The fact you still aren't following at this point actually demonstrates that your argument is incomplete. But then, it is possible you don't understand what math inherenly is — and many don't — so you have to settle for the incomplete argument that "you don't need to be good at <insert a particular branch of higher math here> to become a developer."
For the sake of your own growth as a professional, stop responding to this thread, go back, and read my statements slowly and carefully. Think about them. You're smart. If you put some thought into it, instead of focusing on what you'll say next to "win" (and win what?), you'll understand what I'm trying to explain to you.
Understanding, I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, just incomplete in your understanding, and thereby drawing a flawed conjecture.
Here's an analogy of where your argument is falling apart. Your point is effectively "the sky is blue, therefore paint the balloon blue and it'll always be invisible against the sky (unless there are clouds)." I'm trying to explain that while the sky is often blue, that's because of how light diffuses, meaning the shade (and even the color) can vary, thus you cannot paint the balloon to be invisible, even without clouds. But instead of stopping and considering the nature of light diffusing, you keep on hammering that "the sky is blue unless there are clouds".
For the most part, you've misrepresented my point by saying things like this:
What we don't want to do is tell developers, "oh, you can totally blow off math, you'll never use it,"
I wasn't suggesting that math is useless or anything if that was what worried you.
For the sake of your own growth as a professional, stop responding to this thread, go back, and read my statements slowly and carefully. Think about them. You're smart. If you put some thought into it, instead of focusing on what you'll say next to "win" (and win what?), you'll understand what I'm trying to explain to you.
So, not only have you used strawman arguments but you're now resorting to personal attacks? At least we do agree, this thread is a waste of time.
For the most part, you've misrepresented my point by saying things like this:
And that once again underscores that you're not really reading my responses. It's your choice. I'm sorry you chose to rush through, misread and misunderstood things in your haste, and got your feelings hurt as a result.
So, not only have you used strawman arguments but you're now resorting to personal attacks?
Hmm. I see neither strawman arguments nor personal attacks on either side, speaking as someone who has done a fair bit of formal structured debate.
It is not a personal attack to point out a flaw in your rhetorical approach...or if it is ad hominem to disagree with how someone responds, then you're guilty of ad hominem from the first response, and every subsequent response. (And you didn't.) It's also not a personal attack to point out an error in conduct, as I'm doing now. I think you're intelligent enough to learn from your mistake, otherwise I wouldn't bother.
I wasn't suggesting that math is useless or anything if that what worries you.
A careful read will reveal that is not what I was saying. But you have overlooked about 90% of what I've said so far, so I'm not surprised you missed that. Like I said, please go back and re-read for your own sake. I know you're smart enough to understand it. You just need to slow down and focus more on learning than winning.
At least we do agree, this thread was a waste of time.
We don't agree on that at all. If you choose not to take a learning attitude to this, it may be a waste of time for you by your choice, but it will be insightful for many who read it. As for me, I always benefit from debate, in that it helps stretch and strengthen my understanding of a topic, whether my debate partner chooses to approach it in a healthy way or not.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, my point stands. You don't need to be good at maths to become a developer, just need the basics.
The fact you still aren't following at this point actually demonstrates that your argument is incomplete. But then, it is possible you don't understand what math inherenly is — and many don't — so you have to settle for the incomplete argument that "you don't need to be good at
<insert a particular branch of higher math here>to become a developer."For the sake of your own growth as a professional, stop responding to this thread, go back, and read my statements slowly and carefully. Think about them. You're smart. If you put some thought into it, instead of focusing on what you'll say next to "win" (and win what?), you'll understand what I'm trying to explain to you.
Understanding, I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, just incomplete in your understanding, and thereby drawing a flawed conjecture.
Here's an analogy of where your argument is falling apart. Your point is effectively "the sky is blue, therefore paint the balloon blue and it'll always be invisible against the sky (unless there are clouds)." I'm trying to explain that while the sky is often blue, that's because of how light diffuses, meaning the shade (and even the color) can vary, thus you cannot paint the balloon to be invisible, even without clouds. But instead of stopping and considering the nature of light diffusing, you keep on hammering that "the sky is blue unless there are clouds".
For the most part, you've misrepresented my point by saying things like this:
I wasn't suggesting that math is useless or anything if that was what worried you.
So, not only have you used strawman arguments but you're now resorting to personal attacks? At least we do agree, this thread is a waste of time.
And that once again underscores that you're not really reading my responses. It's your choice. I'm sorry you chose to rush through, misread and misunderstood things in your haste, and got your feelings hurt as a result.
Hmm. I see neither strawman arguments nor personal attacks on either side, speaking as someone who has done a fair bit of formal structured debate.
It is not a personal attack to point out a flaw in your rhetorical approach...or if it is ad hominem to disagree with how someone responds, then you're guilty of ad hominem from the first response, and every subsequent response. (And you didn't.) It's also not a personal attack to point out an error in conduct, as I'm doing now. I think you're intelligent enough to learn from your mistake, otherwise I wouldn't bother.
A careful read will reveal that is not what I was saying. But you have overlooked about 90% of what I've said so far, so I'm not surprised you missed that. Like I said, please go back and re-read for your own sake. I know you're smart enough to understand it. You just need to slow down and focus more on learning than winning.
We don't agree on that at all. If you choose not to take a learning attitude to this, it may be a waste of time for you by your choice, but it will be insightful for many who read it. As for me, I always benefit from debate, in that it helps stretch and strengthen my understanding of a topic, whether my debate partner chooses to approach it in a healthy way or not.