4 ms·

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 de

by 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.
  - slackenerny 17y ago
    What one community decides to define itself as isn't really a concern of mine. Ehh, then I won't be able to convince you that it's not true that what you called crazy view on TCS is in fact common view. Not that I was able to do that anyways; I'm not that eloquent. Amichail said SPJ is not member of that community and that's perfectly true. You opted to that on ontological grounds. Fine. I've shown that leaders of CS theory in US doesn't give a flip about that ontology and just mind their own business. TCS community is fragmented in two disjoint ways. Why T in TCS then at all? Maybe because most of people are not linguists and doesn't care. Mathematicians for example doesn't care at all about naming. Most common path of least action is just call the thing by the surname of whomever was loudest shouting about it. They rightly assume it's just irrelevant anyways even if troublesome at times. By the Arnol'd principle name almost never reflects of who actually made the discovery anyways and the rest of msthematics' ontology and semantics is horrendous, http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/unfortunate-mathematical-names/ http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/unfortunate-math.... I can perfectly imagine category theory being more relevant to programming than resolving PvsNP. Conversely TCS is about computation and computability and rest are further abstractions, so this can be argued any way one wants.
    - gdp 17y ago
      > Amichail said SPJ is not member of that community and that's perfectly true. My argument was that it is impossible to exclude SPJ from any sensible definition of "theoretical computer science", unless you are taking those words and re-defining them to mean something other than what they actually mean as a collection of words. I accept that there may be a group of people who call what they do "theoretical computer science", and who believe that nothing else is "theoretical computer science", but in that case, the onus is on those people to remember to translate "theoretical computer science" as a term into "complexity theory" when they talk to people outside the complexity theory community, because the rest of us have a much stronger claim to the general meaning of the term, which encompasses both this idiosyncratic use of "TCS" as well as all of the other things that it can correctly be taken to mean. Allow me to make my argument entirely concrete: Let's say that I do "organic chemistry" and I go to organic chemistry conferences with other organic chemists. Obviously there are other sub-branches of chemistry. If I decided to stop calling what I do "organic chemistry" and start calling it just "chemistry" instead, to the exclusion of any other kind of chemistry, you can understand why people would be very confused (and probably a little annoyed) when I start telling them that Alfred Nobel wasn't a chemist. I will go even further to say that the test for a sensible definition of "theoretical computer science" is probably which people it includes, and SPJ would probably be on that list, IMHO (along with Hoare and Milner and countless others who are excluded by this supposedly widely-held definition). And I really don't think it's widely-held outside of the community that calls itself the TCS community, which by definition, doesn't make it a "widely held view", does it?

by gdp 17y ago

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.
- slackenerny 17y ago
  What one community decides to define itself as isn't really a concern of mine. Ehh, then I won't be able to convince you that it's not true that what you called crazy view on TCS is in fact common view. Not that I was able to do that anyways; I'm not that eloquent. Amichail said SPJ is not member of that community and that's perfectly true. You opted to that on ontological grounds. Fine. I've shown that leaders of CS theory in US doesn't give a flip about that ontology and just mind their own business. TCS community is fragmented in two disjoint ways. Why T in TCS then at all? Maybe because most of people are not linguists and doesn't care. Mathematicians for example doesn't care at all about naming. Most common path of least action is just call the thing by the surname of whomever was loudest shouting about it. They rightly assume it's just irrelevant anyways even if troublesome at times. By the Arnol'd principle name almost never reflects of who actually made the discovery anyways and the rest of msthematics' ontology and semantics is horrendous, http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/unfortunate-mathematical-names/ http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/unfortunate-math.... I can perfectly imagine category theory being more relevant to programming than resolving PvsNP. Conversely TCS is about computation and computability and rest are further abstractions, so this can be argued any way one wants.
  - gdp 17y ago
    > Amichail said SPJ is not member of that community and that's perfectly true. My argument was that it is impossible to exclude SPJ from any sensible definition of "theoretical computer science", unless you are taking those words and re-defining them to mean something other than what they actually mean as a collection of words. I accept that there may be a group of people who call what they do "theoretical computer science", and who believe that nothing else is "theoretical computer science", but in that case, the onus is on those people to remember to translate "theoretical computer science" as a term into "complexity theory" when they talk to people outside the complexity theory community, because the rest of us have a much stronger claim to the general meaning of the term, which encompasses both this idiosyncratic use of "TCS" as well as all of the other things that it can correctly be taken to mean. Allow me to make my argument entirely concrete: Let's say that I do "organic chemistry" and I go to organic chemistry conferences with other organic chemists. Obviously there are other sub-branches of chemistry. If I decided to stop calling what I do "organic chemistry" and start calling it just "chemistry" instead, to the exclusion of any other kind of chemistry, you can understand why people would be very confused (and probably a little annoyed) when I start telling them that Alfred Nobel wasn't a chemist. I will go even further to say that the test for a sensible definition of "theoretical computer science" is probably which people it includes, and SPJ would probably be on that list, IMHO (along with Hoare and Milner and countless others who are excluded by this supposedly widely-held definition). And I really don't think it's widely-held outside of the community that calls itself the TCS community, which by definition, doesn't make it a "widely held view", does it?