News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by joshma on Monday March 12, 2012 @02:23PM (#3694690)
For those interested, I'm almost certain that this is from MIT's 6.042 (Mathematics for Computer Science) class: http://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.042/spring12/ There is a publicly accessible, most-recent-draft of the text at http://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.042/spring12/mcsfull.pdf
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by zulfikar on Monday March 12, 2012 @04:41PM (#3695391)
Yes - these notes are definitely from 6.042. I TA'ed the class a couple of times as these notes were being developed. In my opinion, they are fantastic. Entertaining and engaging, while still maintaining an appropriate level of mathematical rigor.
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by sev on Monday March 12, 2012 @03:00PM (#3694872)
> Here is another wildly fun 6.042 game that’s surely about to sweep the nation!

Makes sense!

Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by tim_sw on Monday March 12, 2012 @04:34PM (#3695354)
Has anyone read both this and Knuth's Concrete Mathematics? http://www.amazon.com/Concrete-Mathematics-Foundation-Comput... How do they compare with each other?
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by nomathshere on Monday March 12, 2012 @08:25PM (#3696381)
In the early paragraphs, it shows:

∀ n ∈ N n2 + n + 41

It goes on to tell what ∀ means, and what N means, but excludes ∈.

This tells me there is a level of maths prerequisites required. For those of us who had liberal arts backgrounds with very little math who are programmers by sweat and knack, where can one go to get enough training to be ready to read something like this? I'd love to get through it and finally feel I'm on equal footing with some of my CS-trained peers (and actually be able to leverage the concepts at work) but seeing this early in the book leads me to believe I need some prerequisites first.

Thanks for your advice.

Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by eddie_the_head on Monday March 12, 2012 @08:53PM (#3696471)
This is just a little set notation, ∈ means 'is an element of' the set after the symbol. So for example, ∀ n ∈ N n^2 + n + 41 means 'for every n in the set of real numbers, n^2+n+41'. Reading the linked story, that's a proposition for the definition of prime numbers setting up for a proof. You usually learn set notation, proofs, induction, relations, and most of the stuff before probability I scanned in the Table of Contents there in a discrete math course. Many also cover probability, but ymmv.
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by brent on Monday March 12, 2012 @09:02PM (#3696496)
Look at the version in the comment posted by joshma: http://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.042/spring12/mcsfull.pdf

You must not have been the only person to notice this. The definition is on pg 6 in the pdf above.

Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by nomathshere on Monday March 12, 2012 @09:52PM (#3696630)
Awesome...thanks. So I suppose these should be used instead of the originally posted pdf? Thanks again!
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by nomathshere on Monday March 12, 2012 @08:26PM (#3696384)
By the way I did have algebra 1 and 2, geometry, business calculus, and statistics, but it's been a looooooooooong time and at this point it's as if I didn't.
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by dhawalhs on Monday March 12, 2012 @02:08PM (#3694616)
Another good resource are the readings [1] from OCW's Mathematics for Computer Science

[1] http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-comput...

Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by michaelmwu on Monday March 12, 2012 @03:54PM (#3695123)
Only reason this shows up as princeton.edu is that this text is used for several Math for CS classes at Princeton. Good text, I learned a lot!
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by mistrQ on Monday March 12, 2012 @02:23PM (#3694692)
Thanks for this.

I feel I can now go back and cover all the math i've forgotten since the first couple CS years (only a couple years ago!). I'm not really sure if it is worth the time from a practical standpoint, however I always feel slightly slower than other students when it comes to algorithm-related classes.

Hopefully this should get me up to speed again!

Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by jimhefferon on Monday March 12, 2012 @05:14PM (#3695593)
This has nothing to do with the quality of the text, and I appreciate someone using not-computer-modern for a TeX-ed text, but the capital T's are just strange.
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by joelhaasnoot on Monday March 12, 2012 @03:01PM (#3694873)
Someone else here taking "Design of Algorithms I"?
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by SkyMarshal on Monday March 12, 2012 @08:12PM (#3696349)
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by eddie_the_head on Monday March 12, 2012 @08:56PM (#3696477)
Also join us in #algo-class on Freenode IRC.
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by jcurbo on Monday March 12, 2012 @09:15PM (#3696531)
Noticed this wasn't mentioned in the subreddit anywhere, so I posted about it. Thanks for the heads up!
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by Gjallarson on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @07:56AM (#3697988)
Anyone knows if there is a .epub version or something more ebook-reader friendly?
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by rfvtgb on Monday March 12, 2012 @09:49PM (#3696617)
Really nice and would be even better if it covered information theory too.
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by ramblerman on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @02:57AM (#3697321)
Anyone know of an online course following this book?
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by jfmercer on Monday March 12, 2012 @05:04PM (#3695524)
This is a helpful resource!
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by useful on Monday March 12, 2012 @03:05PM (#3694899)
thank you, I was looking for something like this
Re:Mathematics for Computer Science by tbsdy on Monday March 12, 2012 @11:54PM (#3696928)
I have to say that my favourite book ever on Computer Science Mathematics is actually Applied Mathematics for Database Professionals, by APress. It gave me an extremely thorough understanding of logic, set theory, and disabused me of my incorrect notion that relational databases were because of ER diagrams :-)