

You are arguing: Hey he wrote one of the foundations that all the best minds started using to build massive empires!

He is arguing back: The people who actually made good use of it are the smart ones.

Because programmers will get a job while the others are sucking crack for dick.

There is no functional difference between cs and pure math.

Well yes it's the basis for everything because math is developed to be useful for everything else. Technical progress leads mathematical progress. Math shouldn't even be considered as a science. Rather, mathematical proficiency should be used as a barometer for the technical capability of a society.

This is a very Doron Zielberger -style perspective.

The only actually interesting mathematics being done today that isn't just mindless paperpushing to try to look important is combinatorics/discrete math. Finitisms resurgence is coming up fast.

One involves learning how to tell a computer to prove things. The other involves using a pen.

>salty brainlet who couldn't write a proof to save their lives detected

You know that Biology and Chemistry use math classes to weed out the idiots right? You might wonder "when will I ever need to use math in my bio career?" it might be the case that you never do, but the reason you have a career is because the math classes (calculus) weeded out the untermensch. Without math, your field would be flooded with brainlets because there wouldn't be any gatekeeper. It's only a start though, put in analysis and you'll really see the bar raised among biology/chemistry undergrads.

As someone who did a math minor, I never really understood the obession with proofs period. I just don't care about proving any random abstract shit that hasn't already been proven by other people. I don't see what the point is and I took Numb theory/linear alge/ab algebra/calculus/analysis. It is great to understand the proofs and mathematics of other people, but that only takes one or two math classes desu, much less than what I took.

It is great to know mathematics because it helps with the field but most mathematics work that is currently being done seems very non-useful and the stuff that is useful is mostly just minor scaffolding on things that were already created. It really seems like a silly field.

As a computer scientist, I am interested in producing things which have guarantees. Among the guarantees that I require my work to provide is the guarantee that I can't (or nobody knows how to) do better; I absolutely need to worry about proofs in order to do this.

As an example, I'm currently formalizing a solution to a very "applied" problem in computer networks as a problem in information theory. So far, I've had to produce two graph-theoretic proofs and one proof relating to core complexity theory in order to simply present my most trivial construction and show that we can only do better by approximation. When I later present a scheme based on approximation, I'll have to produce even more proofs in order to give approximation guarantees.

>I took a shitty math minor including engineering "math" and freshman math classes and so I know math is useless

Idiot brainlet

you do realize that there is an immense over-supply of bio/chem degree holders relative to mathematics of physics for that matter.

Oh and before you try to use the "bio/chem is more useful" argument, there is also a huge gap between the amount of people that graduate with degrees in bio/chem and the available jobs. As a matter a fact the gap is larger than any other stem major.

If your in one of these fields, all I can say is that I hope your really really good, or your gonna be eating shit from employers for the rest of your life.

please post that average cs pics

bonus for "the number is false" version

>CS

A B.Sc. in math is (marginally) more difficult to get than that in biology or chemistry because the latter don't involve thinking whereas the former (sort of) does. However, once you become a grad student and you actually have to DO things, working in a biology or chemistry laboratory requires a lot of motivation , understanding of the system, and in many cases, imagination. Put another way, the jump from undergraduate to graduate studies in biology or chemistry is far more jarring than doing the same in mathematics.

When people like call Biology "rote memorization," they're making the claim that sitting in a lecture hall is the same as working in a lab. They're effectively saying that because they can operate a car, that they could also build one. Yes, biology and chemistry LECTURES are mostly about rote memorization (and for that matter, so are 75% of math classes), and yes, biological concepts are easier to understand than math is, but you can only memorize what's already been figured out. Mendel didn't discover the Law of segregation because he was good at memorizing. He did so because he created an experiment and drew conclusions from that experiment.

> You know that Biology and Chemistry use math classes to weed out the idiots right?
Undergrad anything is easy. Yeah, I got straight A's in linear algebra, calculus, and diiferential equations courses, too.

> your field would be flooded with brainlets because there wouldn't be any gatekeeper.
> If your in one of these fields, all I can say is that I hope your really really good, or your gonna be eating shit from employers for the rest of your life.

What about my in one of these fields? The most capable individuals occupy the best spots in their fields no matter how much competition there is. The field of programming is flooded with nu-male webdevs, but that fact doesn't diminish the achievements of elite programmers.who win programming Olympiads.

some of those aren't really freshman classes to be fair

What a fucking dick measuring contest

I'll ask this here. If I do computer engineering will I have a chance to compete with CS majors for software jobs? I'm currently doing CS. I wanna learn hardware but would much rather work with software.

I'm afraid that employers might be biased against my degree and think I don't know as much as a CS major. I'm also afraid they might be right, granted my uni's CS and CE programs are quite similar so I feel like I'm worried over nothing.

>programmers considered brainlets
programming is not the same as doing computer science

People who are against dick measuring contests are usually the ones with a dick too small to ever win.

as long as you understand a dozen of the most useful data structures and algorithms you'll be fine

>Why are programmers considered brainlets on Veeky Forums
Because anyone can learn how to program. Scientists, mathematicians and engineers use programming all the time in their careers, and they're expected to learn it on their own.

>while mechanical engineers are more often treated like equals by math/physics people?
When you're expected to use AT LEAST Chemistry, Statics, Dynamics, Multivariable Calculus, Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, Complex Variables, Fluid Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials, Materials Science, Numerical Analysis, Thermodynamics, Heat and Mass Transfer CONSTANTLY AND ALL SIMULTANEOUSLY in your work, you might as well have some respect to that person. And I haven't even touched the special and post-grad subjects that Mechanical Engineers deal with.

what about Cybersecurity ? Its still programming and computer science.