Mathematicians should stop naming things after each other

Post by iguy » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 10:40 PM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #255

knome wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tim Sort, Hamming Codes, Huffman Coding, RSA keys, LZW encoding, Duff's Device, Bloom Filter, Carmack's Reverse, awk, linux, git. We have a lot of things named after those that discovered, invented or popularized a structure or technique. Certainly nowhere near as commonly as does mathematics, I will agree. In CS, no doubt, we often end up on the other end, where a single term means different things in different cont…

To some extent that reflects that in programming we encounter a mixture of naming origins between computer science (where naming follows an academic tradition that shares its heritage with Mathematics) and software engineering (where naming follows a tradition closer to that of other engineering tooling, where naming is more like branding - think 'Duck tape' or 'Allen wrench'). Often the closest thing we do to the wh…

Post by chongli » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 10:44 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #147

chongli wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for example: operating systems, programming languages, human computer interaction, etc. Those topics might seem to have nothing to do with math but all of their components have mathematical underpinnings. Algorithms, data structures, complexity theory, and even the physics of end-to-end latency, colour perception, etc. There probably are some people out there, working in these fields with only a high school math back…

Everyone who completed a physics degree has done at least as much math as a CS degree holder, is physics a subfield of math? (I think there is a discussion to be had about making the distinction "CS" vs "theoretical CS" as the GP comment does, or if it should be "CS" vs some other term ("computing"? feels a bit general))

Post by srtjstjsj » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 10:46 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #170

bumby wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t this why science deliberately chose Latin for naming? Being a dead language it won’t change meanings over time

I think that’s because when science started to get serious, Latin happened to be the lingua-Franca of those in Europe who could afford to be part of it. Equivalent deal for why we use Arabic numbers.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

bsza wrote: post #228

DonCopal wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do have Shor's algorithm, Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm etc.

Who is "we"? Both Shor and Jozsa are mathematicians and Deutsch is a physicist.

Post by rockinghigh » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 10:50 PM UTC

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #100

yongjik wrote: post #82

Meh, that's like saying it's so hard to remember San Francisco from San Jose from Mountain View from Palo Alto, why can't we just name them as Big Sea City, Big South City, Middle Town, and Expensive Town. I.e., it's a fake problem that only sounds plausible to outsiders - if you live in the Bay Area, then Mountain View being called Mountain View is the least of your problems in driving to Mountain View.

Agree, although as a Mountain View resident I'm pretty disgruntled that there is neither mountain nor view here. A town like Mammoth Lakes, CA would be a better candidate to deserve the name "Mountain View". Jokes aside there are places in the world that name themselves much more intuitively like you described. Beijing = northern capital Nanjing = southern capital Shanghai = on the sea Hong Kong = fragrant harbor Xi'…