We had our first MOGA (Meditation and Yoga) session of the semester tonight, led by Gabby. No pictures because it was dark, but it was wildly relaxing. It reminds me of when we used to do yoga for Dragon Boat, back so long ago in SJC. Cue the warm fuzzy feelings inside.
Now we're playing Beatles songs while sitting in the common room together. A few of us are just sitting together, listening to Beatles songs, and possibly doing some homework, some of us... and it's just so great and relaxing, too. Ailén knows almost all the words for almost every song that plays. Woah.
I'm just so happy right now. And relaxed (thanks Gabby). And it is just wonderful... :)
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Yay! Coding!
We have these classes known as student-led sessions, wherein the professor is not present (but watches the recording of the class afterwards and grades us), and two students from the class lead the session.
Today, we had a Formal Analyses student-led session. I figured I'd drop this little gem here. Perhaps this adds some context to my last post, just coincidentally. (Also, bonus for anyone who is wondering, "You say you take classes online! So is this an online university? What does it look like?!" No, it is not an online university. It's just a futuristic one. ;) )
Today, we had a Formal Analyses student-led session. I figured I'd drop this little gem here. Perhaps this adds some context to my last post, just coincidentally. (Also, bonus for anyone who is wondering, "You say you take classes online! So is this an online university? What does it look like?!" No, it is not an online university. It's just a futuristic one. ;) )
 |
| "My name is Justine (AKA: Yay! Coding!)" I feel like Roiman came up with that option. :) |
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Python Charmers
I haven't been able to post as much as I'd have liked recently. I suppose that I'll have to stick to monthly updates. I will try to do one of those later tonight, but here's a quick thought while I balance classes and homework on my head (like everyone around here) in an attempt to get to the San Francisco Opera tonight.
I am immensely lucky that I had the teachers that I did in high school. I am constantly reminded of this in university, particularly when I do the programming assignments for my Formal Analyses class. My other high school teachers have been absolutely wonderful - but this post is about programming, so praise for other teachers will come later (and trust me, it will - I think about my good fortune in this regard almost daily).
High school seems so far away when I talk about it now, which is a bit absurd because it's only been a handful of months. Nevertheless, I shall say this at risk of sounding like I'm speaking of something that happened in 1750: I am immensely lucky that I had the teachers that I did in high school.
In Forms Two and Three, I was lucky enough to be taught by a teacher whom I thought was slightly irrational. That isn't to say that irrationality is bad - as the thirteen-year-old me failed to realize - just that irrationality represents anything different from my perception of the norm.
My perception of the norm was wrong, needless to say. This wonderful teacher strived to impress upon all of us that simplicity is key. We all thought that programming was remote and complicated (not complex! re: complex systems class). I remember the first time this teacher told us about IPOS (Input, Output, Processing, Storage) in the context of programming. For the homework assignment, we were told to use IPOS to examine a given problem.
We all came back with long, winding, overtly descriptive sentences under each of the four columns. It was very irritating to me that the teacher wouldn't accept my overtly descriptive, unnecessarily un-parsimonious analysis of the problem that we were given.
We soon learned that IPOS was a parsimonious structure; that logical deductions often followed Occam's Razor, rather than trying to explain everything in existence ever. "Accept value from user for pounds" "Divide that value by 2.2 and show on the screen this number which represents the value in kilograms"?
Goodness, no! I can't bear to look at it right now. "Input lbs". "kg <-- lbs / 2.2". "Output kg". Simple. Sweet. Parsimonious.
What's my point? Well, this framework of logic and simplicity has been what I've used to teach my classmates about programming in python. At first, they always seem confounded that I could view pandas and python in general as simple, as I do. I try to explain myself as best as I can in the simplest possible terms; pandas seems illogical to everyone who gets it thrown at them as their very first data science adventure (or so I hope).
This framework is what I keep in mind as I learn about data science in Python using the pandas module (a module with which I am completely unfamiliar). I seem to have figured out this module surprisingly quickly. I think I owe that speed to the framework in question.
This framework of logic and simplicity has been the basis of all other programming languages I've learned, have been learning, and will learn (see also: I'm going to get around to learning C the Hard Way, inspiration courtesy of Eliana).
Recently, one of my professors sent out an email thanking the "Python Charmers", referencing the two or three of us who actually understood the programming assignment and tried to help out the other 26 or 27 of us who woefully didn't. The praise could never be solely mine. I owe a great deal of it to this high school teacher, who instilled in us the kind of view on problems and programming that I shall carry with me for a very long time, whether I become a Computer Scientist or not. She, perhaps even unknowingly, tried to teach us that the rest of the world will not be as simple as high school is, thus we should take advantage of the simplicity that is spoon-fed to us while we still have it.
