What did he mean by this?

What did he mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2Op3QLzMgSY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Computer Science is not computers or science, it's math.

here, this is exactly what he meant
youtube.com/watch?v=2Op3QLzMgSY

What did he mean by magic?

what did he mean by this?

Computer Science is not math it's not real when our eyes aren't real

Fucking this. Wake up, people.

but math is the one true science

>not philosophy

numbers don't real and are irrational

He was insinuating that computer science is liberal arts tier

he clearly meant OP is a faggot

>all of the greatest philosophers were great mathematicians
What did they mean by this?

>tfw these days "philosopher" can be replaced with "blogger"

what causes this degeneration? is it just because the low classes gets a hold of it? They ruined art and music too.

some one get this nigga some rogaine

I always had the problem with computer science being that you don't have a hypothesis you test and verify.

Unless you count programming, which I don't.

>what causes this degeneration? is it just because the low classes gets a hold of it? They ruined art and music too.
Selective memory of the past.

He hates his job.

Classical computer science has nothing to do with computers. You could replace every instance of the word "computer" with "turing machine" and get the exact same results without having any bearing on physical computers. Similarly, classical computer science has nothing to do with science, since it's not empirical. In science, you formulate a theory, then perform some experiment that could falsify that theory. If the theory holds, you now have that much empirical evidence that the theory is true, until you encounter some experiment that shows to the contrary. Classical computer science does not act like this. The big O analysis of quicksort is correct, irrespective to any empirical results.

Note that I said classical computer science. This is no longer the case with contemporary computer science (with the sorts of problems that classical computer scientists talked about still being a part of CS, but typically referred to as theoretical CS). For example, a major discipline in CS research these days is algorithms that more efficiently solve k-sat. Obviously, these algorithms have shit upper bounds, since if they didn't, that would mean we proved P!=NP. But for many practical instances of real world k-sat problems, they work great. An empirical observation. We also do the same thing in OS, DB, and network research: measure how fast novel designs run on real hardware.

Computer science should be called computational mathematics.

That you don't have to know anything about computers to interface with them and make them do things, but I think that only really applies to Lisp. "Magic" is really just programmer slang for "abstraction". In this sense, CPUs are magical since they do shit with registers and a stack and it makes a chinese cartoon image board appear.

Well Computer Science was a thing before computers so you tell me.

We'll isn't it science in this sense:

"Bubble sort is the most efficient when dealing with this type of problem"

You then try to use bubble sort on that type of problem and realize a different kind is better for said problem type.

Didn't you just form a hypothesis, perform an experiment, and get a result?

Isn't CS just a rapidly tested version of the scientific method? I mean we even develop a set of standards based off the collected efficiency tests we perform.

No, scientific theories aren't mathematically proven, they are simply supported.

Bubblesort's time complexity on the other hand is mathematically proven to have worst case performance of O(n^2).

You don't have to run any experiment to observe the above, you can figure it out with just pen and paper.

Nope. You're using empirical evidence, yes, but not the scientific method. Why? Because we don't know bubble sort is slower than quicksort from empirical evidence, we know *because we can literally prove it*. Even if we never had a computer, or even a physical body to run these sorting algorithms, we would know which one was faster, just from the big O. So can you have scientific evidence of this fact? Of course, just like you can have scientific evidence of the fact that there are infinitely many primes. But that's because any empirical evidence is of course going to agree with what is provably true. The moment you use mathematics to prove a statement true in all cases though, it stops being science, and starts being math.

>You then try to use bubble sort on that type of problem and realize a different kind is better for said problem type.

Not him, but this would mean YOU applied the bubble sort incorrectly. You cannot argue with a proof; CS deals with computationally based pure mathematics and this inherently brings proofs. The alternative, would be that the proof is wrong (which has definitely happened before); however, this is typically unlikely.

In a tautological sense, a proof can never be wrong.

And survival bias

math isn't a science.

So with the little philosophy I've read, a big point that was brought up is when Science took over a lot of what Philosophy was helping to solve. Logic being one of the last true Philosophy subjects in its own right. So is Mathematics tied into Philosophy since it is at its core Logic (and thus cannot be Science)?

Yes, fundamentally math is tied to philosophy, the same way chemistry and biology are tied to physics. At some level, in order for logic to work, you have to make some basic assumptions about knowledge and truth, which is the realm of philosophy. And due to things like Godel's incompleteness theorems, that will always be the case.

Though I suppose I should also mention: it is extremely fucking rare that the philosophy has any consequence. Like, there are some applications of things like paraconsistent logic, but they are extremely fucking rare.

