Menu

Lec 1 | MIT 6.01SC Introduction to Electrical Engineering and Computer Science I, Spring 2011

100 Comments

Lec 1 | MIT 6.01SC Introduction to Electrical Engineering and Computer Science I, Spring 2011


The following content is
provided under a Creative Commons license. Your support will help MIT
OpenCourseWare continue to offer high quality educational
resources for free. To make a donation or view
additional materials from hundreds of MIT courses, visit
MIT OpenCourseWare at ocw.mit.edu. PROFESSOR: Hello, and
welcome to 6.01. I’m Denny Freeman. I’m the lecturer. One thing you should know about
today is that there’s a single hand-out. You should have picked
it up on your way in. It’s available at either
of the two doors. What I want to do today in this
first lecture is mostly focus on content. But before I do that, since
6.01 is a little bit of an unusual course, I want to give
you a little bit of an overview and tell you a little
bit about the administration of the course. 6.01 is mostly about
modes of reasoning. What we would like you to get
out of this course is ways to think about engineering. We want to talk about how do you
design, how do you build, how do you construct, how do you
debug complicated systems? That’s what engineers do, and
we’re very good at it. And we want to make you
very good at it. We’re very good at it. And you know that from your
common, everyday experience. Laptops are incredible. As we go through the course,
you’re going to see that laptops incorporate things
from the tiniest, tiniest level, things so small that
you can’t see them. They’re microscopic. The individual transistors are
not things that you can see. We develop special tools for
you even to be able to visualize them. And yet, we conglomerate
billions of them into a system that works relatively
reliably. Now, I realize I’m going out on
a limb because when you say things like that, then
things always fail. But I’ll go out on a limb and
say, for the most part, the systems we construct
are very reliable. We’d like you to know how you
think about making such a complicated system and
making it reliable. We want to tell you about how
you would model things. How do you gain insight? How do you get predictability? How do you figure out how
something will work before you’ve built it? If you’re limited to trying
out how things work by actually constructing it,
you spend a lot of time constructing things that
never make it. We want to avoid that by
— where we can — making a model, analyzing the
model, making a prediction from the model, and using that
prediction to build a better system on the first try. We want to tell you about how
to augment the physical behavior of a system by putting
computation in it. That’s a very powerful technique
that is increasingly common in anything from a
microwave to a refrigerator. We’d like you to know
the principles by which to do that. And we’d like you to be able
to build systems that are robust to failure. That’s a newer idea. It’s something that people
are very good at. If we try to do something,
and we make a mistake, we know how to fix it. And often, the fix works. We’re less good at doing that
in constructing artificial systems, in engineering
systems. And we’d like to talk
about principles by which we can do that. So the goal of 6.01 is, then,
really to convey a distinct perspective about how
we engineer systems. Now, having said that, this is
not a philosophy course. We are not going to make lists
of things to do if you want it to be robust. We’re going to learn
to do things by actually making systems. This is an introductory
engineering course. And so you’re going
to build things. The idea is going to be that in
constructing those things, we’ve written the exercises so
that some of those important themes become transparent. So the idea is — this is
introductory engineering. You’ll all make things. You’ll all get things to work,
and in the process of doing that, learn something about the
bigger view of how quality engineering happens. So despite the fact that we’re
really about modes of reasoning, that will be
grounded in content. We selected the content very
broadly from across EECS. EECS is an enormous endeavor. We can’t possibly introduce
everything about EECS in one subject. That’s ridiculous. However, we wanted to
give you a variety. We wanted to give you a sense
of the variety of tasks that you can use, that you can apply
the same techniques to. So we want to introduce modes
of reasoning, and then show you explicitly how you can use
those modes of reasoning in a variety of contexts. So we’ve chosen four, and we’ve
organized the course around four modules. First module is software
engineering, then signals and systems, then circuits, then
probability and planning. Even so, even having chosen
just four out of the vast number of things we could have
chosen, there’s no way we can tell you adequately– we can’t give you an adequate
introduction to any of those things either. What we’ve chosen to do instead
is focus on key concepts represented
by the asterisks. The idea is going to be we
choose one or two things and really focus on those deeply
so you get a thorough understanding not only of how
that fits within, for example, the context of software
engineering, but also how that concept ramifies into
other areas. Notice that I tried to choose
the stars so they hit multiple circles. That’s what we’re
trying to do. We’re trying to not only
introduce an idea to you, but also show you how it connects
to other ideas. So the idea, then, is to focus
on a few, we hope, very well-chosen applications that
will demonstrate a variety of powerful techniques. Our mantra, the way we intend
to go about teaching this stuff, is practice,
theory, practice. There’s an enormous educational literature that says– whether you like it or not– people learn better when
they’re doing things. You have a lot of experience
with that. You have a lot of experience
on the other side, too. I’ll try to forget the other
side, or at least try to wipe it from your brain momentarily
to focus on your more fundamental modes of learning. When you were a kid and you
were learning your first language, you didn’t learn all
the rules of grammar first. You didn’t learn all the letters
of the alphabet first. You didn’t learn about
conjugating verbs first. You learned a little
bit about language. You started to use it. You ran into problems. You learned a little more
about language. You learned to go from words
like “feed me” to higher level concepts, like “Hey,
what’s for dinner?” So the idea is that you learned
it in an iterative process where you learned some
stuff, tried it out, learned some more stuff, tried it out. And it built up. There’s an enormous literature
in education that says that’s exactly how we always
learn everything. And so that’s the way this
course is focused. What we will do is, for example,
for today, we’ll learn a little bit about
software engineering. Then, we’ll do two lab sessions
where you actually try to use the things
we talk about. Then, we’ll come back to lecture
and we’ll have some more theory about how you
would do programming. And then, you go back to the
lab and do some more stuff. And the hope is that by this
tangible context, you’ll have a deeper appreciation
of the ideas that we’re trying to convey. So let me tell you a little
bit about the four modules that we’ve chosen. The course is going to be
organized on four modules. Each module will take about
one fourth of the course. First thing we’ll look at
is software engineering. As I said, we don’t have time
to focus on, or even survey, all of the big ideas in
software engineering. It’s far too big. So we’re going to focus narrowly
on one or two things. We’d like you to know about
abstraction and modularity because that’s such an
important idea in the construction of big systems. So that’s going to
be our focus. In today’s lecture, we’ll begin
talking about modularity and abstraction at
the small scale. How does it affect the
things you type as instructions to a computer? But by next week, we’re going
to be talking about a whole bigger scale. By next week, we’re going to
talk about constructing software modules at a
much higher level. In particular, we’ll talk about
something that we’ll call a state machine. A state machine is a thing
that works in steps. On every step, the state machine
gets a new input. Then, based on that input and
its memory of what’s come before, the state machine
decides to do something. It generates an output. And then, the process repeats. We will see that that kind
of an abstraction — state machines — there’s a way to think about
state machines that is compositional that you can think
of as a hierarchy, just as you can think of low-level
hierarchies within a language. I’ll say a lot more
about that today. So the idea will be that once
you’ve composed a state machine, you’ll be able to join
two state machines and have its behavior look just
like one state machine. That’s a way to get a more
complicated behavior by constructing two simpler
