Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Computer science is not about computers”

quoteinvestigator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 293 posts

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#91

Post by triska »

kn1ght wrote: post #89
triska wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting view that captures a substantial portion of computer science including also programs and proofs with a short and clear criterion. However, a key drawback of this view is that it undersells the linguistic aspect of computer science which is manifested in the search for suitable programming languages . I think it is justified to regard the design of programming languages as a core area of compute…

Programming languages are not full linguistics, at least not yet. We focus primarily on syntax, semantics and pragmatics. All of this, though, is firmly rooted in mathematics, defining grammar as expressions and mathematical relationships. This then enables formal mathematical proofs where we can reason about outcome. I don't know if there exists such search that you mention, or it is more of an optimization of langu…

I once read an article suggesting that reading computer code does not activate the regions of the brain that are involved in language processing:

https://news.mit.edu/2020/brain-reading-computer-code-1215

This may indicate that the sampled programmers did not program in the way it can be done for example with declarative languages, i.e., primarily as a linguistic activity where we describe what we know about the task.

I also like the description in Programming as Theory Building by Peter Naur:

https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/Naur.pdf

The feasibility of this approach may depend on the programming languages one uses.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#92

Post by lukego »

My favourite take on "computer science" is from George Forsythe who founded Stanford's computer science department in the 1960s. He didn't seem to be embarrassed to put the computer into computer science.

Excerpt from http://i.stanford.edu/pub/cstr/reports/cs/tr/65/26/CS-TR-65-...:

> I consider computer science to be the art and science of exploiting automatic digital computers, and of creating the technology necessary to understand their use. It deals with such related problems as the design of better machines using known components, the design and implementation of adequate software systems for communication between man and machine, and the design and analysis of methods of representing information by abstract symbols and of processes for manipulating these symbols. Computer science must also concern itself with such theoretical subjects supporting this technology as information theory, the logic of the finitely constructable, numerical mathematical analysis, and the psychology of problem solving. Naturally, these theoretical subjects are shared by computer science with such disciplines as philosophy, mathematics, and psychology.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#93

Post by kn1ght »

jhanschoo wrote: post #53
panarky wrote: post #15

Dijkstra hand-wrote a paper titled "On the cruelty of really teaching computer science" where he argues that we should think about CS more as pure reasoning like mathematics than something tied to a machine. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd10xx/EWD1036.PDF

Whenever this comes up I feel compelled to say that Dijkstra has a huge blind spot with this, that perhaps is more obvious with decades of hindsight. He advocates formal proof for a functional specification of a program to be part and parcel of writing it, and note that what he refers to by formal proof is ambiguous. If he means the informal proofs mathematicians write and publish all day long, these actually include…

One of my Uni professors was working on Proof-carrying code *(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-carrying_code). I got a cursory involvement. Although I agree with you, the fact that there is a way forward and is entirely based in mathematics (on the formal side) makes me also agreeable with OP. I don't see a contradiction. If you talk about the more informal side- the way something is used does not necessarily define its nature.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#94

Post by pjmlp »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #82
js8 wrote: post #73

My view is quite unconventional, but I believe, computer science is a branch of mathematics that deals with large but finite structures (so they need an algorithmic description). Compare with most of "legacy" mathematics, which studies countable structures (so the description can use arbitrary series). Of course, there are larger sets, but they mostly serve as a theater (just like countable infinity is just a theater…

Yes. Indeed in much of the world outside the USA there isn't even such a label as "computer science"; the stuff that's taught as "computer science" in the USA is taught under some sort of "math" label.

In Portugal, there is some time to spend with such matters during the 5 year long that an Informatics Engineering degree takes (certified by the Engineering Order).

Since Bologna, it got levelled to Masters, but most still take the 3 + 2 years, not to be left behind the older generation that had 5 + 2 for Master.

So plenty of time to go down into the subjects that USA consider computer science.

