Re: (ReacTor) Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?

Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 24/08/2024 10.30, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Paul S Person  <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

On 22 Aug 2024 23:12:48 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>
I think memorizing integral tables is kind of a standard thing for
engineering calc classes.  The whole point of the class is to be able to
solve hairy integrals as quickly as possible and there's no time to =

derive

anything that you can memorize.  If you try to derive everything you'll
never get through a fraction of the exams in time.

>
Ah.
>
Teaching to the test.

>
No, not at all.  The purpose of the class is to teach a specific set of
skills, which is to say rapid integration and derivation, because those
skills will later be required in engineering classes and then in the real
world of engineering.
>
That is, it's skills training and not education.

 Well, in the real world, even before Matlab and such, if an engineer was faced
with an ugly integral, he'd[1] pull the CRC book off the shelf, rather than
try to apply integration by parts or something.

We didn't do that. It was more or less a cult thing, avoiding those tables.
I must have changed my mind at some point, as not three feet from me is a copy of "Table of Integrals, Series, and Products" by Gradstheyn and Ryzhik.  Now that I recall, that was an impulse purchase after I spent an hour and a half solving an integral the hard way.
I believe this was referenced in a tale by Kornbluth, in which an executive thinks to himself "maybe I don't look up as many integrals as I used to" or words to that effect.  It is a story about what happens when other considerations trump engineering.  Perhaps it should be required reading at Boeing?
William Hyde