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

261–270 of 293 posts

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#261

Post by js8 »

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 "…

> This is a strange claim since the entire field was founded upon the investigation of potentially (and often actually) infinite computations.

To me, that is not that surprising, although it's a good point.

My view has to do with history of mathematics. People were fascinated with infinities long time before they considered that large but finite systems can be also interesting. I think applications of mathematics, mainly geometry and physics, are responsible too.

The development of more finitist taste in problems (somebody else mentioned the constructivism, which I think is fitting) came with the practical need to do computations and developing algorithms.

So I am not that surprised that one of the early forays into theory of computation are through the lens of infinite, rather than finite.

> Most importantly though, my problem with this kind of discussion is that the question itself is meaningless.

Of course, I forewarned that it's just my view, and you're free to ignore it.

Look, partly why I mention it, it seems rather surprising to me; I would consider infinite structures to be more complicated, in some sense; yet, in the history of mathematics (which lately includes CS, as a study of large but finite), these were studied first. There was nothing that would prevent Ancient Greeks (or Euler) from discovering, say, lambda calculus, or how to do sorting efficiently. Although, it seems in many fields we progress from more complicated to simpler methods, in some way. But I think it's partly precise because the finite is often considered uninteresting by mathematicians, it was overlooked. And that's the philosophical point I am trying to emphasize. Different fields of math perceive (in the way they treat them) the same structures differently, and I gave an example of natural numbers. Another example is the notion of the set cardinality, in most areas of mathematics people only care about countable/uncountable distinction.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#262

Post by js8 »

btilly wrote: post #231
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…

Please explain how Dijkstra's _Go To Statement Considered Harmful_ (see https://homepages.cwi.nl/~storm/teaching/reader/Dijkstra68.p... for the text) is part of mathematics. Then Knuth's famous reply _Structured Programming with Go To_ (available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.103... ) and then the much later follow-up at https://cis.temple.edu/~ingargio/cis71/software/roberts/docu... , _…

I agree (as somebody else pointed out) these are more about software engineering (and I don't see a contradiction in being both, many people we consider physicists today were also engineers in their time).

Although I will point out, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_program_theorem which is a mathematical statement. Whether to actually follow that result when building software is a matter of engineering taste, but the theorem tells you, at the very least, you can do so.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#263

Post by jltsiren »

trixie_ wrote: post #237

What should it be called then? I saw suggestions for computing science, but applications often don’t ‘compute’ anything rather make API calls. Data science doesn’t seem to fit. The best I can come up with is ‘instruction science’ the study of how to structure, execute and store sequences of instructions. The computer is a tool to do it faster, but you can also use pen and paper, it would just take longer.

I kind of like the Finnish term "tietojenkäsittelytiede" ("data processing science") and its older form "tietojenkäsittelyoppi" ("data processing theory").

It combines the focus on the process in computer science / computing with the focus on the data in datalogy / informatics. It tells that the process is what we are really interested in. At the same time, it admits that the data and the results are what ultimately matters and that computation is just an irrelevant side effect we would like to avoid.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#264

Post by ldjb »

creamytaco wrote: post #194
ldjb wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That lecture (from 2005) is how I first came across this idea of computer science not being about computers. It was interesting (though not massively surprising) to discover that similar arguments have been made for several decades earlier.

That video lecture is from 1986.

Thanks, I stand corrected. Part of me did think 2005 would have been a bit too recent.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#265

Post by btilly »

amelius wrote: post #241
btilly wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain how Dijkstra's _Go To Statement Considered Harmful_ (see https://homepages.cwi.nl/~storm/teaching/reader/Dijkstra68.p... for the text) is part of mathematics. Then Knuth's famous reply _Structured Programming with Go To_ (available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.103... ) and then the much later follow-up at https://cis.temple.edu/~ingargio/cis71/software/roberts/docu... , _…

Those papers you mentioned are closer to the field of Software Engineering.

