>>> It also demonstrates that your at least persistent enough to
>>> accomplish and acquire one instead of just waving your hands and
>>> shouting "bullshit" at it.
>>
>> But not smart enough to realise that you can acheive more outside of
>> the academia? Must be a very useful kind of intelligence, smart
>> enough
>> to be persistant at what others tell you is a good thing, but not
>> smart enough to question if it is REALLY a good thing.
>
> Ah right you have to have NOT had a degree to realize that.
Nope. Honestly the main thing University seems to teach is arrogance.
The belief that you know more than you know, which usually shows up
when you encounter an area new to you. The tendancy to copy other
people's ideas and believe that you are really really clever and
superior, for having copied someone else's ideas, despite that you can
invent nothing. That sort of thing.
> After 25 years what I learned in school is not really day to day
> coding
> But it is still valuable
> Things like how to prove, in a mathematically rigorous way, that and
> algorithm IS correct
You do not need university to prove things. In fact it only gets in
the way of proof. Because their choice of language, maths, is ill-
suited for proving. It's better to stick to pure logic.
I've proven logically that my algorithm is correct. I don't rely on
any assumptions. I didn't need University OR maths for that. Believe
it or not, maths is not the only language to express logic, in fact
it's a poor one.
> But university is NOT a tech school
> The point is not to learn VB, C, RB or any other tool
I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that you can learn the
theoretical side without university, far quicker, and far better
outside.
>
>>> The fields of study in computer science that cover precisely what
>>> you're "inventing" is actually quote huge.
>>
>> quote huge eh? Sorry I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
>> Something about what I'm inventing... which is probably way over your
>> head... despite that you feel the need to talk about it as if you can
>> understand it.
>
> typo sheesh ... QUITE HUGE ... there
> like ring tree's and everything else ?
>
> You'd be stunned at what's already been done if you looked diligently
> in professional mags (ACM, etc)
Yet most of their implementations suck. And they often miss basic
flaws in the theory. I mean who uses skip lists?
--
http://elfdata.com/plugin/
"String processing, done right"
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|