Why aren't you studying theoretical computer science?

Prove you aren't a code monkey.

Prove you aren't a faggot.

...

Stupid frogposter.

>Why aren't you studying theoretical computer science?
no money in it. i don't wanna be poor.

List at least 10 theoretical computer science books

this is all I've read

no bully pls

you already posted everything I need ;)

literally every single good alrorithms textbook

if you have an algos textbook that has any actual code it's shit, especially if the code is java or C++.

>SICP
>theoretical computer science

Pick one.

git good user

Discrete math will make you non code monkey tier

>Why aren't you studying theoretical computer science?
Because experimental computer science allows me to build cool systems using real hardware.

P is in NP
n = O(n^2)

I study formal verification and I apply it.

because I'm not interested in it

Because that's boring shit for nerds who want to go into academia, study all day every day for the rest of their lives and max out at $100,000 per year when they're 60 while I work on Java systems and earn $300,000 a year at 25 thanks to the fucking dorks who made the groundwork and made it possible with their "theory".

My problem is that I only study theoretical computer science.
I really enjoy reading books on computer science and do it all the time, but I basically don't have any real projects worth a damn. I'm just too lazy to begin anything and have no ideas that somebody already didn't implement better.
I'm still in uni, though. But I have a big suspicion that a code monkey would probably end up in a better position than where I'm going.

I regard programmers not to be smart. If you can't into mathematics, algorithms, architecture, compilers, etc than you are not a proper computer scientist.

And lets not get started on web developers my god...

As for myself. I just started Introduction to Algorithms after that I want to get into logic and discrete mathematics. Have done Computer Organization and Design

I suffering from the same problem. Read all about theory and I'm just sitting here trying to come up with an idea to make...

>I regard programmers not to be smart. If you can't into mathematics, algorithms, architecture, compilers, etc than you are not a proper computer scientist.

>As for myself. I just started Introduction to Algorithms after that I want to get into logic and discrete mathematics. Have done Computer Organization and Design

Fucking Sup Forums

Because I make way more money as a codemonkey than an academic researcher.

Only book worth anything in pic is dragon book, the rest of them are dumb cargo cult meme books

>dragon book

Because I'm studying CE instead.

but I am, user

meh I make more money doing sub / super- critical extractions. I learn CS basically as a hobby at this point

...

i-i-i kinda do. picture related. it is very nice.

Why don't you make real neural networks.

Are you saying he should fuck somebody or that he should become a teacher?
Also, technically, artificial neural networks are real too. They're just not natural.

I was just making a bad joke, didn't even think about the two first ones lel
Nice man

I am a codemonkey. B-but i like it!

You are right P is in NP.
The problem is that nobody can prove that NP is in P or not

>nobody can prove that NP is in P or not
maybe someday
it will be a beatiful day

>Why aren't you studying theoretical computer science

I am. I am literally about to finish my degree in computational theory.

Checkmate.

\m.m(\fn.nf(f1))(\nfx.f(nfx))
Just the ackermann function in lambda calculus with Church numerals.
Notice how it is not recursive.

>degree in applied black boxes

I don't care to be some cutting edge researcher. I'm content being a regular programmer. I make good money, I'm not complaining.

Gödel is god

Made a brainfuck interpreter just to write brainfuck.

Then I made Towers of Hanoi in brainfuck.

Just picked this up along with a couple others

>not having a mentor explaining the depths of theoretical computer science whilst working at a startup

pleb/10

it's another dilettante thread

>29. In every affair consider what precedes and follows, and then undertake it. Otherwise you will begin with spirit; but not having thought of the consequences, when some of them appear you will shamefully desist. "I would conquer at the Olympic games." But consider what precedes and follows, and then, if it is for your advantage, engage in the affair. You must conform to rules, submit to a diet, refrain from dainties; exercise your body, whether you choose it or not, at a stated hour, in heat and cold; you must drink no cold water, nor sometimes even wine. In a word, you must give yourself up to your master, as to a physician. Then, in the combat, you may be thrown into a ditch, dislocate your arm, turn your ankle, swallow dust, be whipped, and, after all, lose the victory. When you have evaluated all this, if your inclination still holds, then go to war. Otherwise, take notice, you will behave like children who sometimes play like wrestlers, sometimes gladiators, sometimes blow a trumpet, and sometimes act a tragedy when they have seen and admired these shows. Thus you too will be at one time a wrestler, at another a gladiator, now a philosopher, then an orator; but with your whole soul, nothing at all. Like an ape, you mimic all you see, and one thing after another is sure to please you, but is out of favor as soon as it becomes familiar. For you have never entered upon anything considerately, nor after having viewed the whole matter on all sides, or made any scrutiny into it, but rashly, and with a cold inclination. Thus some, when they have seen a philosopher and heard a man speaking like Euphrates (though, indeed, who can speak like him?), have a mind to be philosophers too. Consider first, man, what the matter is, and what your own nature is able to bear.

>If you would be a wrestler, consider your shoulders, your back, your thighs; for different persons are made for different things. Do you think that you can act as you do, and be a philosopher? That you can eat and drink, and be angry and discontented as you are now? You must watch, you must labor, you must get the better of certain appetites, must quit your acquaintance, be despised by your servant, be laughed at by those you meet; come off worse than others in everything, in magistracies, in honors, in courts of judicature. When you have considered all these things round, approach, if you please; if, by parting with them, you have a mind to purchase apathy, freedom, and tranquillity. If not, don't come here; don't, like children, be one while a philosopher, then a publican, then an orator, and then one of Caesar's officers. These things are not consistent. You must be one man, either good or bad. You must cultivate either your own ruling faculty or externals, and apply yourself either to things within or without you; that is, be either a philosopher, or one of the vulgar.

good fucking post, user