behaviors. That’s what we want. We want to learn tools that
let us compose complex behaviors out of simple
behaviors. And the tangible model of
that will be the robot. We will see how to write a
program that controls a robot as a state machine. That’s certainly not the only
way you could control a robot. And it’s probably not the way
you would first think of it if you took one course in
programming and somebody said to you, go program the robot
to do something. What we will see is that it’s
a very powerful way to think about it for exactly this
reason of modularity. The bigger point that we will
make in thinking about this first module is the idea
of, how do you make systems modular? How do you use abstraction to
simplify the design task? And in particular, we will
focus on something that we’ll call PCAP. When you think about a system,
we will always think about it in terms of, what are
the primitives? How do you combine them? How do you abstract a
bigger behavior from those smaller behaviors? And what are the patterns that
are important to capture? So the bigger point is this idea
of PCAP, which we will then revisit in every
subsequent module. OK, second module is on
signals and systems. That’s also an enormous area. So we only have time
to do one thing. The thing that we will do is we
will think about discrete time feedback. How do you make a system that’s
cognizant of what it’s done so that it, in the future,
can do things with awareness of how it got there? A good example is robotic
steering. So the idea is going to be, OK,
think about what you do when you’re driving a car. And think about how you
would tell a robot to do that same thing. Here’s a naive driving
algorithm. I don’t recommend it, but it’s
widely used in Boston, apparently. [LAUGHTER] I find myself to the right of
where I would like to be. So what should I do? Turn left. I’m still to the right of
where I’d like to be. What should I do? Turn left. Oh! I’m exactly where I should be. What should I do? Go straight ahead. Oh, that’s a bad idea. And what we’ll see is that
perfectly innocent looking algorithms can have horrendous
performance. What we’ll do is try to make
an abstraction of that. We’ll try to make a model. We’ll try to capture that in
math so that we don’t need to build it to see the
bad behavior. We’ll make a model. We’ll use the model to predict
that that algorithm stinks. But more importantly, we’ll use
the model to figure out an algorithm that’ll work better. In fact, we’ll even be able to
come up with bounds on how well such a controller
could possibly work. So the focus in this module is
going to be, how do you make a model to predict behavior? How do you analyze the model
so that you can design a better system? And then, how do you use the
model and the analysis to make a well-behaved system? The third module
is on circuits. Again, circuits is huge. We don’t have time to talk
about all of circuits. We’ll do very simple things. We’ll focus our attention on
how you would add a sensory capability to an already
complicated system. The idea is going to be to
start with a robot– I guess this is brighter– start with our robots and design
a head for the robot. The robot comes from the factory
with sonar sensors. The sonar sensors are
these things. There’s eight of them. They tell you how far away
something that reflects the ultrasonic wave is. As they come from the factory,
the robots can’t sense light. What you’ll do is add
light sensors. The goal is to make a system
to modify the robot so that the robot tracks light. That’s a very simple goal. And the way we’ll that is to
augment the robot with a simple sensor here, showed a
little more magnified here. The idea is that this
is a LEGO motor. The LEGO motor will turn this
relative to the attachment. That’s the robot head’s neck. So the robot will be
able to do this. And the robot will have eyes. These are photosensors,
photoresistors, actually. So the idea is going to be
that there’s information available in those sensors for
figuring out where light is so that you can track it. Your job will be to
build a circuit– that that’s this thing– that connects via cables– these red cables and
yellow cables– connects via cables
over to this head. We’ll give you the head. Your job will be to make the
circuit that converts the signal from the photoresistor– which is in proportion
to light– and figures out how to turn the
motor to get the head to face the light and then ship
that information down to the robot to let the robot turn its
wheels to get the body. So it’s kind of like the light
comes on bright over here. The robot looks at it and says,
oh, yeah, that’s where I want to be. So that’s the idea in the third
module is to incorporate new sensing capabilities
into the robot. The final module is on
probability and planning. And the idea there is to learn
about how you make systems that are robust to uncertainty
and that can implement complicated plans, that they,
too, are robust to uncertainty. So there’s a number of things
that we will do, including creating maps of spaces that the
robot doesn’t understand, telling the robot how to
localize itself, how if it woke up suddenly in an
environment, it could figure out where it is, how
to make a plan. And as an example, I’ll show you
the kind of system that we will construct. Here, the idea is that
we have a robot. The robot knows where it is. Imagine there’s a GPS in it. There isn’t, but imagine
there is. So the robot knows where it
is, and it knows where it wants to go. That’s the star. But it has no idea what kind of
obstacles are in the way. So if you were a robotic driver
in Boston, you know that you started out at home and
you want to end up in MIT. But there’s these annoying
obstacles, they’re called people, that you should, in
principle at least, miss. So that’s kind of the idea. So I know where I am. I’m the robot. I know where I am. I know where I want to be. And I’m going to summarize
that information here. Where I am is purple. Where I want to be is gold. And I have a plan. That’s blue. My plan’s very simple. I don’t know anything about
anything other than I’m in Waltham and I want to
go to Cambridge. So blast east. So I imagine that the
best way to do there is a straight line. OK, so now what I’m going to
do is turn on the robot. The robot has now
made one step. And I told you before about
these sonar sensors. From the sonar sensors, the
robot has learned now that there seems to be something
reflecting at each of these black dots. It got a reflection from
the black dots, from the sonar sensors. That means there’s probably a
wall there, or a person, or something that, in principle,
I should avoid. And the red dots represent, OK,
the obstacle is so close I really can’t get there. So I’m excluded from the red
spots because I’m too big. The black spots seem
to be an obstacle. The red spots seem to be
where I can’t fit. I still want to go from the
where I am, purple, to where I want to be, gold. So what I do is I compute
the new plan. OK then, I start to take
a step along that plan. And as I’m stepping along, OK,
so now, I think that I can’t go from where I started
over to here. I have to go around
this wall that I didn’t know about initially. So now I just start driving. And it looks fine, right? I’m getting there, right? Now, I know I can go
straight down here. Oh, wait a minute. There’s another wall. OK, what do I do now? So as the robot goes along, it
didn’t know when it started what kinds of obstacles
it would encounter. But as it’s driving,
it learned. Oh, that didn’t work. Start over! So the idea is that this robot
is executing a very complicated plan. The plan has, in fact,
many sub-plans. And the sub-plans all
involve uncertainty. It didn’t know where the walls
were when it started. And when it’s all done, it’s
going to have figured out where the walls were and– provided there’s a way– presumably find the way to
negotiate the maze and get to the destination. So the idea, then, is that if
you were asked to write a conventional kind of program for
solving that, it might be kind of hard because
of the number of contingencies involved. What we will do is break down
the problem and figure out simple and elegant ways
to deal not only with uncertainty, but how do you
make complex plans. So as I said, our primary
pedagogy is going to be practice, theory, practice. And so that ramifies in how
the course is organized. So this is a quick map of some
of the aspects of the course. So we’ll have weekly lectures. It’s lecture unintensive. In total, there’s only
13 lectures. We’ll meet once a week
here for lecture. There’s readings. There’s voluminous readings. There’s readings about every
topic that we will talk about. And the readings were
specifically designed for this course. I highly recommend
that you become familiar with the readings. If you have a question after
lecture, it’s probably there. It’s probably explained. We will do online
tutor problems. We sent you an email if you
pre-registered for the course. So you may already
know about this. The idea is going to be that
