>>12924729No it doesn't lmao. Calculus is ridiculously trivial to learn for anybody not in their first year of STEM. After calc 2, it all bleeds into extra technical knowledge. More CS programs need calc 3, i don't know why they don't have it, since it's used everywhere, but it's literally just 3 months of technical knowledge, not hardline intuition you get in analysis or abstract algebra.
>How else would it be used?Calc 3 or math in general? You actually have to do pure math to make the probability theory, numerical analysis (actually deriving, not just knowing the method), ML theory, generating functions and upper bounds, optimization theory in arbitrary dimension, etc etc..
There are lots of other uses for calc 3.
>>12924774>it uses it to nowhere near the same degree that an EE degree uses vector calculus or differential equationsI mean, EE uses vector calculus and DE's more, but this doesn't really doesn't convince that EE is actually harder because I don't believe vector calculus and DE's (of all fucking things, it's literally basic massaging of the form with at most series expansion at the undergrad level. You're not gonna tackle DE's with functional analysis, where it actually gets hard) of all things are harder than combinatorics, where you literally just have to intuit the hard line answer with barely any theory to back you up.
>calculus is harder than stats/probability?????
the fuck? Calculus 3 is used liberally in probability theory. Everything you learn in combinatorics and in calc 3 bites you in the ass in probability theory.
(cont)
