Nano-Passion
- 1,291
- 0
Pythagorean said:The computer's just a tool like a calculator. You should write the models on paper, derive them mathematically, then (naturally) you're not going to want to solve the mathematics for 10000 neurons by hand so you use a numerical ODE solver or you write a snippet to compute the probabilities. Then you have to represent the data somehow (you don't just publish a bunch of numbers in a paper, you publish graphical representation) so you might as well have your code do that for you too (you're more then welcome to open up excel and do it all manuallly with your data, but it's the long route).
So while computer science is not at all the emphasis, any modern scientists (whether data mining, classifying behavior, integrating statistics, or simulating time-evolved equations) has everything to gain from knowing how to do some basic programming.
There's possibly more general, theoretical mathematics you can do, but I'd think most of them still rely on mining numerical data sets in the end... you're pretty much always going to be slower than the guy who has the same scientific knoweldge as you, but more programming skills.
ribozyme :)
That makes computational neuroscience more interesting to me. So what percentage of a computational neuroscientist's time would be used in writing down a program? If the time is little relative to other work they do then it would likely suit me.
I searched up on ribozyme real quick and that was very interesting actually, thank you.