there’s ways that you can prepare for the course by doing
computer exercises. And we will also use those same
kinds of exercises in all of the class sessions. We will have two kinds
of lab experiences. Besides lecture, the other two
events that you have to attend are a software lab
and a design lab. That’s the practice part. So after you learned a little
bit about the theory by going to lecture, by doing the
reading, then you go to the lab and try some things out. We call the first lab
a software lab. It’s a short lab. It’s an hour and a half. You work individually. You try things out. You write little programs. The courseware can check the
program to see if it’s OK. And primarily, the exercises
in the software lab are due during the software lab. But on occasion, there will
be extra things due a day or two later. The due dates are very
clearly written in the tutor exercises. Once a week, there’s
a design lab. That’s a three hour session in
which you work with a partner. The reason for the partner
is that the intent– the difference between the
design labs and the software labs is that the design labs ask
you to solve slightly more open-ended questions, the kind
of question that you might have no clue what
we’re asking. Open-ended, the kind of thing
that you will be asked to do after you graduate. Design the system. What do you mean, design
the system? So the idea is that working with
a partner will give you a second, immediate source of
help and a little more confidence if neither of you
knows the solution so that you raise your hand and say,
I don’t have a clue what’s going on here. So the idea is that once a
week we do a software lab individually. Once a week, we do a design lab,
a little more open-ended with partners. There’s a little bit of written
homework, four total. It’s not much compared
to other subjects. It’s mostly practice. There’s a nano-quiz, just to
help you keep pace to make sure that you don’t get
too far behind. The first 15 minutes
of every design lab starts with a nano-quiz. The nano-quizzes are intended to
be simple if you’ve caught up, if you’re up to date. So the idea is that you go to
design lab, the first thing you do is a little, 15
minute nano-quiz. The nano-quiz uses a tutor much
like the homework tutor, much like the Python tutor. And it’s intended
to be simple. But it does mean please get
to the design lab on time. The nano-quizzes are
administered by the software. It starts the hour when
the design lab starts. It times out 15 minutes later. So if you come 10 minutes late,
you will have 5 minutes to do something that
we planned to give you 15 minutes for. We will also have exams
and interviews. The interviews are intended to
be a one-on-one conversation about how the labs went. And we will have two mid-terms
and a final. So that’s kind of
the logistics. The idea behind the logistics is
practice, theory, practice. Come to the labs. Try things out. Make sure you understand. Develop a little code. Type it in. See if it works. If it works, you’re
on top of things. You’re ready to get the next
batch of information from the lecture and readings. OK, let’s go on, and let’s
talk about the technical material in the first module
of the course, in the software module. We kick the course off talking
about software engineering for two reasons. We’d like you to know about
software engineering. It’s an incredibly important
part of our department. It’s an incredibly important
part of the engineering of absolutely any system,
any modern system. But we’d also like you to know
about it because it provides a very convenient way to think
about– it’s a convenient language to think about the
design issues, the engineering issues in all the other
parts of the class. So it’s a very good
place to start. So what I will do today is talk
about some of the very simplest ideas about abstraction
and modularity in what I think of as the lowest
level of granularity. How do you think about
abstraction and modularity at the micro scale, at
the individual lines of code scale? As I said earlier, we will,
as we progress, look at modularity and abstraction
at the higher scale. But we have to start
somewhere. And we’re going to start by
thinking about, how do you think about abstraction and
modularity at the micro scale? Special note about
programming. So what we are trying to do is,
in the first two weeks, ramp everybody up to some level
of software security, where you feel comfortable. So the first two weeks of this
course is intended to make you comfortable with programming. We don’t assume you’ve done
extensive programming before. We want you to become
comfortable that you’re not behind. And that’s the focus of the
first two weeks’ exercises. If you have little or no
previous background, if you are uncomfortable, please do
the Python tutor exercises. If you have not — if you do not have a lot of
experience programming, if you’re uncomfortable with the
expectation that you can do programming, do that first. That takes priority over all the
other assignments during the first two weeks. In particular, if you’re
uncomfortable, we will run a special Python help
session on Sunday. And if you attend that, you
can get a free extension. The idea is completing the tutor
exercises is intended to make you feel comfortable that
you have the software background to finish the
rest of the course. Do that first. We will forgive falling behind
in other things so that you feel comfortable with
programming. If, at the end of two weeks, you
still feel uncomfortable, we have a deal with 6.00, the
Python programming class, that they will allow you to switch
your registration from 6.01 to 6.00. But that expires Valentine’s
Day. [LAUGHTER] So you have to make up your mind
before Valentine’s Day if you’d like to use that option. So the idea is we’d like you
to be comfortable with programming. If you haven’t programmed
before, do the Python tutor exercises. Go to software lab. Go to design lab, but work
on the tutor exercises. The staff will help
you with them. You can go to office hours. There’s office hours listed
on the home page. You should try to become
comfortable, and you should try to set as your goal — I’m going to be comfortable
before Valentine’s Day. And if you’re not, talk to a
staff member about that. OK, so what do I want you to
know about programming? Well, we’re going
to use Python. We selected Python because it’s
very simple and because it lets us illustrate some
very important ideas in software engineering in
a very simple context. That’s the reason. One of the reasons that it’s
simple is that it’s an interpreter. After some initialization, the
behavior of Python is to fall into an interpreter loop. The interpreter loop is, ask the
user what he would like me to do, read what the user types,
figure out what they’re talking about, and print
the result, repeat– very simple. What that means is that you
can learn by doing. That’s one of the points of
today’s software lab. You can simply walk
up to a computer, type the word python– what you type is in red. Type the word “python.” It
will prompt you, so this chevron, that says, I’d
like you to tell me something to do. I have nothing to do. If you type “2,” Python tries
to interpret that. In this particular case,
Python says, oh, I see. That’s a primitive data item. That’s an integer. This person wants me to
understand an integer. And so it will echo 2,
indicating that it thinks you want it to understand
a simple integer. Similarly, if you type 5.7,
it says, oh, I got that. That’s a float. The person wants me
to remember a floating point number. And it will similarly
echo the float. Now, of course, there’s no
exact representation for floats, right? There’s too many
of them, right? There’s a lot of them. There’s even more floats than
there are ints, right? So it has an approximation. So it will print its
approximation to the float that it thinks you are
interested in. If you type a string, “Hello,”
it’ll say, oh, primitive data structure, string. And it’ll print out
that string. So the idea is one of the
features of Python that makes it easy to learn is the fact
that it’s interpreter based. You can play around. You can learn by doing. Now, of course, if the only
thing it did was simple data structures, it would
not be very useful. So the next more complex thing
that it can do is think about combinations. If you type “2 + 3,” it
says, oh, I got it. This person’s interested
in a combination. I should combine by the plus
operator two ints, 2 and 3. Oh, and if I do that, if I
combine by the plus operator two and three, I’ll get 5. So it prints 5. So that’s a way you know that
it interprets “2 + 3” as 5. Similarly here, except
I’ve mixed types. “5.7 + 3,” it says, oh, this
user wants me to apply the plus operator on a
float and an int. OK, well I’ll upgrade
the int to a float. I’ll do the float version, and
I’ll get this, which is its representation of 8.7. So the idea is that it will
first try to interpret what you’re saying as a
simple data type. If that works, it prints the
result to tell you what it thinks is going on. It then will try to interpret