Nope. Math is a tool that helps science, and that's only certain portions of math.
The rest is philosophical pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation for the sake of mental masturbation.

t. CS major who hates math

Nobody who actually cares about actually doing shit likes math.
Waste of time and mental masturbation for the sake of mental masturbation beyond a certain requirement point.

>I post with people like this

Jesus...

Well let me hear you out. Where do you think math stops being useful? Because I can probably find an application for every sub-field of mathematics.

Yeah. Imagine that. You post with people who are more interested in building engines and building structures,
or doing various refinement in chem, actually producing tangible shit in real life,
than they are wasting brain cells on pseudo-intellectual theoretical mathematics.
Oy vey!

>At some level, in order for logic to work, you have to make some basic assumptions about knowledge and truth
Not him, but could you expand on this? What sort of assumptions are you talking about?

we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells

Yeah but the thing is, with my background in math, I can quickly learn to do those things. Guess what else, every innovative technology starts with theory. So keep building engines that have been built while someone well versed in math builds a buttfucking engine and uses it on.

With your background in math, you are more interested in wasting 30 hours excreting various number theories on paper to make yourself feel mentally good, than you would spend actually being productive in any other area.
Besides, math background doesn't mean shit in chem. I know quite a few math fags who rule in their field, but when it comes to chem they turn into mental equivalents of troglodytes.
First jump before you say "hop".

Bet they said this shit about imaginary numbers.

Isn't a hop smaller than a jump? Wouldn't I want to hop first? Like crawl before you walk? Not the point.

My math background means everything in chem because it means everything in physics which means everything in chem. I'm not proclaiming Math students are geniuses, in fact I think STEM majors are often stupider and less flexible than other students.

Personally my interest in math began with chem which got me into physics and then into math and I can think of many cases where math is of extreme importance to chemistry. If it wasn't important, why would they want you to take Differential Equations with Linear Algebra?

They don't take into account the hardware that the algorithm runs on, so it's not really science.

>If it wasn't important, why would they want you to take Differential Equations with Linear Algebra?
I never said it wasn't important, i said parts are important and the pseudo-intellectual CS shit isn't.
At best you can argue that some simulation shit benefits from CS math in terms of fluid dynamics modeling and such.
But creating simulations ain't the job of a chemist, but of the math fag. The chemist has better things to do.
And when the mathfag starts shitting about in regard to math theory instead of getting to the point so a job can get done already,
that's when the gas chambers come into play.

Maths* Short for mathematics, don't understand why Yanks drop the S

Mathematics - ematics = math
Mathematics - ematic = maths

Both are stupid

But it's a plural word, so dropping the S makes less sense and makes it sound singular.

I just learned in 2 mins more than I have in about a year. Really good teacher desu.

I'm not sure what you mean by "shitting about" but yeah sometimes it's hard to get to the point and I'll never deny it's complicated but worthless it is not.

Now I'm no CS major so I can't really comment there but as a whole, I think math to be a very useful tool no matter sub-field and a lot more than intellectual dickery, in fact, I've noticed intellectual masturbation is frowned upon in nearly all STEM fields. Nobody likes a pretentious jerk and math students are no exception.

*math
Maths just sounds stupid, who cares if it's more proper (it's not)

>he doesn't engage in mental masturbation for the sake of it
lmao brainpleb.
hahahaahhaahah

>but could you expand on this?
Sure. As I alluded to by mentioning paraconsistent logic, one example is the assumption that contradictions cannot exist outside of the trivial theories (i.e. "worlds" where every statement is true). Most people, including computer scientists, would agree that every statement in a logical system is either true or false, never both (law of the excluded middle). However, there's no inherent reason why a statement couldn't be true and false (or rather, not true) at the same time. It's an assumption that we just make. Paraconsistent logics reject this assumption, by rejecting certain axioms, like the law of disjunctive syllogism. Now, if you were going to go about your daily conversations or typical programing assuming that disjunctive syllogism doesn't hold, people would think you're crazy. But there are logicians/philosophers who build up entire systems and theorems with this very assumption. Again, it tends not to be very useful in practice, but at the end of the day, we have to accept that our laws of logic are fundamentally arbitrary, with no real basis in fact (other than empirical observation, to some extent).

He meant to hit your head with a hammer, but he missed. Don't worry, because I won't.

boy howdy, you sure showed him!

So basically the assumptions are what the average person takes for granted and are only assumptions because philosophers, doing their job, argue that those assumptions may not hold in some other setting? What are possible scenarios where our laws of logic are not applicable?