4 ms·

Damnit, after the mistake of calling the study of computation 'computer science', I had thought we'd avoided the issue with 'quantum computing'. But no, even th

Damnit, after the mistake of calling the study of computation 'computer science', I had thought we'd avoided the issue with 'quantum computing'. But no, even this term seems to get muddied by things that aren't computation. There is no reproducibility crisis in quantum computing, there is in experimental quantum physics with quantum *computer* applications. To give a classical analogy, you could claim there would be a crisis in computer science because electrical engineers struggle with making a specific kind of transistor.

de6u99er 5y ago
The problem with your analogy is, that we already have functioning hardware while quantum computers are nowhere near being practicable.
- bawolff 5y ago
  I think OP is being needlessly pedantic, but in fairness you can do all sorts without quantum hardware. Making quantum algorithms (shor did not have a quantum computer), quantum complexity theory, etc.
  - andi999 5y ago
    Yes, you can also practice swimming without water.
    - Delk 5y ago
      I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison. You can design algorithms and prove things about them without hardware, and the algorithms and their properties will be valid in and of themselves. You don't get to "swim", but the algorithms will be there. One could argue that "computer science" is the study of the logical processes involved in computation.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      "[Computer science] is not really about computers -- and it's not about computers in the same sense that physics is not really about particle accelerators, and biology is not about microscopes and Petri dishes...and geometry isn't really about using surveying instruments. Now the reason that we think computer science is about computers is pretty much the same reason that the Egyptians thought geometry was about surveying instruments: when some field is just getting started and you don't really understand it very well, it's very easy to confuse the essence of what you're doing with the tools that you use." -- Hal Abelson (1986)
      - andi999 5y ago
        While this quote was good at its time, I don't think it aged well. It is 35 years later, and I do not think the here called essence has appeared.
        bawolff 5y ago
        When was the last interesting computer science paper you read where the computer code or the instantiation of it onto a physical machine was the interesting part of the paper?
        andi999 5y ago
        Na. If one follows the comparison with physics: the subject is about what is taught to undergrads (they do not get taught building particle accelerators) but the essence of physics. So if I use the test what do professors believe is the essence of the field, you get something like: http://catalog.mit.edu/degree-charts/computer-science-engineering-course-6-3/ http://catalog.mit.edu/degree-charts/computer-science-engine... And the computer science part is: Computation Structures 12 6.006 Introduction to Algorithms 12 6.009 Fundamentals of Programming 12 6.031 Elements of Software Construction 15 6.033 Computer Systems Engineering (CI-M) 12 6.034 Artificial Intelligence 12 or 6.036 Introduction to Machine Learning 6.045[J] Computability and Complexity Theory 12 or 6.046[J] Design and Analysis of Algorithms I would say all but (maybe) the last two (one) are about computers (maybe the first one in between). I just picked MIT as a random example, just to illustrate my general impression.
    - avz 5y ago
      Developing complexity theory of quantum algorithms without a quantum computer is not any more outrageous than developing complexity theory of Turing machines with oracles. The former might a least be built one day. And yet, people produce interesting research on both. Turns out water is overrated (as far as complexity theory goes).
enkid 5y ago
Computer Science and Computer Engineering are two different things. Is there any reason that quantum computing wouldn't be defined to include both the physical and theoretical computing?

de6u99er 5y ago

The problem with your analogy is, that we already have functioning hardware while quantum computers are nowhere near being practicable.

bawolff 5y ago
I think OP is being needlessly pedantic, but in fairness you can do all sorts without quantum hardware. Making quantum algorithms (shor did not have a quantum computer), quantum complexity theory, etc.
- andi999 5y ago
  Yes, you can also practice swimming without water.
  - Delk 5y ago
    I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison. You can design algorithms and prove things about them without hardware, and the algorithms and their properties will be valid in and of themselves. You don't get to "swim", but the algorithms will be there. One could argue that "computer science" is the study of the logical processes involved in computation.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    "[Computer science] is not really about computers -- and it's not about computers in the same sense that physics is not really about particle accelerators, and biology is not about microscopes and Petri dishes...and geometry isn't really about using surveying instruments. Now the reason that we think computer science is about computers is pretty much the same reason that the Egyptians thought geometry was about surveying instruments: when some field is just getting started and you don't really understand it very well, it's very easy to confuse the essence of what you're doing with the tools that you use." -- Hal Abelson (1986)
    - andi999 5y ago
      While this quote was good at its time, I don't think it aged well. It is 35 years later, and I do not think the here called essence has appeared.
      - bawolff 5y ago
        When was the last interesting computer science paper you read where the computer code or the instantiation of it onto a physical machine was the interesting part of the paper?
        andi999 5y ago
        Na. If one follows the comparison with physics: the subject is about what is taught to undergrads (they do not get taught building particle accelerators) but the essence of physics. So if I use the test what do professors believe is the essence of the field, you get something like: http://catalog.mit.edu/degree-charts/computer-science-engineering-course-6-3/ http://catalog.mit.edu/degree-charts/computer-science-engine... And the computer science part is: Computation Structures 12 6.006 Introduction to Algorithms 12 6.009 Fundamentals of Programming 12 6.031 Elements of Software Construction 15 6.033 Computer Systems Engineering (CI-M) 12 6.034 Artificial Intelligence 12 or 6.036 Introduction to Machine Learning 6.045[J] Computability and Complexity Theory 12 or 6.046[J] Design and Analysis of Algorithms I would say all but (maybe) the last two (one) are about computers (maybe the first one in between). I just picked MIT as a random example, just to illustrate my general impression.
  - avz 5y ago
    Developing complexity theory of quantum algorithms without a quantum computer is not any more outrageous than developing complexity theory of Turing machines with oracles. The former might a least be built one day. And yet, people produce interesting research on both. Turns out water is overrated (as far as complexity theory goes).

enkid 5y ago

Computer Science and Computer Engineering are two different things. Is there any reason that quantum computing wouldn't be defined to include both the physical and theoretical computing?