3 ms·

So your assertion is that theoretical computer science is complexity theory and algorithmic analysis? How about any of these? Semantics Concurrency theory T

by 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".
      - slackenerny 17y ago
        I won't argue about semantics of theoretical in theoretical computer science. It is my experience that people in casual conversations automatically assume topic to be complexity theory, despite I'm in Europe. Or maybe I will, just a bit ;) Because in fact, in casual conversations noone seem to be insiting, or in fact using adj. theoretical when talking about languages, semantics, logic, universal algebra, category theory. This is computer science after all, no need for special adjectives. It would be a bit like calling category theory a "theoretical mathematics". Fact is, major part of the community uses term exclusively in the meaning we talk about. It could be argued if rightly and people outside may justifiably think in broader sense. Maybe better words could be found instead of theoretical, such as "analytical", and in fact I recall one of European departments reorganizing into two institutes, one for "Analytical CS".
        gdp 17y ago
        I think the distinction is useful as it stands. Given that a lot of computer "science" is an applied "science" (I use scare quotes deliberately because I think some of the "science" content is dubious), the "theoretical" distinction makes it obvious that you're talking about a theory of computer science, not the application of those theoretical concepts to create things. > It is my experience that people in casual conversations automatically assume topic to be complexity theory, despite I'm in Europe. What one community decides to define itself as isn't really a concern of mine. I'm also in Europe and I've found that "theoretical computer science" is pretty widely understood to mean the kinds of things I'm arguing that it means. > It would be a bit like calling category theory a "theoretical mathematics" So why would it make any more sense to apply it to complexity theory? It's not like work on languages, semantics or logic are any more "applied" than complexity.

by gdp 17y ago

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".
    - slackenerny 17y ago
      I won't argue about semantics of theoretical in theoretical computer science. It is my experience that people in casual conversations automatically assume topic to be complexity theory, despite I'm in Europe. Or maybe I will, just a bit ;) Because in fact, in casual conversations noone seem to be insiting, or in fact using adj. theoretical when talking about languages, semantics, logic, universal algebra, category theory. This is computer science after all, no need for special adjectives. It would be a bit like calling category theory a "theoretical mathematics". Fact is, major part of the community uses term exclusively in the meaning we talk about. It could be argued if rightly and people outside may justifiably think in broader sense. Maybe better words could be found instead of theoretical, such as "analytical", and in fact I recall one of European departments reorganizing into two institutes, one for "Analytical CS".
      - gdp 17y ago
        I think the distinction is useful as it stands. Given that a lot of computer "science" is an applied "science" (I use scare quotes deliberately because I think some of the "science" content is dubious), the "theoretical" distinction makes it obvious that you're talking about a theory of computer science, not the application of those theoretical concepts to create things. > It is my experience that people in casual conversations automatically assume topic to be complexity theory, despite I'm in Europe. What one community decides to define itself as isn't really a concern of mine. I'm also in Europe and I've found that "theoretical computer science" is pretty widely understood to mean the kinds of things I'm arguing that it means. > It would be a bit like calling category theory a "theoretical mathematics" So why would it make any more sense to apply it to complexity theory? It's not like work on languages, semantics or logic are any more "applied" than complexity.