However for those that want to really go down the rabbit hole of computer science as seen on USA, the appropriate degree is Applied Maths into Computing.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#95

Post by kn1ght »

triska wrote: post #91
kn1ght wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming languages are not full linguistics, at least not yet. We focus primarily on syntax, semantics and pragmatics. All of this, though, is firmly rooted in mathematics, defining grammar as expressions and mathematical relationships. This then enables formal mathematical proofs where we can reason about outcome. I don't know if there exists such search that you mention, or it is more of an optimization of langu…

I once read an article suggesting that reading computer code does not activate the regions of the brain that are involved in language processing: https://news.mit.edu/2020/brain-reading-computer-code-1215 This may indicate that the sampled programmers did not program in the way it can be done for example with declarative languages, i.e., primarily as a linguistic activity where we describe what we know about the task…

Thanks for the articles. I definitely don't do it the same way I process language. To use the same example- I describe a task unambiguously, which makes it a translation from written text to memory regions or execution paths. It gets more concrete than just what I know about the task. A better parallel would be to writing mathematical formulas. When I process language, I believe, more of my brain is engaged in empathy, in trying to match context, in allowing ambiguity, storing ideas and concepts to be disambiguated at a later point.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#97

Post by thanatos519 »

js8 wrote: post #73

My view is quite unconventional, but I believe, computer science is a branch of mathematics that deals with large but finite structures (so they need an algorithmic description). Compare with most of "legacy" mathematics, which studies countable structures (so the description can use arbitrary series). Of course, there are larger sets, but they mostly serve as a theater (just like countable infinity is just a theater…

This is good thinking and I am sad to hear that it is unconventional.

And now I'll contradict the part of what you said about finite structures: At a theoretical level, the field deals with infinite structures, namely the Turing Machine tape and infinite time. We use finite Computing Machines to simulate a finite section of that tape in a finite time.

Maybe we should call it Turing Machine Science, because we use computers to study the behavior of programs in Turing Machines, just as astronomers use telescopes to study the behavior of atoms in stars and particle physicists use particle accelerators to study the behavior of elementary particles. We will never touch those particles, stars, or Turing Machines, but we can know them, hence the science.

Software engineering is like using one's understanding of the emissions of the sun to design better solar panels. Very practical, but you don't use your understanding of gravity-driven fusion reactors every day.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#99

Post by siraben »

js8 wrote: post #73

My view is quite unconventional, but I believe, computer science is a branch of mathematics that deals with large but finite structures (so they need an algorithmic description). Compare with most of "legacy" mathematics, which studies countable structures (so the description can use arbitrary series). Of course, there are larger sets, but they mostly serve as a theater (just like countable infinity is just a theater…

> computer science is a branch of mathematics that deals with large but finite structures (so they need an algorithmic description)

Another way to put this is that computer science deals with mostly constructive mathematics (more precisely, mathematics that uses intuitionistic logic, the kind that is natural to most programmers and computer scientists anyway). For instance, when you prove the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, you actually can translate that into an algorithm for factorizing numbers into products of powers of primes. And the converse holds too, an algorithm is a proof! If you can give me an algorithm that, given a number n, always produces a prime bigger than n, then that actually witnesses the infinitude of primes.

Constructive methods are everywhere in CS, for instance, to prove a proposition P, it's possible in classical math to say "assume (not P) is true, then derive a contradiction, hence P", however that would be really unnatural in CS! You never hear "I want to show an algorithm to solve P exists, let's suppose it's not computable, ... contradiction!", because you don't end up with an algorithm at all (what you proved instead was that it's impossible for an algorithm to not exist, without saying what it is). Likewise, you if want to show some number/program/data structure has the properties you care about you almost always give the description explicitly.

For more information, I'd say that type theory is a great intersection of math and computer science in a way that's quite accessible to programmers, since we're already used to this kind of thinking, even if we weren't explicitly taught it.

Post reply on HN