4 ms·

SPJ's not a member of the top CS theorists?

by oconnor0 17y ago

amichail 17y ago
His research has nothing to do with what is considered CS theory in the US and Canada.
- zjj 17y ago
  What would it be called then?
  - more_original 17y ago
    Programming Language theory, I think.
    - oconnor0 17y ago
      I guess I see CS theory encompassing PL theory - not that that's correct.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "His research has nothing to do with what is considered CS theory in the US and Canada." So what is considered CS theory in the US and Canada?
  - amichail 17y ago
    See: http://rjlipton.wordpress.com http://rjlipton.wordpress.com http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org Also check out the STOC, FOCS, and SODA conferences.
    - gdp 17y ago
      So your assertion is that theoretical computer science is complexity theory and algorithmic analysis? How about any of these? Semantics Concurrency theory Theories of refinement Type theory The Curry-Howard Correspondence (and results derived from it) (Finite) automata ... Shall I go on? Those are all "theoretical CS". Programming language theorists qualify as "theoretical CS" practitioners in most cases. Simon Peyton Jones certainly qualifies. I think you have a strange, narrow definition of theoretical CS that isn't shared by many people.
      - slackenerny 17y ago
        I think you have a strange, narrow definition of theoretical CS that isn't shared by many people. You're wrong in the "not shared by many" part. http://weblog.fortnow.com/2009/03/lets-congradulate-gerard-huet-who.html http://weblog.fortnow.com/2009/03/lets-congradulate-gerard-h...
        gdp 17y ago
        > You're wrong in the "not shared by many" part. At least the first dozen comments on that link support my position that programming, logic and semantics are all "theoretical computer science". You appear to have produced an example of one person questioning whether his definition of TCS is too narrow, and then pages of comments from people telling him that it is. What was your point, again?
        slackenerny 17y ago
        What was your point, again? You obviously didn't read the thread. Highlighted therein is the contrast between TCS scenes in US and Europe. That is the amichail's point. These are two separate communities scarcely communicating with each other. In the "first dozen of comments" you have Mitzenmacher, member of program committee of leading US conference comparing your field's importance and utility for TCS (as defined in the US) with that of e.g. chemistry's.
        gdp 17y ago
        I did read the thread, thanks. The "contrast" is being highlighted, but I can't see anyone in there seriously advancing the idea that all of the things I've described aren't "theoretical CS" - they just suggest that there aren't many people in the US doing them. One commenter rightly notes that there are plenty of people doing the kind of "theoretical CS" I'm talking about at CMU, for example (and I can think of a handful of other places doing similar work in the US). So I stand by my original assertion: the definition of TCS as being exactly complexity and algorithmic analysis is a particularly narrow definition that is inconsistent with the way in which most people use and understand "theoretical computer science".
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

SPJ's not a member of the top CS theorists?

amichail 17y ago

His research has nothing to do with what is considered CS theory in the US and Canada.

zjj 17y ago
What would it be called then?
- more_original 17y ago
  Programming Language theory, I think.
  - oconnor0 17y ago
    I guess I see CS theory encompassing PL theory - not that that's correct.
jamesbritt 17y ago
"His research has nothing to do with what is considered CS theory in the US and Canada." So what is considered CS theory in the US and Canada?
- amichail 17y ago
  See: http://rjlipton.wordpress.com http://rjlipton.wordpress.com http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org Also check out the STOC, FOCS, and SODA conferences.
  - gdp 17y ago
    So your assertion is that theoretical computer science is complexity theory and algorithmic analysis? How about any of these? Semantics Concurrency theory Theories of refinement Type theory The Curry-Howard Correspondence (and results derived from it) (Finite) automata ... Shall I go on? Those are all "theoretical CS". Programming language theorists qualify as "theoretical CS" practitioners in most cases. Simon Peyton Jones certainly qualifies. I think you have a strange, narrow definition of theoretical CS that isn't shared by many people.
    - slackenerny 17y ago
      I think you have a strange, narrow definition of theoretical CS that isn't shared by many people. You're wrong in the "not shared by many" part. http://weblog.fortnow.com/2009/03/lets-congradulate-gerard-huet-who.html http://weblog.fortnow.com/2009/03/lets-congradulate-gerard-h...
      - gdp 17y ago
        > You're wrong in the "not shared by many" part. At least the first dozen comments on that link support my position that programming, logic and semantics are all "theoretical computer science". You appear to have produced an example of one person questioning whether his definition of TCS is too narrow, and then pages of comments from people telling him that it is. What was your point, again?
        slackenerny 17y ago
        What was your point, again? You obviously didn't read the thread. Highlighted therein is the contrast between TCS scenes in US and Europe. That is the amichail's point. These are two separate communities scarcely communicating with each other. In the "first dozen of comments" you have Mitzenmacher, member of program committee of leading US conference comparing your field's importance and utility for TCS (as defined in the US) with that of e.g. chemistry's.
        gdp 17y ago
        I did read the thread, thanks. The "contrast" is being highlighted, but I can't see anyone in there seriously advancing the idea that all of the things I've described aren't "theoretical CS" - they just suggest that there aren't many people in the US doing them. One commenter rightly notes that there are plenty of people doing the kind of "theoretical CS" I'm talking about at CMU, for example (and I can think of a handful of other places doing similar work in the US). So I stand by my original assertion: the definition of TCS as being exactly complexity and algorithmic analysis is a particularly narrow definition that is inconsistent with the way in which most people use and understand "theoretical computer science".

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]