On what basis do you claim that software engineering is not part of computer science? Those papers were all written by professors of computer science and published in journals of computer science. All were cited many times by other papers written by other professors of computer science in other journals of computer science.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#266

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

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…

Legitimate computer science should be about assembly and C for the most part. Knowing mathematically how the 1s and 0s are outputting through the machines circuit.

Nowadays it's just an antiquated term for programmer. The average C programmer if wager is above 40 years of age whereas the average python or web dev dev must be pushing late 20s.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#267

Post by btilly »

js8 wrote: post #262
btilly wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain how Dijkstra's _Go To Statement Considered Harmful_ (see https://homepages.cwi.nl/~storm/teaching/reader/Dijkstra68.p... for the text) is part of mathematics. Then Knuth's famous reply _Structured Programming with Go To_ (available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.103... ) and then the much later follow-up at https://cis.temple.edu/~ingargio/cis71/software/roberts/docu... , _…

I agree (as somebody else pointed out) these are more about software engineering (and I don't see a contradiction in being both, many people we consider physicists today were also engineers in their time). Although I will point out, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_program_theorem which is a mathematical statement. Whether to actually follow that result when building software is a matter of engineeri…

Let's see. Dijkstra introduced the A* graph search algorithm. Knuth wrote THE classic algorithms book. Peter Naur is best known for his work on parsing (he is the N in BNF notation).

Even if you try to draw a distinction between computer science and software engineering, most of the people writing those papers were pretty squarely on the computer science side.

But I don't draw that distinction. ALL of them were tenured professors of computer science. ALL of them were published in journals of computer science. There is no valid basis on which you can draw an artificial line between computer science and non-computer science, and put those outside of computer science. Doubly not if your goal is to say that computer science is a subset of mathematics rather than its own thing.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#268

Post by Delk »

btilly wrote: post #265
amelius wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those papers you mentioned are closer to the field of Software Engineering.

On what basis do you claim that software engineering is not part of computer science? Those papers were all written by professors of computer science and published in journals of computer science. All were cited many times by other papers written by other professors of computer science in other journals of computer science.

Software engineering is taught as a part of the field that's called computer science, but the original question was about whether the field called computer science is actually a science.

I guess the difference in that regard would be that (software) engineering doesn't necessarily follow the formal scientific method of formulating a hypothesis and then testing it experimentally. That would, in some sense, make it distinct from science. The same would practically apply to many areas in computer science that are studied experimentally, not just software engineering.

To elaborate on that a little, (software) engineering does build on experience and empiricism, as well as analytical thinking, but in practice it may be more in the form of "lessons learned" than in the form of hypothesis testing.

That doesn't make it any less valuable, or even any less valid as an academic area of research. It just, in some sense, makes it possibly distinct from the sciences.

Of course there are also problems in CS that can actually be studied with the scientific method, but I think amelius might have meant that publications such as Dijkstra's and Knuth's papers on goto would be more in the "lessons learned" category than in the "results from the scientific method" category. They would thus not really make computer science a science even though they're not really in the "CS as a part of math" category either.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#269

Post by sova »

brunosdm wrote: post #259
sova wrote: post #2

Dijkstra, to whom that quote is often attributed, preferred to call it "Computing Science" as it is the science of computing.

Now that you've said it, I realized that's how we say it in portuguese (computing science not computer science).

Would you please provide the native Portuguese words? Like others, I'm interested to know what they are.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#270

Post by musicale »

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

Subject boundaries are arbitrary, but they have a practical implementation in terms of university CS departments.

Some CS departments came out of math departments, and some universities have a "Department of Mathematics and Computer Science. The theoretical side of CS does seem like a branch of mathematics.

Other CS departments came out of EE departments, and and some universities (MIT, Berkeley) have a "Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science." The practical side of CS does seem like a branch of engineering.

A number of stand-alone CS departments (Stanford) still seem to be part of the school of engineering, so my vote is for CS as an engineering discipline with a theoretical basis in mathematics (perhaps like information systems or signal processing.) I also like the idea of Caltech's "Computing and Mathematical Sciences," as it seems to bring a lot of computing and applied math under one roof.

Post reply on HN