Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Jim Choate]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, andrey mirtchovski wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Boyd Roberts wrote:
> 
> > nonsense.  physics is a science.  i can predict things with it.
> > 
> 
> the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics guarantees that there is some
> space left for art in physics :)

Ignorance is not art.

But I suspect that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is a bigger factor.

Computer Science is like Physics, applied mathematics to observable
phenomenon (where the 'science' comes from). When you 'apply' either you
get a 'technology'. So consider them 'applied theory'. 'Engineering' is
applying such an applied theory to real world problems, applied applied
theory.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

              "...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;"

                               Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[pac]

>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Boyd Roberts wrote:
>> 
>> > nonsense.  physics is a science.  i can predict things with it.
>> > 
>> 
>> the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics guarantees that there is some
>> space left for art in physics :)
>> 
>> andrey


uncertainty "principle" is induced by the method of observation: would you have 
a better certainty if you had to observe the macroworld by cannonballs?
science formulates and tests hypotheses... the part of CS that does it is likely a part
of maths; the rest is engineering (I use to say `technology'). BTW, does art test any hypotheses?

peter

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Jim Choate]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, pac wrote:

> BTW, does art test any hypotheses?

Yes, "Do you 'get it'?"


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

              "...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;"

                               Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[pac]

>> 
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, pac wrote:
>> 
>> > BTW, does art test any hypotheses?
>> 
>> Yes, "Do you 'get it'?"
>> 

No.

P.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Boyd Roberts]

> >> Yes, "Do you 'get it'?"

err, i think the 'uncertainty principle' posting was a...
joke.  ok?

[9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Jim Choate]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Boyd Roberts wrote:

> > >> Yes, "Do you 'get it'?"
> 
> err, i think the 'uncertainty principle' posting was a...
> joke.  ok?

Which is relevant to art being science how?


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

              "...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;"

                               Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Dan Cross]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.0106111803090.26443-100000@spirit> you write:
>how about not being able to sort a list at better than n log n?

Ahem, uhh, I can sort in O(n) if I have auxilliary memory of size
proportional to n.  :-)

Apparantly, some guy did come up with an algorithm that runs in
better than O(n lg n) using no additional memory.  I don't have
a literature pointer, though; sorry.

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Boyd Roberts]

> Apparantly, some guy did come up with an algorithm that runs in
> better than O(n lg n) using no additional memory.  I don't have
> a literature pointer, though; sorry.

i do.

La Boîte Bleue:

    http://idiot-dog.com/humor/boite-bleue.html

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Laura Creighton]

>Dan Cross:
>Okay, this is getting way off topic for 9fans, but, let me ask
>this: at the real abstract, pure level, is science any different
>at all from art?  I contend that they're one and the same.

Only if you do it right.

Re: [9fans] could those of you who have students check this out for

[forsyth]

>>our computer science department has strong roots in algorithmics.

that might be true, but do the students, in the main, write programs
except those they are required to do for assessments and projects?

[9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[andrey mirtchovski]

unfortunately dan cross is very right in his analysis -- most of the
students care not for algorithmics. the three classes i listed are the most
hated ones (together with the "Systems Programming and Introduction to
Operating Systems", the UNIX class) simply because they actually make the
students think...

there are the occasional bad apples who explore the field, write code
and are interested in the 'science' part of 'computer science'.. the others
are happy to get their 3 year degrees and drone off to the job market.

andrey



On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote:

> >>our computer science department has strong roots in algorithmics.
> 
> that might be true, but do the students, in the main, write programs
> except those they are required to do for assessments and projects?
> 
> 

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Boyd Roberts]

i don't think i'd go so far to call it a science -- more like an art.

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[pac]

IMHO, CS is to mathematics, as medicine is to biology; personally, I call them both "technology" :-(
Peter


--
Peter A. Cejchan
Dept. Paleobiology, Inst. Geology Acad. Sci.,
Rozvojova 135, Prague 6
CZ-16502 Czech Republic
<cej@cejchan.gli.cas.cz>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea:
Please, consider your support to the Public Library of Science initiative at
http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Dan Cross]

In article <041601c0f10d$72dabaa0$e8b7c6d4@SOMA> you write:
>i don't think i'd go so far to call it a science -- more like an art.

Okay, this is getting way off topic for 9fans, but, let me ask
this: at the real abstract, pure level, is science any different
at all from art?  I contend that they're one and the same.

