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

161–170 of 293 posts

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#161

Post by Jenz »

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…

There are large and finite structures in mathematics that would be very odd to call computer science. Take group theory and, say, the monster group [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#162

Post by TuringTest »

kaba0 wrote: post #152
TuringTest wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turing machines are terribly inefficient, though. They may be easier to reason about than lambda calculus, but not good for practical computing purposes. Their value was in proving that logical and mathematical reasoning could be mechanized with an automatic device, something that had not been clear until then. Computing science cares a lot about building efficient processes. Thus to create real working programs, a b…

Efficiency is not important at all when you talk about a mathematical proof. Do we really care about a proof using induction taking n or n^2 operations? For seeing whether a given statement holds true, minimizing complexity is the most important.

> Efficiency is not important at all when you talk about a mathematical proof.

Precisely, and that's the main difference between computer science and the rest of mathematics.

Typically CS cares about the process to find a result, and not just its value nor the possibility or impossibility to find it.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#163

Post by xwolfi »

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…

Yeah I remember that I started reaching my first CS successes once I knew enough of the mathematics and properties of the hardware to "think like a machine" and was trying to explain some of my peers still struggling how to do a more step by step execution in their mind.

In hindsight it's clear that you dont tell a story when you program a computer or not the way I'd describe my day or teach my kids about a phenomenon. It feels more like unrolling a tape and executing a receipe in the most simple way you can after you built a mind model of the machine. You mimic an actor maybe, rather than imagine an event ?

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#164

Post by imtringued »

the__alchemist wrote: post #44

As someone who hasn't taken CS classes, I was surprised to learn that what I'd assumed was CS is classified as Electrical Engineering (Designing processors, ICs etc), and Physics (concepts like reversible computing, quantum computing, the works of Turing, Feynman, and Shannon.) I still don't have a grasp on what characterizes CS.

Why would that be surprising? Processors and ICs contain a lot of analog electronics.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#165

Post by vishnugupta »

vishnugupta wrote: post #86
divbzero wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the best ways to fill in those gaps? I bet many of us never enjoyed those classes in school, or even had a traditional computing education.

I suggest a combination of theory (videos/books/papers) and practice. For practice; I highly recommend learning Haskell. If you are new to functional programming then learning Haskell is challenging and frustrating but as with any new topic the key is to not give up but keep probing. A good recent development is lot of mainstream languages are beginning to include functional paradigms such as lambda, closures etc., F…

> For evidence just look at a recent post on HN[5] about an article he published. > [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26991300

Ignore this part because the one I referred to is a different person! Though they are both terrific :-)

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#166

Post by thrower123 »

The quote might be accurate, but most of the people taking computer science courses care very much about computers, and particularly actual computers as they physically exist.

It'd be nice if there was a better division between the blackboard purists and the pointer-slingers, but in most cases they have been lumped together, and it produces a subpar education for both breeds.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#167

Post by vishnugupta »

bidirectional wrote: post #126
vishnugupta wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest a combination of theory (videos/books/papers) and practice. For practice; I highly recommend learning Haskell. If you are new to functional programming then learning Haskell is challenging and frustrating but as with any new topic the key is to not give up but keep probing. A good recent development is lot of mainstream languages are beginning to include functional paradigms such as lambda, closures etc., F…

That post is by a completely different Bartosz.

Darn! All these days I thought they were the same! Thanks for correcting me!

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#168

Post by fnrslvr »

TuringTest wrote: post #148
kaba0 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you think that? I believe I’ve read that even Church himself said that Turing machines are a more elegant basis for computations, since they are much easier to mathematically reason about. I’m sure one can prove everything proved for Turing machines for lambda calculus, but I disagree with your statement that it is more mathematically grounded. It may be true in a syntactic form, but definitely not in a mat…

Turing machines are terribly inefficient, though. They may be easier to reason about than lambda calculus, but not good for practical computing purposes. Their value was in proving that logical and mathematical reasoning could be mechanized with an automatic device, something that had not been clear until then. Computing science cares a lot about building efficient processes. Thus to create real working programs, a b…

This whole debate is always so bewildering. Programming paradigm fanboys get into heated arguments about which model is the "best" one, but actual computer science research uses myriad different models of computation, usually endeavoring to select the one that is most convenient for the given purpose.

Sometimes that could mean using the lambda calculus, particularly in study of language theory and type systems. Other times that could mean some sort of black box model, such as when proving lower bounds for solving problems using specific operations (see e.g. the sorting lower bound). Yet other times, like when establishing the ground-zero of some new variety of computational hardness, I can't think of many more suitable models to cut up into pieces and embed into the substrate of some other problem than those based upon Turing machines.

Post reply on HN