CST370 - Week 2 Reflection

 Week 2 Learning Recap

        The second week of Design and Analysis of Algorithms reminds me that "computer science" can perhaps be a bit of a misnomer. By the same naming convention, time complexity and recurrence relations would be reduced to "telescope science" if they were astrological phenomenon. The mathematical and proof-rooted logic presented in CST370 this week wove many strands of thought together--I may have panicked when I heard "induction"--that I will attempt to unweave and reweave here for the sake of my own understanding.

        Big O, big omega, big theta ruled--and I sense will continue to rule--the time complexity conversation. I will surely never forget O means upper bound, theta means lower bound, and omega means exact. Prior to CST370, I had some negligible and nebulous understanding of how loops are interpreted for the sake of n, but the lecture and textbook have laid it out very plainly as T(n) goes on. Asymptotic notation rules (drop constants, drop lower-order terms, combine nested loops multiplicatively) brought back warm memories of evaluating limits as x approaches infinity (asking the question, "who persists as time goes on?"). 

         The presentation of recursive and non-recursive algorithms has done great work to demystify code logic time costs. The costs lie in the operations, not the lines. Sequential loops add costs and nested loops multiply costs. Recursive algorithms introduce recurrence relations that can be expanded and then simplified via backward substitution, a marriage of discrete math and classic math. I am additionally happy to report that the puzzle pitstops have continued and I am already bothering people in my life with the 4 gallons logic problem.

        Brute Force Algorithm Design capped off the week of learning. The quotes at the beginning of the textbook chapter resonated with me, particularly Robert Byrne's "Doing a thing well is often a waste of time." This paired well with the idea that BFAD is correct but inefficient. It's the devil you know and not always to be ruled out as the solution to an elegant problem. The two-part programming assignment chained these ideas together well. Quite the compelling week.        

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 1 - CST363 First Post: Relational Database Reflections

From the orientation, your reading from week 1, and your own experience answer the following questions: Relational database tables and spreadsheets look similar with both having rows and columns.  What are some important differences between the two? At first glance, a relational database and a spreadsheet in an application such as Excel look fairly commensurate to each other in purpose and functionality--they both are comprised of rows and columns that hold data organized by column names and row numbers. The truth is that their visual similarity is where the commensuration ends and the vast differences begin. Relational databases adhere to strict and organized rules that ensure they can manage large volumes of structured data as well as complex queries to return results from that data whereas spreadsheets can be filled out arbitrarily. Foreign keys and primary keys can tie individual values or sets of values to other tables of data which in turn impact how data can be returned or c...
Read more

Week (6/)7/8 Markov End-of-Semester Reflection

           While the Markov assignment seemed daunting upon first viewing the assignment requirements, this revisiting of the task reveals a much simpler project than the caliber of code work that now occupies my mind. Firstly, having dove into the various design patterns that CST338 covers I now am curious to identify design patterns in code prompts. In this case the various methods of the code serve to "build" chains of text collectively into what could be argued to be a Builder pattern. The Builder pattern is categorized as a creational design pattern and thusly suggests how the code will best be formulated. Functionally, this mostly serves to inform the bigger picture as during the process I was heavily focused on following the prompt in more of a "flying blind" styled approach.            In terms of how I would approach this project differently now, I can never stress enough that homing in on each of the respective r...
Read more

Week 4 Project 1 Post-Review

  Journal Prompt Reflections With whom did you work? Ethan G, Keshab N What was your strategy for solving the assignments? I first got all the fields/variables/methods in place until I matched the UML diagram, looked over the entire assignment prompt, and then flew blindly along to each method description. I wrote TODOs for what I couldn’t solve right away and sort of manically switched between each method until the test file could run. From there homed in on each failing test one by one. The first tests I singled out called methods that relied on other methods the least.  Did you start writing code right away? Did you plan it out on paper? I did initially attempt to create a checklist document but it became so overwhelming that I chose to just start working on it and the tasks that still needed to be done were readily apparent anytime I checked the tests or output. TODO’s and getting the UML matching were essentially the planning aspect.   What was THEIR strategy for sol...
Read more