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Boyd Roberts]

From: "Dan Cross" <cross@math.psu.edu>
> Okay, this is getting way off topic for 9fans, but, let me ask
> this: at the real abstract, pure level, is science any different
> at all from art?  I contend that they're one and the same.

nonsense.  physics is a science.  i can predict things with it.

does computer science predict anything for me?  i'll give you that
it does have an axiom that states:

    you will be plagued by bugs in any development effort

but that doesn't really predict anything in anything that vaguely
approaches a _law_ of physics -- pick one.  eg.  the prohibition
of speeds greater than the of speed of light.

comp sci is more like an engineering discipline with very few
fundamentals.

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[paurea]

Boyd Roberts writes:
 > From: "Boyd Roberts" <boyd@fr.inter.net>
 > Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science
 > Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:43:45 +0200
 > 
 > From: "Dan Cross" <cross@math.psu.edu>
 > > Okay, this is getting way off topic for 9fans, but, let me ask
 > > this: at the real abstract, pure level, is science any different
 > > at all from art?  I contend that they're one and the same.
 > 
 > nonsense.  physics is a science.  i can predict things with it.
 > 
 > does computer science predict anything for me?  i'll give you that
 > it does have an axiom that states:
 > 
 >     you will be plagued by bugs in any development effort
 > 
 > but that doesn't really predict anything in anything that vaguely
 > approaches a _law_ of physics -- pick one.  eg.  the prohibition
 > of speeds greater than the of speed of light.
 > 
 > comp sci is more like an engineering discipline with very few
 > fundamentals.

¿Would you say Math is a science?.
Its theoretical foundations are based on turing machines...
(I believe all physics are written in math simbols...)
-- 
                 Saludos,
                         Gorka

"Curiosity sKilled the cat"
-- 
    /"\
    \ /    ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail 
     X                           - against ms attachments
    / \

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Dan Cross]

In article <15141.18819.7956.967025@nido.hilbert.space> you write:
>Would you say Math is a science?.
>Its theoretical foundations are based on turing machines...

Woah, they are?  Mathematics, and many of its theoretical foundations,
existed for a really long time before Alan Turing was born....

>(I believe all physics are written in math simbols...)

Basically, but each discipline seems to invent its own psuedo-
mathematical notation.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but it can
get really confusing (cf. i in mathematics vs. j in engineering).

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Boyd Roberts]

> >(I believe all physics are written in math simbols...)

i think i'll have to take feynman's stance:

    physics is to math what sex is to ...

i just can't get a good reference for this 1999? quote.

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Dan Cross]

In article <10df01c0f357$6fff23b0$e8b7c6d4@SOMA> you write:
>i think i'll have to take feynman's stance:
>
>    physics is to math what sex is to ...
>
>i just can't get a good reference for this 1999? quote.

Feynman was dead in 1999.

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Scott Merrilees]

>unfortunately dan cross is very right in his analysis -- most of the
>students care not for algorithmics. the three classes i listed are the most
>hated ones (together with the "Systems Programming and Introduction to
>Operating Systems", the UNIX class) simply because they actually make the
>students think...
>
>there are the occasional bad apples who explore the field, write code
>and are interested in the 'science' part of 'computer science'.. the others
>are happy to get their 3 year degrees and drone off to the job market.
>
>andrey

Then you have the occasional CS dept / Computer Centre with a computer
usage policy that probihits all use of the univerity computer systems
except for specific course work.

Sm

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Boyd Roberts]

> Then you have the occasional CS dept / Computer Centre with a computer
> usage policy that probihits all use of the univerity computer systems
> except for specific course work.

yeah, but some of us got around that and the more you got around
it the more you learned -- the useful stuff.

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Scott Merrilees]

>> Then you have the occasional CS dept / Computer Centre with a computer
>> usage policy that probihits all use of the univerity computer systems
>> except for specific course work.

>boyd:
>yeah, but some of us got around that and the more you got around
>it the more you learned -- the useful stuff.

Very true, but the above CS attitude encourages the production of
drones, while discouraging and even punishing those with the audacity
to try and do some self directed learning.

Sm

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Boyd Roberts]

> Very true, but the above CS attitude encourages the production of
> drones, while discouraging and even punishing those with the audacity
> to try and do some self directed learning.

i don't disagree, but when you had 2000 students and one 11/780 for
all of them (even with share/hacks giving you a maximum of 128
simultaneous student logins) i guess something had to be done.
more resources would have been nice.

on the other hand, it was always a nice clause to use on password
crackers and others nuisances.

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Dan Cross]

In article <0cc301c0f2c0$78949560$e8b7c6d4@SOMA> you write:
>nonsense.  physics is a science.  i can predict things with it.

