Live data from Hacker News

“Computer science is not about computers”

quoteinvestigator.com

171–180 of 293 posts

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#171
post #161
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

I see nothing odd in calling that computer science. It seems more like hardcore computer science.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#172
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Typically, programmers care about the process to find the result. Some programmers are computer scientists. You can not conclude that all computer scientists are programmers, so your statement is based on logical fallacy.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also now have an education the is more equivalent to a US computer science degree: Software Engineer. I think the US degrees are more focused on practicality than the Danish version. Basically the Danish universities will teach basic programming in one or two languages and the expect you to be smart enough to figure out the rest. It’s not that one education is better than the other, but given that I didn’t end up…

I'd expect "engineer" (ingeniør) to be a protected title in Denmark just like Sweden, which requires a math heavy university programme? So the way to call yourself a software engineer without a math-education is to move to a country like US, making even the "Software Engineer"-title problematic.

It is a protected title, and yes, it math heavy, at least the first couple of years.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#175
post #171
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I see nothing odd in calling that computer science. It seems more like hardcore computer science.

And what then couldn’t be called "hardcore computer science?"

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#176
Wow, what a MASSIVE missed opportunity to quote the best variation of this idea by far, done by Hal Abelson in the legendary "6001-Introduction to Computer Science" class on MIT in the 80s.

You can check it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Op3QLzMgSY

Abelson in the first minute crosses both computer AND science, and references the also legendary SICP with "computer so-called science actually has a lot in common with magic".

Honestly, this alone already made the article that empty.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#177
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 research is mix of (at least) mathematical, engineering, and scientific traditions that varies by subfield. Among the subfields I'm most familiar with, theoretical algorithms are mostly mathematical, while algorithm engineering is closer to engineering. Data compression has both mathematical and engineering work, while bioinformatics is a mix of all three traditions. It's not always clear what is com…

Computer science has two origins, born from electronic engineers who studied the ways to build the physical devices required for computation; and mathematicians who studied the best way to represent the desired computations as configurations on such devices. This double soul still lives as the distinction between hardware and software (though the line can be blurred, with programable microchips like FPGAs or the direct implementation of algorithms on hardware in ASICs).

However, there's a general and unified way to define anything computing-related, unifying both traditions: seeing computer science as studying the automatic processing of symbols. I.e., anything that the human mind treats as a symbol with a meaning, that can be represented in physical devices and transformed in a different set of symbols through mechanized processes.

This definition widens the scope of comp.sci beyond its origins in representing calculations of physics and maths, to include other fields typically taught in the degree but that people don't think of as computer science: natural language processing, design of viable user interfaces (human-computer interaction), design of adequate programming languages apt for different problems.

The most general view of this definition encompasses disciplines far removed from engineering, but which are nonetheless used to expand its frontiers: aristotelian ontology was used to invent object-oriented programming, and is still used to explore the semantic web; or semiotics to explore what ideas can be represented and processed automatically, and the best way to build user interfaces tailored to the way we think.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#178
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Logic, Ethics, and Aesthetics are the three normative sciences. Mathematics falls comfortably within the domain of logic, and thus mathematics is a scientific enterprise. Computing science is the subset of the subset that deals with getting actual computable results.

Did you just group Logic and aesthetics together into one thing? Beauty and ethics are subjective. Logic is not. Either way following this definition of "normative science" neither logic nor computer science nor math goes under it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_science The reason is because this definition mentions the notion of preferred outcome. Logic and Math and computer science do not deal with "prefer…

I’m using Peirce’s definition of the normative sciences[1]. As is not uncommon in English, the same words or phrases can denote different concepts and the wiki link you shared is a case in point.

[1] https://www.isko.org/cyclo/peirce

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#179
CS is a way of thinking about how to solve things, with regards to efficiency of solution.

Example: my wife likes to put gym shorts and shirts in different drawers. To my CS mind that doubles the seek time of a retrieval.

The little bowl by the door is a cache of my most recently used stuff.

People who nearly file their papers (eg bills) nearly are optimizing for retrieval efficiency - of an operation that is actually very rare.

When my wife and I leave the apartment we often take the garbage out to the chute. My wife likes to drop off the garbage before pressing the button to to call the elevator. To me that's weird because calling the elevator is long running IO in a separate thread - might as well start it asap.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#180
The very first thing that Hal Abelson says and puts up on the chalkboard in his very first SICP talk (Lecture 1A 6.001 'Structure and Interpretation') in 1986 is that "Computer Science is not about either science, or computers'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Op3QLzMgSY
Post reply on HN