it as an expression. And sometimes, the expressions
won’t makes sense. In particular, if you try to add
an int to a string, it’s going to say, huh? And over the course of the first
two weeks, we hope that you get familiar with
interpreting this kind of mess. That’s Python’s attempt to tell
you what it was trying to do on your behalf and can’t
figure out what you’re talking about. OK, so that was simple. But it already illustrates
something that’s very important, and that’s the
idea of a composition. So the way Python works, the
fact that when you added 3 to 2 it came out 5, what we were
doing was composing complicated– well, potentially complicated
(that was pretty simple) — potentially complicated
expressions and reducing them to a single data structure. And so that means that, in some
sense, this operation, 3 times 8, can be thought of as
exactly the same as if the user had typed in 24. Whenever you can substitute
for a complex expression a simpler thing, we say that the
system is compositional. That’s a very powerful idea. Even though it’s simple, it’s
a very powerful idea. And it’s an idea that
you all know. You’ve seen it before in
algebra, in arithmetic. So in arithmetic expressions,
you can think about how the sum of two integers is an int. That’s a closure. That’s a kind of a combination
that makes the system compositional and that
provides a layer of hierarchical thinking so that,
in your head, even though it says 3 times 8, you don’t need
to remember that anymore. You can say, oh, for any
purposes that follow, I might just as well think of
3 times 8 as being a single integer, 24. It’s part of many other kinds
of systems, for example, natural language. The simplest example in natural
language is that you can think about “Apples
are good as snacks”. “Apples” is a noun. It’s a plural noun. Or you could substitute “Apples
and oranges”, and it makes complete sense within
that same structure. So “Apples and oranges
are good as snacks”. The combination of “apples” and
“oranges” works in every way from the point of view of
the grammar in the same way that a simple noun,
“apples,” worked. What we would like to do is use
that idea as the starting point for a more general
compositional system. And a good way to think about
that is by way of names. What if we had some sequence of
operations that we think is particularly important so that
we would like to somehow canonize that so that,
subsequently, we can use that sequence of operations easily? Python provides a very
simple way to do it. Every programming
language does. It’s not unique to Python. But the idea is — so here’s an example. “2 times 2” — I’m squaring 2 and get
4. “3 times 3” — I’m squaring 3, and
I’m getting 9. “8 plus 4 times 8 plus 4”,
I’m squaring “8 plus 4”. “8 plus 4”, well, I can
think of that as 12. I’m squaring 12, I’m
getting 144. The thing I’m trying to
illustrate there is the notion of squaring. Squaring is a sequence of
operations that I would like to be able to canonize as a
single entity so that, in subsequent programs, I can
think of the squaring operation as a single
operation just like I think of times. The way we say that in Python
is “define square of x to be return x squared”. Then, having made that
definition, I can say “square of 6”, and the answer is 36. OK, this is a very small step. But it illustrates a very
important point, the idea being that Python provides
a compositional facility. And it’s hierarchical. Having defined square, I can use
square just as though it were a primitive operator. And I can use square to define
higher level operations. So for example, what if I were
interested in doing lots of sums of squares? Say I’m Pythagoreas, right? So I might want to add the
square of 2 and the square of 4 to get 20, or the square
of 3 with the square of 4 to get 25. Using that simple idea of
composition, we can write a new program, sumOfSquares. sumOfSquares takes two
arguments, x and y. And it returns the square of
x and the square of y. SumOfSquares doesn’t
care about how you compute the square. It trusts that square knows
how to do that. So the work is smaller. The idea is that square
takes care of squaring single numbers. sumOfSquares doesn’t have to
know how to square numbers. It just needs to know how to
make a sum of squares. So what we’ve done is we’ve
broken a task, which was not very complicated, but the whole
idea is hierarchical. We’ve taken a problem and broken
it into two pieces. We factored the problem into
how do you do a square, and how do you sum squares. And the idea, then, is that this
hierarchical structure is a way of building complex
systems out of simpler parts. So that’s the idea of how you
would build programs that are compositional. Python also provides a utility
for making lists, for making data structures that
are compositional. The most primitive is a list. So in Python, you can
specify a list. Here’s a list of integers. So the list says, beginning
list, end of list, elements of list. So there’s five elements
in the list, the integers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Python doesn’t care what the
elements of a list are. We’ll see in a minute that
that’s really important. But for the time being, the
simplest thing that you can imagine is a heterogeneous
list. It’s not critical that the list
contain just integers. Here’s a list that contains
an int, a string, an int, and a string. Python doesn’t care. It’s a list that has
four elements. The first element’s an int. The second element’s a
string, et cetera. Here’s an even more
complex example. Here’s a list of lists. How many elements are
in that list? Three. How many elements are
in that list? So the idea is that you can
build more complex data structures out of simple ones. That’s the idea of compositional
factoring applied to data. Just like it was important when
we were thinking about procedures, to associate
names with procedures– that’s what “def” did– we can also think about
associating names with data structures. And that’s what we use something
that Python calls a variable for. So I can say “b is 3”. And that associates the data
item, 3, with the label, b. I can say, “x is 5 times 2.2”. Python will figure out
what I mean by the expression on the right. It’ll figure out that I’m
composing by using the star operator, which is multiply, an
integer and a float, which will give me a float. The answer to that’s going to
be a floating point number. And it will assign a label, x,
to that floating point number. You can have a more complicated
list, a data structure, and associate
the name y with it. Then, having associated the name
y, you get many of the same benefits of associating a
name with a data structure that we got previously
in associating a name with an operation. So we can say, y(0). And what that means is, what’s
the zero-th elements of the data structure, y? So the zero-th element of
the data structure, y, is a list, [1, 2, 3]. Python has some funky
notations. The -1 element is
the last one. So the -1th element
of y is [7, 8, 9]. And it’s completely
hierarchical. If I asked for the -1 element
of y, I get [7, 8, 9]. But then, if I asked for the
first element of that result, I get 8. OK? Everything is clear? OK, just to make sure everything
is clear, I want to ask you a question. But to kick off the idea of
working together, I’d like you to think about this question
with your neighbor. So before thinking about this
question, everybody stand up. Introduce yourself
to your neighbor. [AUDIENCE TALKS] So now, I’d like you to each
discuss with your neighbor the list that is best represented
by which of the following figures, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5,
or none of the above. And in 30 seconds, I’m going
to ask everybody to raise a hand with a number of fingers
indicating the right answer. You’re allowed to talk. That’s the whole point
of having a partner. [AUDIENCE TALKS] OK. I’d like everybody now
to raise their hand. Put up the number of fingers
that show the answer. And I want to tally. Fantastic! Everybody gets it. OK, so which one do you like? AUDIENCE: 3. PROFESSOR: 3 — why do you like three. Somebody explain this to me? It just looks good? Its pattern recognition. What’s good about 3? AUDIENCE: It shows
the compositional element of the list. PROFESSOR: Compositional? What is the compositional
element in the pictures? What represents what? OK, ‘a’ represents a. That’s pretty easy, right? So that takes care of the
bulk of the figures. What’s the blue lines
represent? Someone else? I didn’t quite understand. AUDIENCE: The angles represent
like a list. PROFESSOR: They represent
a list. Where is the list
on the figures? AUDIENCE: The vertex? PROFESSOR: The vertex. The vertices are lists. So in 3 — at the highest level, we have a
list that’s composed of how many elements? 2. The first element
of that list is? AUDIENCE: a. PROFESSOR: And the second
element of that list is? AUDIENCE: Another list. PROFESSOR: Another list. That’s the hierarchical
part, right? That second list has
how many elements? AUDIENCE: 2. PROFESSOR: Fine,
good, recurse. You got it. What is the list represented
by number 2? A single list with
five elements. Square bracket, a, comma, b,
comma, c, comma, d, comma, e, square bracket, right? What is the list represented
by that one? AUDIENCE: Not a list. PROFESSOR: Agh! It’s not a list! What is it? Who knows? AUDIENCE: Looking
at the variable names, it defines them. You have variables. You have a variable a, that
defines a list that contains b, and the variable, c, that
defines another list that contains d. PROFESSOR: So we could
make that a variable. If we said a is a variable that
comprises b and c, then we have the problem of how
we’re going to associate variables and elements into
this list, right? So the weird thing about
this one and, let’s see, that one’s weird. This one’s also kind of weird. This one’s weird because we’re
giving names to lists in a fashion that’s not showed
up here, right? That’s not to say you couldn’t
invent a meaning. It’s just that it doesn’t
map very well to that representation. Similarly over here, we seem to
be giving the name b to the element a, and then the name
c to the element b. What on earth are you
talking about? It’s not clear what we’re
doing their either. So the point is to get you
thinking about the abstract representation of lists and how
that maps into a complex data structure. That was the whole point. OK, so we’ve talked about,
then, four things so far. How do you think about
operations in a hierarchical fashion. And the idea was composition. We think about composing simple
operations to make bigger, compound operations. That’s a way of saying, there’s
this set of operations that I want to call foo. So every time I do this
complicated thing that has three pages of code,
that’s one foo. And that’s a way that we can
then combined foos in some other horribly complicated
way to make big foos. So the idea is composition. That’s the first idea. The second is associating a name
with that composition. That’s what “def” does–
define name, name of a sub-routine. So we thought about composing
operations, associating names with them. We composed data in terms of
lists, and we associated names with those lists in terms
of variables. The next thing we want to think
about is a higher order construct where we would like to
conglomerate into one data structure both data
and procedures. Python has a concept called a
class that lets us do that. In Python, you make a new class
by saying to the Python prompt, I want a new class
called Student. And then, under Student, there
is this thing which we will call an attribute. An attribute to a class is
simply a data item associated with the class. And a method– a method is just a
procedure that is associated with the class. So there’s this single item
class called Student that has one piece of data, its
attribute, school, and one procedure, which is the method
calculateFinalGrade. So then, this is the kind of
data structure you might imagine that a registrar
would have. It’s a way to associate. So the idea here is that
everybody here is a student. They all have a school. And they all have a way of
calculating their final grade. That’s a very narrow view that
maybe a registrar would have. So classes, having defined
them, we can then use the class to define an instance. So an instance is a data
structure that inherits all of the structure from the class but
also provides a mechanism for having specific data
associated with the instance. So in Python, I say
Mary is a student. By mentioning the name of the
class and putting parenthesis on it, I say, give me an
instance of the student. So now, Mary is a name
associated with an instance of the class, Student. John is similarly an instance
of the class, Student. So both Mary and John
have schools. In fact, they’re
both the same. The school of Mary and the
school of John are both MIT. But I can extend the instance
of Mary to include a new attribute, the section number,
so that Mary’s section number is 3 and John’s section
number is 4. So this provides a way– it’s a higher-order concept. We thought of a way to aggregate
operations into complicated operation, data
into complicated data. Classes aggregate data
and operations. Classes allow us to create
a structure and then generate instances. And then the instances have
access to those features that were defined in the class, but
also have the ability to define their own unique
attributes and methods. You can also use a class
to define a subclass. So here, I’m defining the
subclass, Student601. All Student601s are members
of the class, Student. The reverse is not true. So all Student601 entities
inherit everything that a Student has. But all 601 students share
some other things. Besides having a school which
all students have, 601 students also have a lecture
day, a lecture time, and a method for calculating
tutor scores. Not all students have a method
for calculating tutor scores. But members of the class
Student601 do. So this, again, represents a
way of organizing data and operations in a way that makes
it easier to compose higher, bigger, more complex
structures. The final thing that I want
to talk about today is the specific, gory details for how
Python manages the association between names and entities. We’ve already seen
two of those. Naming operations is via “def.”
And it gives rise to the name of a procedure. Variables are ways of naming
data structures. Now, we’ve seen a way
of naming classes. And in fact, it’s helpful
if you understand. So Python associates names and
entities in a very simple, straightforward fashion. And if you know the ground
rules, it makes it very easy to deal with. And if you don’t know the ground
rules, it makes it very hard to deal with. So what’s the ground rules? Here’s the gory details. So Python associates names with
values in what Python calls a binding environment. An environment is just a
list that associates a name and an entity. So if you were to type b
equals 3 what Python is actually doing is it’s building
this environment. When you type b equals 3, it
adds to the environment a name, b, and associates that
name with the integer, 3. When you type x equals 2.2, it
adds a name, x, and associates it with the float, 2.2. When you say foo is minus 506
times 2, it makes the name, foo, and associates it with
an int, minus 1012. Then, if you ask Python about
b, the rule is look it up in the environment and type the
thing that b refers to. So when you type “b,” what
Python really does is it goes to the environment. It says, do I have some entity
called “b?” Well, yes I do. It happens to be an int, 3. So it prints 3. If you ask, what is “a?”
Python says, OK, in my environment, do I have some
name, “a?” It doesn’t find it. So it prints out this cryptic
message that basically says, sorry, guys, I can’t find
something called “a” in the current environment. That’s the key to the way Python
does all name bindings. So in general, there’s
a global environment. You start typing to Python. It just starts adding and
modifying the bindings in the binding environment. So if you type a equals 3 and
then type “a,” it’ll find 3. If you then type “b=a+2,” it
evaluates the right-hand side relative to the current
environment. So it first looks here. And it says, do I have something
called “a?” Ah, yes. It’s an integer, 3. Substitute that. Do I know what 2 is? Oh yeah, that’s just an int. Do I know what plus is? Oh yeah, that’s the thing
that combines two ints. So it decides that a plus 2– it evaluates a plus 2 in the
current environment. It gets 5. And it says, oh, I’m trying
to do a new equals, a new association, a new variable. Make the name, b, points to this
evaluated in the current environment. So b gets associated
with int 5. Then, if I do this line, it
evaluates b plus 1 in the current environment. b is 5 in the current
environment. It adds 1. It gets 6. And then, it says, associate
this thing, 6, with b. So it overwrites the b, which
had been bound to 5, and b is now bound to 6. OK? So the whole thing, the way it
treats variables, the way Python associates a name with
a value in a variable, is evaluate the right-hand side
according to the current environment. Then, change the current
environment to reflect the new binding. What it does in the case of
sub-routines is very similar. So here’s an illustration of the
local environment that is generated by this
piece of code. When I say a equals 2, it
generates a name in the local environment, a. It evaluates the right-hand
side and finds 2. So it makes a binding in the
local environment where the name, a, is associated
with the integer, 2. Then, I say define square of
x to be return x squared. That’s more complicated. Python says, oh, I’m defining
a new operation. It’s a procedure. The procedure has a formal
argument, x. It has a body, return
x times x. I’m going to have to remember
all of that stuff. So I’m trying to define a new
procedure called square. It’s going to make a
binding for square. So in the future, if somebody
says the word square, it’ll find out, oh, square I
remember that one. square, it’s a procedure. Just like the binding for a
variable might be an int, the binding for a procedure is the
name of the procedure. Then, in the procedure, which
is some other data structure outside the environment, it’s
got to remember the formal parameters– in this case, x– and the body. And for the purpose of
resolving what do the variables mean, it needs to
remember what was the binding environment in which this
sub-routine was defined. So that’s this arrow. So this sequence says, make a
new binding square, points to a procedure. The procedure has the
formal argument, x. It has the body return
x times x. And it has the binding. It came from the environment,
E1, the current environment. OK, is everybody clear? So the idea is that the
environment associates names with things. The thing could be
a data item, or it could be a procedure. Then, when you call a procedure,
it makes a new environment. So what happens, then, when I
try to evaluate a form, square of a plus 2? What Python does is it says,
OK, I need to figure out what square is. So it looks it up in the
environment, and it finds out that square is a procedure. Fine, I know how to deal
with procedures. So then, it figures out this
procedure has a formal argument, x. Oh, OK, if I’m going to run this
procedure, I’m going to have to know what x means. So Python makes a new
environment– here, it’s labelled E2, separate
from the global environment, E1. It makes a new environment
that will associate x with something. Doesn’t know what it is yet, it
just knows that this square is a procedure that takes
a formal argument, x. So Python makes a new
environment, E2, with x pointing to something. Then, Python evaluates the
argument a plus 2 in the environment E1. You called square of a plus 2
in the environment of E1. So it figures out what did
you mean by a plus 3. Well, you were in the
environment E1. So it means whatever a plus 3
would have meant if he had just typed a plus 3 in
that environment. So you evaluate a plus
3 in the environment E1, and you get 5. So then, this new environment,
E2, that is set up for this procedure, square, associates
5 with x. Now it’s ready to
run the body. So now, it runs this procedure,
return x times x. But now, what it’s trying to
resolve its variables, it looks it up in E2. So it says, I want to do
the procedure, the body, x times x. I need to know what x is, and
I need to know it twice. Look up what x means, but I
will look it up in my E2 environment that was built specifically for this procedure. And fortunately, there’s
an x there. So it finds out that x is 5. It multiplies 5 times 5. It gets the answer is 25. It returns 25. And then, it destroys this
environment, E2, because it was only necessary for the time
when it was running the procedure body. Is that clear? OK, so a slightly more difficult
example illustrates what happens whenever everything
is not defined in the current local environment. What if I type define
biz of a? Well, I create a new name in
the local environment that points to a procedure. The procedure has a formal
parameter, a, and a body that returns a plus b. The procedure also was defined
within the environment E1, which I’ll keep track of. Then, if I say b equals 6, that
makes a new binding in the global environment,
b equals 6. Then, if I try to run biz
of 2, look up biz. Oh, that’s a procedure,
formal parameter, a. Make an environment,
has an a in it. What should I put in a? Evaluate the argument, 2. OK, a is 2. Put two here. Now, I’m ready to
run the body. Run the body in the
environment, E2. When I run return a plus
b in E2, I have to first figure out a. Well, that’s easy. a is 2. Then, I have to figure out b. What’s b? AUDIENCE: 6? PROFESSOR: 6. So how did you get 6? AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]. PROFESSOR: So this local
environment that was created for the formal parameter has,
as its parent, E1 because that’s where the procedure
was defined. So it doesn’t find b in this
local environment. So it goes to the parent. Do you have a “b?” And it could,
in principal, propagate up a chain of environments. So you could construct
this hierarchically. So it will resolve bindings in
the most recent environment that has that binding. So the answer, then, is that
when you run biz of 2, this b gets associated with
that b, OK? So that’s how the environments
work for simple procedures and simple data structures. It’s very similar for the way
it works with classes. So imagine that I had this
data, and I wanted to represent that in Python. What I might do is look at
the common features. The courses are all the same. The rooms are all the same. The buildings are
all the same. The ages are highly variable. So I might want to create
a class that has the common data. So I might do this– class Staff601. The course is 601. The building’s 34. The room is this. The way Python implements a
class is as an environment. Executing this set of statements
builds the class environment. This is it. It’s a list of bindings. Here, I’m binding the
name, course, to the string, 601, et cetera. If there were a method, I
would do the same thing, except it would look like
a procedure then. So this creates the Staff601
environment. Staff601, because I executed
this class statement, that creates a binding in the local
environment, Staff601, which points to the new environment. So now, in the future, when
Python encounters the name Staff601, it will discover that
that’s an environment. Python implements classes
as environments. So now, when I want to access
elements within a class, I use a special notation. It’s a dot notation. Python regards dots as ways of
navigating an environment. When Python parses staff.room,
it looks up Staff601 in the current environment. If it finds an environment, it
then says, oh, I know about this .room thing. All I do is I look up
the room name in the environment Staff601. And when it does that, it
gets the answer 501. And the same sort of
thing happens here. It looks up Staff601. It finds an environment. It looks up coolness. It finds out there
is no such thing. Well, no, that’s not true. So it creates coolness within
601 and assigns an integer, 11, to it. So then, the way Python treats
methods is completely analogous– oh, excuse me, instances. I’m doing instances first. If I make pat be an instance
of Staff601, pat is an instance of the class
Staff601. pat is implemented as
an environment. So when I make pat, pat points
to a new environment– here, E3. The parent of E3 is the class
that pat belongs to, which is, here, E2. And when I make the instance,
it’s empty. But now, if I ask what is
pat.course, well, pat points to this environment. Does this environment have
something called a course? No. Does the parent? Yes. Course is bound to
the string 601. So pat.course is 601
just the same as Staff601.course had been 601. pat is an instance. It’s a new environment
with the class environment as its parent. You can add attributes
to instances. And all that does is populate
the environment associated with the instance. You can add methods
to classes. And that does the same thing. So here, I’ve got the class,
Staff601, which has a method, salutation, instance
variables, course, building, and room. So when I build that structure,
Staff601 points to an environment that contains
salutation, which is a procedure, in addition to a
bunch of instance variables. So now, all of the rules that
we’ve talked about with regard to environments apply
now to this class. So in particular, I can say
Staff601 salutation of pat. When Python parses Staff601,
it finds an environment. It says dot salutation. Oh, I know how to do that. Within the environment,
Staff601, look for a binding for the name salutation. Do I find one? Well, yeah, there it is. It points to a procedure. So staff dot salutation
is a procedure. Do just the same things that
we would have done with a simple procedure. The only difference
here is that the procedure came from a class. In this particular case, the
sub-routine that I define has a formal parameter, self. So then, that’s going to have
to build when I try to evaluate it. That has to build a binding for
self, which is set to pat. pat was an environment. So self gets pointed to pat. So now, when I run
Staff601.salutation on pat, it behaves as though that generic
method was applied to the instance pat. We’ll do that a lot. It’s a little bit
of redundancy. We know that pat is a
member of Staff601. So we will define a special
form– or I should say, Python defines a special form– that
makes that easy to say. This is the way we will usually
say, the instance pat should run the class method
salutation on itself. This is simply a simplified
notation that means precisely that, OK? So what we covered today, then,
was supposed to be the most elementary ideas in how
you construct modular programs, Modularity
at the small scale. How do you make operations that
are hierarchical, data structures, and classes? What we will do for the rest of
the week is practice those activities.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

