12/2 I'd like to take Computer Vision CS280 next year. However, it requires
math 53/54. What's the difference between 53 and 54? Thanks.
\_ 53: Multivariable calculus - integrating over multiple variables
surface integrals, cool looking 3D pictures
54: Linear Algebra but not in the sense that is useful from any
kind of computer graphics work. The only thing you need
\_ yo: graphics != vision. I took 280 with malik
in 1994. grrrreat class!!! -nick
to know for, say 184/284, is transformations/translation
stuff. differential equations are also covered which is not
fun at all. DiffEq is used a lot in EE and E&M (especially
EE120) but chances are you're not going to have to know
what a Wronskian is. I still don't know but those jack
ass math profs (referring to Miller of course) think that
all this is really important.
The basic fact: only about 5% of what you learn in Berkeley
math classes will become applicable to you in the future.
\_ I'd be curious to know whose orifice you pulled this
statistic out of. i use what i learned in berkeley every
day. i have been thankful of having learned at least 90%
of it at one point or another.
you are an idiot if you don't think knowing diff eqs is
important. are you satisfied knowing only how to solve
diffeqs with constant coeffs? that solve 80% of the problems
you will run into as an EE, but that's about it. or are
you just satisifed not knowing how to solve diff eqs at
all? you think you've been doing fine without them, but the
truth is, people in Bangladesh probably think that their
lives are just fine too.
here's what you need from linear algebra for cs280: bases,
transformations, least squares, rank, singularity,
eigenvectors and eigenvalues, orthogonal, orthonormal.
That's basically all of the Anton book. -ali
\_ I never use any math beyond some very basic algebra. I
use *none* of the math I learned at Berkeley. This
pleases me more than you can imagine.
\_ Actually, math beyond basic algebra can be pretty
useful (especially some calc used in physics,
electrical, engineering, and some other science
classes). But the difference between the way a
high school teaches and a college does is that
in high school they teach you how to solve
practical problems whereas in berkeley
they're so caught up in theoretical proofs that
only math majors really care about.
\_ I'm not denying it. I'm just glad I'm not in
a position to need any of it. I'm not even
using HS math. More like Jr. High. Suits me
just fine. YMMV.
\_ well, good for you. but honestly, 90% is frikin insane.
Maybe you had a better prof than I did but I never
had to implement the things I learned from math 54 in
any physics 7 or EE classes to the extent that you
brag about. I admit having to solve simple diff eq's
and integrate relatively simple equations but I never
had to do boundry equations, prove the so called
"Keith Miller's Equivelance Theorem", find eigen vectors,
and do most of that math 54 crap. I'd like to know
whose orfice you're pulling that BS out of.
\_ I dunno, when I took 54 (then called 50B), I
actually used what I learned (when I was awake to
learn) a week or two lagged in Physics 7B...
\_ ali lives on a higher plane.
\_ You are all idiots. I use 0% of what I learned in
Cal. All I do everyday is to count the money I make
and the # of new concubines I get. And I learned how
to do that before I was born. College is useless;
education is stupid. Ignorance is strength and
self-esteem comes from the cavity of an empty head.
\_ Take upper division physics, math, chemistry, or
astronomy (probably others in engineering, too)
and it will make a lot more sense to you. The
lower divison math classes are essential to any
career in science or engineering (hence, they are
required) and really useful in some other fields,
too, like economics. --dim
\_ You can do just fine if you know math just up to Math
53/54. You can do hot sh*t and make much $ with insight
and initiative; you can also do hot sh*t that wouldn't be
possible without sophisticated math knowledge, and make
much $. You may feel fulfilled in either case, depending
on who you are. In either case, you will earn the
admiration of people who you think are brilliant and people
who you think are idiots, and disapproval and disgust from
the same range of persons. -jctwu
\_ Not really. Remember Ted Kazinski, the brilliant
math genius. I don't think anyone liked him.
\_ especially the rabbits. -jctwu
\_ "Math is hard! Let's go shopping!" -Barbie
\_ amen.
\_ Was it Barbie or Malibu Stacy?
\_ One, last I checked... |