I can predict things with computer science as well: the average
and worst-case running times of an algorithm, for instance, or
the amount of memory used by activation records in a recursive
algorithm.

>does computer science predict anything for me?  i'll give you that
>it does have an axiom that states:
>
>    you will be plagued by bugs in any development effort

This is a software engineering maxim.  Speaking of which....  There
are ``laws'' of software engineering that are kind of like laws of
physics.  Add more programmers to a late project, and it gets later;
etc.

>but that doesn't really predict anything in anything that vaguely
>approaches a _law_ of physics -- pick one.  eg.  the prohibition
>of speeds greater than the of speed of light.

The Church-Turing thesis; NP-complete problems; the halting problem,
just to name a few.

>comp sci is more like an engineering discipline with very few
>fundamentals.

Maybe, but that wasn't even my point.

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Matt]

My friend is on his third year (of 4) of his Computer Science Degree.
I know they've covered Assembler, Java, C++ and Databases.

I mentioned to him that Dennis Ritchie posted to 9fans thinking he might be
interested.

"Who?"

I didn't bother saying
"Those who do not understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it - poorly..."

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Boyd Roberts]

> I know they've covered Assembler, Java, C++ and Databases.

surely s/he could have picked a 5th worthless subject...

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Matt]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Boyd Roberts" <boyd@fr.inter.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science


> > I know they've covered Assembler, Java, C++ and Databases.
>
> surely s/he could have picked a 5th worthless subject...

i think that's saved up for the final year

He constantly amazes us (his friends) with his computer cluelessness.

Like finding it difficult to persuade him that his overclocked celeron might
be struggling to execute the tcp/ip stack while he was trying to play
high-end games.

Or helping him install a windows based web proxy (literally double clicking
on setup.exe)


I remember they used MS Access for their database.


We had a CS graduate come for an interview. He was clearly a bit clueless.
The questions were scaled down to make him feel a bit better when he left.
"What is a hexadecimal number?"
"A combination of numbers and letters"

He had a nice suit on though.

M

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[George Michaelson]

  > We had a CS graduate come for an interview. He was clearly a bit clueless.
  > The questions were scaled down to make him feel a bit better when he left.
  > "What is a hexadecimal number?"
  > "A combination of numbers and letters"
  >

You know, there are contexts where this is the right answer. Like, if you
manipulate them as input/output objects and need to check the datastream
to see if the tokenising input should end.

And, the difference between Hex 0F and Decimal 15 is that both have exactly
the same bit-pattern in memory. Strangely, if you add 2 apples in hex
and 2 oranges in decimal OR octal, you still have 4 bits of fruit. So, you 
can do mixed-base sums after all. Why don't they teach you that at
school any more?

I had a chum who'd had a 6th finger cut off early. If they'd left it on, would
he have had any advantages doing finger arithmetic?

  > He had a nice suit on though.
  > 

Should'a employed him then. Anybody slavish enough to dress up to get a job
is probably going to work hard for the first 7 months until disallusionment
sets in.

I still writhe with embarrassment recalling an interview for the UK N.E.R.C
to get a junior progroid job onboard the antarctic ships, when asked to
write a solution to pythagoras in pascal, there, in front of the panel. Flop
sweat and memory loss and nicotine withdrawal and sheer fright combined to
make it both humiliating for me, and revealing for them. I think they made
the right decision to quietly let me go. Still, I got to see the steam loco
graveyard at barry island so it wasn't all wasted.

cheers
	-George

PS I suspect that in this niche, people aren't working as a result of a
successful interview. I think they probably know people who know people
who trust people who let them on board. If there is an interview, its
more like dogs sniffing each other, or 'do you wanna be in my gang?' than
joining the army.

--
George Michaelson       |  APNIC
Email: ggm@apnic.net    |  PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064
Phone: +61 7 3367 0490  |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3367 0482  |  http://www.apnic.net

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Boyd Roberts]

> Should'a employed him then. Anybody slavish enough to dress up to get a job
> is probably going to work hard for the first 7 months until disallusionment
> sets in.

they should come to france.

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi George,

> I still writhe with embarrassment recalling an interview for the UK
> N.E.R.C

What's N.E.R.C?


Ralph.

Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer science

[Lucio De Re]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 11:03:57PM +0100, Matt wrote:
> 
> He had a nice suit on though.
> 
You don't get, it then :-)  It's the shoes, what shoes was he
wearing? Were they well polished?

++L