/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10344537
>there's numbers and sets
>therefore it's math

No. There's more math in a chemistry classes than cs classes. Even Euler didn't think of it as math.

>big O notation, which is literally expressing the minimum and maximum number of computational steps required to complete a task as a formula in terms of n.

No, that big Θ. Big O is just an upper bound, big Ω is the lower bound. And it's not the number of steps but proportionate steps.

CS majors prove yet again that they don't even understand their own field....

>>8621942

is graph theory mathematics?

>>7705855

People were using Euclid to learn Geometry well into the middle of 20th century. There is NOTHING wrong with it.

>>7705828

Galois wouldn't recognize Galois theory because he didn't come up with it. All he did was spotted the kernel that would later become it after his death. Same thing with Euler, he didn't come up with graph theory either.

>>7705870

Debate club weenies don't belong here, leave. Go circle jerk Russell elsewhere.

>>7654727
>in particular formalizing algorithms

No, mathematicians really didn't give a shit about algorithms until later on in the 20th century and historically thought it was beneath them most of the time. Gauss is famous for throwing away the first instance of the FFT. The real question was whether 1st order statements could be proved mechanically (a foundational questions) that bled into a question on algorithms.

>My understanding is that there was also some general "atmosphere" of doubt developing which eventually led to Dedekind developing his Dedekind Cuts for the reals.

Actually, it was Cantor that first rigorous defined the reals in 1871. The only real doubt at the time was whether infinitesimals themselves were "physical" and apart of the "continuum".

>Could you post the source to your picture, it sounds like an interesting read.

http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/CUPM/pdf/MAAUndergradHistory.pdf