Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

[flagged]



Hey sorry, point taken. I have read chapters and was excited about it, but I see your point. Thanks for the suggestions. I found the book more readable than hopcroft ullman from the perspective of understanding what happens in "theoretical computer science" -- I encountered it decades after grappling with hopcroft ullman (so-called "Cinderella book".)

I always find that the best books technically have been those that I take a bite from, think through an idea, maybe check out the references, find a problem to work through, then come back. Here's a quote from the intro that resonated:

"Many parts of the book require hardly any specific prior knowledge and rely mostly on the mathematical maturity needed to take in the definitions and notions introduced. Hopefully, the story telling makes the reading even easier. However, the book (like the field itself) is conceptually dense, and in some parts the concentration of concepts and ideas requires, I believe, slowing down, rereading, and possibly looking at a relevant reference to clarify and solidify the material and its meaning in your mind."

> wigderson is an IAS professor

True, but I think he does a good job of explaining things. This lecture on incompleteness seemed accessible to me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zmfv3jsiQ0&t=1788s

There's also Sanjeev Arora's book "Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach" https://theory.cs.princeton.edu/complexity/book.pdf


I can't speak to the parent's motivations, but having had a glance at this, it's clearly an entirely absurd suggestion. Section 1.4 outlines its intended audience. It (rightly) doesn't include programmers wanting to 'get started' in CS.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: