Skip to main content

Bridge Review: Mathematics to Algorithms to Software Design

Incoming evidence from Semesters 0 and 1​

Use a concrete artifact for each dependency: programming/control flow for input validation and loop termination; sets/maps for identity and duplicates; induction for graph readiness or DP correctness; sums/logarithms for costs; probability for the distinction between an expected guarantee and a deterministic contract. Repair missing prerequisites through the relevant module diagnostic.

Handoff to Semester 3​

Carry forward the planner and its evidence, not a second rewrite. Prepare a one-page design brief with these boundaries:

  • Preparation graph validation/readiness: immutable input and complete certificate.
  • Catalogue/version store: identity, exact lookup, edits, atomic publication and history.
  • Scheduler: eligible intervals and budget in; feasible optimal witness out.
  • Verification/measurement: independent oracles, cost models and reproducible workloads.

Explain which invariants cross boundaries and who owns returned data. Choose one change such as closed intervals or a resource cap, then identify which interfaces, proofs and tests must change. Avoid promising incremental optimal scheduling from a persistent sum tree without a new algorithm.

Readiness memo​

Link the checkpoint decision, weakest noncritical fluency goal, one rejected design alternative and one question for Software Design. Keep a small set of retrieval drills active for the next four weeks. Critical unresolved competencies still require repair under the rubric.

The handoff is checkpoint evidence. A rewritten architecture note can become a portfolio artifact, but public publishing is not required for semester completion.

Complexity and approximation evidence​

Carry the solver-selection appendix into software design. Preserve the distinction between feasible, optimal, approximate and unresolved results in interface contracts. A timeout or admission rejection must not be reported as infeasibility.