This simple, logical view can be extrapolated to the rest of world, but I'm still working on that: in Form Five, I had a teacher who would often look at my mathematical proofs and laugh at the fact that I was making my life "so hard". (I also owe the development of my logical abilities to the aforementioned Form Five teacher, too. I know many ways to uncover the simplicity in seemingly complicated mathematical problems, thanks to her. She would get along very well with my current Formal Analyses professor: they have the same sense of humor. Perhaps this sense of humor is not French, as my professor so believes, but simply mathematician-like. But I digress - there will be posts for various other teachers in the future.) My logic and simplicity outside the world of programming is still a work in progress, but I owe it to this Form Two teacher for getting the ball rolling.
So thank you, Ms Frection. Thank you for teaching me all about this framework - especially back when I thought that it was irrational. You're inexorably stellar.
Bonus fun fact: Python has list comprehension and it's exciting! No more explicit loop structures for reading data into arrays (even just using python's append() function)! Yay!
I am immensely lucky that I had the teachers that I did in high school. I am constantly reminded of this in university, particularly when I do the programming assignments for my Formal Analyses class. My other high school teachers have been absolutely wonderful - but this post is about programming, so praise for other teachers will come later (and trust me, it will - I think about my good fortune in this regard almost daily).
High school seems so far away when I talk about it now, which is a bit absurd because it's only been a handful of months. Nevertheless, I shall say this at risk of sounding like I'm speaking of something that happened in 1750: I am immensely lucky that I had the teachers that I did in high school.
In Forms Two and Three, I was lucky enough to be taught by a teacher whom I thought was slightly irrational. That isn't to say that irrationality is bad - as the thirteen-year-old me failed to realize - just that irrationality represents anything different from my perception of the norm.
My perception of the norm was wrong, needless to say. This wonderful teacher strived to impress upon all of us that simplicity is key. We all thought that programming was remote and complicated (not complex! re: complex systems class). I remember the first time this teacher told us about IPOS (Input, Output, Processing, Storage) in the context of programming. For the homework assignment, we were told to use IPOS to examine a given problem.
We all came back with long, winding, overtly descriptive sentences under each of the four columns. It was very irritating to me that the teacher wouldn't accept my overtly descriptive, unnecessarily un-parsimonious analysis of the problem that we were given.
We soon learned that IPOS was a parsimonious structure; that logical deductions often followed Occam's Razor, rather than trying to explain everything in existence ever. "Accept value from user for pounds" "Divide that value by 2.2 and show on the screen this number which represents the value in kilograms"?
Goodness, no! I can't bear to look at it right now. "Input lbs". "kg <-- lbs / 2.2". "Output kg". Simple. Sweet. Parsimonious.
What's my point? Well, this framework of logic and simplicity has been what I've used to teach my classmates about programming in python. At first, they always seem confounded that I could view pandas and python in general as simple, as I do. I try to explain myself as best as I can in the simplest possible terms; pandas seems illogical to everyone who gets it thrown at them as their very first data science adventure (or so I hope).
This framework is what I keep in mind as I learn about data science in Python using the pandas module (a module with which I am completely unfamiliar). I seem to have figured out this module surprisingly quickly. I think I owe that speed to the framework in question.
This framework of logic and simplicity has been the basis of all other programming languages I've learned, have been learning, and will learn (see also: I'm going to get around to learning C the Hard Way, inspiration courtesy of Eliana).
Recently, one of my professors sent out an email thanking the "Python Charmers", referencing the two or three of us who actually understood the programming assignment and tried to help out the other 26 or 27 of us who woefully didn't. The praise could never be solely mine. I owe a great deal of it to this high school teacher, who instilled in us the kind of view on problems and programming that I shall carry with me for a very long time, whether I become a Computer Scientist or not. She, perhaps even unknowingly, tried to teach us that the rest of the world will not be as simple as high school is, thus we should take advantage of the simplicity that is spoon-fed to us while we still have it.
This simple, logical view can be extrapolated to the rest of world, but I'm still working on that: in Form Five, I had a teacher who would often look at my mathematical proofs and laugh at the fact that I was making my life "so hard". (I also owe the development of my logical abilities to the aforementioned Form Five teacher, too. I know many ways to uncover the simplicity in seemingly complicated mathematical problems, thanks to her. She would get along very well with my current Formal Analyses professor: they have the same sense of humor. Perhaps this sense of humor is not French, as my professor so believes, but simply mathematician-like. But I digress - there will be posts for various other teachers in the future.) My logic and simplicity outside the world of programming is still a work in progress, but I owe it to this Form Two teacher for getting the ball rolling.
So thank you, Ms Frection. Thank you for teaching me all about this framework - especially back when I thought that it was irrational. You're inexorably stellar.
Bonus fun fact: Python has list comprehension and it's exciting! No more explicit loop structures for reading data into arrays (even just using python's append() function)! Yay!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)