100 thoughts on “Lec 1 | MIT 6.01SC Introduction to Electrical Engineering and Computer Science I, Spring 2011”

  1. ROOFUS THE DOG says:

    I just watched this whole thing and didn't learn much, I'm a kid, where should I start to get a better grip on this stuff??

  2. Mercutio Escalus says:

    When you're going to school in a few days and you're watching an MIT lecture instead of reviewing all your shit from 8th grade

  3. Proud Moment says:

    I was skimming over the video at 2x, and then I jump to the 45th minute, and god, that was the most crazy thing I have seen on a MIT video.

  4. Vivek Vishwakarma says:

    It should be Introduction to Eletronics Engineering and Computer Science I

  5. none of your business says:

    Crowd was dead. He bombed for sure

  6. chokechain88 says:

    That damn lip smacking after every sentence. Smack

  7. HR Cut says:

    Computation starts at 3:26 at 10:00 he starts to talk about State machines, 7 minutes to be edited in later.Modularity and abstraction on the small scale 9:34
    PCAP 11:50 signals and systems 11:20
    13:00 alg goes wrong

  8. Mike Camaro says:

    Is this going to be on the test…

  9. Cringe In A Bottle says:

    Am I the only 10 year old here?

    The answer is: 99.99% YES

  10. Mitchx42 says:

    Is there pre Uni books on electrical engineering for people who wana study it and be prepared etc.

  11. Emsi Hamer says:

    There are several factors in learning circuits. One plan I found which successfully combines these is the Gregs Electro Blog (google it if you're interested) definately the most incredible info i've seen. Check out this incredible website.

  12. Bryan Garcia says:

    With all respect, I find this guy really weird. There is something deep inside that makes me not trust him. And why is he speaking as if he is auditioning for the Joker?

  13. iCCup Core says:

    im so lost toward to the end… do i have to study Python before watching this?

  14. blueNile98 says:

    I don't comment on online lectures but this professor is brilliant and understand able Thanks MIT..

  15. kazi MRahman says:

    He is a good magnet….I just lost myself into his lecture….great lecture…!!!

  16. WHAT'S UP TV says:

    langueege!

  17. Stavros Tseberidis says:

    Is there someone with free time and will to help me (for free) by giving me some instructions what to study and I could ask him whenever I will have questions in order to improve my understanding in electric circuits and electronics (via skype or messenger),like a tutor? I'm an poor pregraduate physics student having to work for my family so I don't find enough time to view lectures in university and I'm in trouble right now. Please contact me, god bless you!!

