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

211–220 of 293 posts

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#211

Post by rapjr9 »

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…

At Dartmouth College, computer science started as a branch of the Mathematics Dept. It was eventually made it's own department (located in a former clinic for the mentally ill, Sudikoff Laboratory which some see as ironic). Now Dartmouth is building a new addition to the engineering building (Thayer School of Engineering) and the Math and Computer Science Dept's will move there. I believe the thinking is that those dept's collaborate so much that having them located in the same complex will be helpful. Much of computer science research is more about applications of computers rather than research into computing itself, though some pure computing theory is still being worked on, and everything is becoming cross disciplinary across many fields. One CS project I worked on was designing a smartwatch for health apps. It involved electronics engineering, operating system development, health applications development, sensor data processing, medical research on senior frailty, gesture UI design, UI usability research, secure wireless data transport and collection and more. It was run by a CS prof though. If you go into CS you can end up working on anything and everything. Another CS robotics project involved electronically herding cattle. Where do cattle fit into CS theory? As end users of computers? :-)

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#212

Post by momentoftop »

siraben wrote: post #144
Scarblac wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although the standard proof of the incomputability of the halting problem assumes it is computable and then reaches a contradiction. And that's more or less the central proof of everything to do with computability.

That's still constructive. This can be a confusion because there's actually two kinds of contradiction proofs: to show ¬ P, assume P then derive a contradiction (false, ⊥) i.e., ¬ P := P -> ⊥. This is actually just fine and constructive, it's just how you prove a negation. OTOH, there's another kind of contradiction proof: to show P, assume ¬ P, then derive a contradiction (false, ⊥) Written with function notation, t…

Sometimes, the strategy of proving ~P by showing how P entails absurdity is called "proof by negation". The phrase "proof by contradiction" is then reserved for the strategy of proving P by showing how ~P entails absurdity.

On that usage, constructivists are happy with all proofs by negation, but not generally happy with proofs by contradiction.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#213

Post by seoaeu »

dalbasal wrote: post #114

I've come to believe that ideas/statements such as these are crucial, but neither true nor false. They're a perspective lens. Ideally, we should be able to slip in and out of such perspective lenses. A contradictory statement could be equally true/useful, even (especially?) if held simultaneously. Avoiding computer science directly... Geophysics is a "telescope science." A typical geophysicist sees themselves as expe…

The reverse statement would probably be something like "The core pursuit of computer science is how to best design and harness computers". Which is a reasonably accurate description of many areas within CS including machine learning, distributed systems, programming languages, and computer architecture.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#214

Post by dahart »

tom_mellior wrote: post #191
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…

> I believe, computer science is a branch of mathematics that deals with large but finite structures (so they need an algorithmic description). This is a strange claim since the entire field was founded upon the investigation of potentially (and often actually) infinite computations. > Compare with most of "legacy" mathematics, which studies countable structures (so the description can use arbitrary series). Define "…

> Computer science is a part of math? OK, but so what? Computer science is not a part of math? OK, but so what? Neither conclusion would tell us anything useful.

I assumed the implication here is that CS, like math, is considered by many to not be a science, but rather a field of construction based on logic. The obvious problem with calling computer science a science is that it isn’t fundamentally based on measuring empirical evidence of a natural process. Maybe that still lands in the ‘OK, but so what?’ category, on the other hand this has been much discussed re: math, and it may be useful to clarify in what ways CS is not employing scientific method.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#215

Post by seoaeu »

enriquto wrote: post #69

I hate this quotation and find it not only false but sad. It feels as if a physicist would say "physics is not about mass, energy and matter, it is about ODE and PDE." And yes, astronomy is pretty much about looking at the shadows of sticks under the sun; and this includes more complex "sticks" like telescopes.

I've always interpreted the statement to mean "theoretical CS is the only real CS: everything else is just glorified software engineering."

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#217

Post by dhosek »

rapjr9 wrote: post #211
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…

At Dartmouth College, computer science started as a branch of the Mathematics Dept. It was eventually made it's own department (located in a former clinic for the mentally ill, Sudikoff Laboratory which some see as ironic). Now Dartmouth is building a new addition to the engineering building (Thayer School of Engineering) and the Math and Computer Science Dept's will move there. I believe the thinking is that those d…

At Harvey Mudd College, when I was there in the 80s, the Computer Science department was part of the Biology department: They had one prof who did CS exclusively, one who did Biology exclusively, and one who did both. The “real” departments, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Engineering all offered the option to do a CS option within them, but one of the cool things about Mudd of that era (I’m not sure how much of this has survived since then), was that you didn’t really do a specialized degree in Math, Physics, etc. but got a good broad education across the discipline.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#218

Post by seoaeu »

triska wrote: post #81
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 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…

A substantial portion of theoretical computer science.

There are huge swaths of the field that deal with things like machine learning or distributed systems or computer architecture that don't really fall under that categorization.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#219

Post by sahkopoyta »

axiosgunnar wrote: post #216

Typical US-centric problems. Anywhere else CS is called „Informatics“, meaning the science to do with information. Broad enough to make articles like this unnecessary.

Eh, not really. At least in the nordic countries I haven't really seen many other translations than "computer science" with eg. uni degrees
Post reply on HN