  18. gromann says:

    This is already proving more useful than some of the ME/EE courses I've taken 😐

  19. Mega Sauce says:

    Wet mouth sounds drive me crazy so I'm unable to focus on what he's saying

  20. tula emma says:

    this is really my like

  21. TheFootballPlaya says:

    Good lecture

  22. Frankenstien's Moster says:

    i thought that in 42:16 the composition data structures part was super interesting

  23. meme machine says:

    im 13 and watching this, is it only me or is this shit interesting af

  24. Nonoy Fire says:

    Honestly, I never though my professor was far more better than this man, filipino engr professor the best… direct to the point…the problem were, we pay for laboratory that does not exist…a ghost… western mindanao state university, zamboanga city… too much politic in school administration, lack of funds…

  25. Richard Hayes says:

    Lol hundreds of thousands of views for this, and just a few thousand for the last lecture, and a few dozen students dropped out!

  26. Caleb Jackson says:

    I fucking love this man. so animated you can't help but pay attention

  27. Shinyodst says:

    can someone explain why another environment can be created, why not just keep one?

  28. Key international Enterprise says:

    www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5M9TAA0zt77sbUJA1Hx434lkR5ZXFUDi #keyinternationalenterprise #education #university #business #afghanistan #smart #Change #support #startup #AI
    #GOALKEEPERS17

  29. Brian McNulty says:

    Applying for this school was probably the hardest thing. I would suggest any high school students that are interested to get way ahead while you can.

  30. deepanker gautam says:

    IIT coaching teachers teach better than him.

  31. deepanker gautam says:

    Walter Lewin was the only teacher in MIT who can match IIT coaching teachers.

  32. Shadow747 says:

    These student are probably graduating or have graduated by now

  33. Shadow747 says:

    18:30 looks brown lol

  34. Shadow747 says:

    Note to self: be completely familiar with python before takinh this course

  35. Richard Gray says:

    It's the son of Captain Kangaroo.

  36. nguyen robert says:

    khách sạn camellia 12 phố huế hà nội +84 0243 8225140

  37. Daniel Lovenson Fideli JULMISTE says:

    Thank you so much.

  38. Taylor says:

    Is there a new alternative to the Pioneer robot used in the course?

  39. The GreatOverlord says:

    34:46 – It's gonna say "UUHH".
    try:
    print ('Hello'+3)
    except:
    playAudio("UUHH")

  40. Eric says:

    Wtf am i doing. I’m in like 7th grade

  41. Comrade Hatuey says:

    Lots of gang signs lol.

  42. Toaha Bin Faruq says:

    Should I come to this class after 6.0001 and 6.002 ?

  43. Ricardo Guajardo says:

    He looks like he is cousins with Scotty Kilmer

  44. RIcky MoonStar says:

    Watching this so i can make a godlike trap base on rust

  45. RANK2MS says:

    Best lecture then it on my channel on ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

  46. M M M 1/1 says:

    He sounds like the joker

  47. dubai times says:

    interesting points ,if anyone else wants to uncover introduction to electronics course try Ichordo Electronics Expert Fixer (do a search on google ) ? Ive heard some great things about it and my colleague got great success with it.

  48. dog says:

    Man I would be hate to be stuck in that lecture room

  49. Brandon Shyber says:

    If Ellen Was a man…

  50. Frank Reiser M.S. says:

    I was a philosophy minor in undergraduate school (my major was biology). As part of my philosophy minor, I had to take a philosophy class called Logic. The way that Python works is exactly the same way that philosophical logic worked.
    Frank
    Frank Reiser Video/Audio Service

  51. Chato Djobrin says:

    If you learn with youtube you don’t never a certification of MIT
    If you can pay 60.000$ pay a study
    Good

  52. Sean Zhang says:

    Imagining students in this class who already know the entire course before they take it.

  53. Abhijeet Singh says:

    Can you make a playlist of electrical Engineering & computer science whole videos serial wise arrangine in order

  54. zongwu lu says:

    MIT,my dream school

  55. Fiki Firmansyah says:

    I love you MIT

  56. David Flynn says:

    What about the list of all elements that cannot be in a list?

  57. Yatukih001 says:

    90 vaccers hate this video…

  58. Brady Alejandro says:

    6:50 is the best part… about learning

  59. ABHINISH RATHAUR says:

    Ab de hai ham engineer kaise bane

  60. Dayjaby says:

    High quality sentence: There's even more floats than there are ints, right? Is this some kind of "it has to be right, because we are MIT"-sentence?

  61. Ankit Sharma says:

    Good job

  62. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Op-amp is operational amplifier.

  63. Saumitra Gautam says:

    MIT rocks.

  64. Saumitra Gautam says:

    America rocks.

  65. Saumitra Gautam says:

    India the International rocks.

  66. Saumitra Gautam says:

    I am impressed by MIT.

  67. Saumitra Gautam says:

    I am good.

  68. Saumitra Gautam says:

    If you live the teachings, then the teachings are you.

  69. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Good lecture.

  70. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Great lecture.

  71. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Greatest lecture ever. I loved it.

  72. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Know thyself.

  73. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Whatever knowledge you are having by yourself is self-knowledge.

  74. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Self-knowledge is the key to God.

  75. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Belief destroys intelligence.

  76. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Wisdom is good.

  77. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Wisdom means infinite cleverness.

  78. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Wisdom means ending of cleverness.

  79. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Nandri.

  80. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Simply, do not abuse.

  81. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Love violence then violence ends.

  82. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Be good.

  83. Saumitra Gautam says:

    I am unknown.

  84. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Learned and the wise are one.

  85. Saumitra Gautam says:

    Explore me fully.

  86. Ajinkya shinde says:

    Nice video…

    #Impactacademyofficial

  87. sidi patrick says:

    Can’t wait to be at computer engineering class this coming semester..you all wish me well thank you

  88. Jim Simon says:

    4 is the correct answer

  89. Jim Simon says:

    oop is poop

  90. Jim Simon says:

    he is a very poor instructor i would not hire him in business . . .you may but he will not work for iHeart

  91. Jim Simon says:

    did you go to marquis deSade school of binding bondage S&M
    don't like it the hidden overhead precludes speed

  92. Jim Simon says:

    Z was defined outside the function as global
    function(Z)
    local static x = Z
    if x=0 then inc Z
    end

  93. Snowy Neko says:

    29:26

  94. Extra Subscriptions says:

    Checkout my channel for network analysis lectures and power electronics lecture. Give me a like and subscribe
    https://youtu.be/V3snPiynv2A

  95. Aditya Raj says:

    Lol i should be more focused

  96. Balaporte Jean says:

    thk you. Jesus is God,believe in Him and repent.

  97. Rodrigo Neira says:

    I really envy those smart geeks boys and girls who attend to perhaps the most prestigious and rigorous school in the world within the field of electrical, electronics and computer engineering. MIT dictates the rules and it's an outstanding reference within the STEM sciences.

  98. flop channel says:

    How many Indian r watching… 😁..

  99. Treize HK says:

    45:25 "everyone stand up"
    This is especially funny because there is some guy in the wheelchair in the first row.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *