/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11239996
you do not seem so convinced yourself even though you assert such a bold statement. Physics is not alternate universes, its mainly classical, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, thermo and optics. If csshitters want to pretend they are more closer to mathematicians, they can I suppose, but I am much more interested in the math behind physics than vice versa. I can only speak for myself and my experience in physics. As for rigor, Im not sure how you can say retarded garbage like type theory is rigorous, while feynman diagrams and general relativity arent rigorous.

>>11240053
Nice cope.

>>11240067
Nice cope.

>>11240067
Nice cope.

>>11240067
epoc ecin

>>11240071
>>11240079
>>11240087
I'm not coping.
I make more than you combined.

>>11239996
CS is applied discrete math, physics is applied continuous math. Neither is rigorous.

>>11239996
>t. IT major, psychology minor

>>11240113

>>11240113
>I make more than you combined

Not sense, it would appear.

>>11239996
>Physics is trash.
>I am trashman
>world is a fuck
>no gf
>1 dead career

>>11239996
In physics, the double-slit experiment made careers.
In CS, the double-slit experiment is what depressed codemonkeys do to their wrists when Pajeets take their seats at FAANG.

>>11239996
Physics >>>>>>>> CS

>>11240186
It’s also much much harder than CS. Getting a job is hardest in physics. Requires at least a PHD. CS just requires undergrad degree and you get a job

>>11240189
>Getting a job is hardest in physics.
Keep telling that yourself academics babby.

>>11240123
I work for Amazon you work for Burger King.

>>11239996
Programs are proofs.

>>11240204
>Programs are proofs.
You meant programmers are poofters.

>>11239996
>Physics is trash.
Nonsense. And to be fair, I am recently seeing more merging of CS with physics, thanks to quantum computing. So, whatever you think, physics will become a lot more crucial in CS than most people believe now.

>>11240229
Wishful thinking physics faglord.

>>11240113
again, nice cope. I never asked how much you made, and your initial inquiry was on rigor. Just goes to show how much of a brainlet the average csfag is

>>11240115
in physics, would agree with this characterization. math is simply far more kino than any other field out there.

>>11240233
Ad hominem. Elaborate why instead of contributing nothing to this discussion.

>>11240264
>Ad hominem.
Using big words doesn't make you sound smart either.
Stop with the nonsense, poser.

>all the non CS projection cope in this thread

>>11240275
>Wishful thinking
>Elaborate why instead of contributing nothing to this discussion.
Stop talking around and start explaining. So far, nothing from your side.

>>11239996
It is as rigorous as you make it.
Most people in CS are dumb niggers thou, as you don't need any understanding and maths aren't that hard anyway.
Physics has much more step entry level, so niggers need not apply.

>>11240196
You’re right, I’m the CTO of Burger King

laziest bait thread and replies ever

>>11239996
problem is nobody in physics dares to question what is being taught. b/c what is being taught is false, and taught in a manner that kills curiosity. we are being MISLEAD people SCIENCE SHOULD BE 1000 YEARS AHEAD BY NOW.

>>11240561
What.

>>11240204
>why yes I'd never accept a computer aided proof. How could you tell?

>>11240115
Imagine having such a reductive view on two subjects ahahaha
CS topics like complexity, domain theory, etc. are pure. And there are plenty of continuous topics to study in CS - locality of computation is much more core than discreteness. If your idea of CS is throwing math methods at industry problems, then you’re completely unaware at *mainstream* research at places like the simons institutes. Theory CS is not applied

>>11240189
Industry entry level jobs aren’t CS jobs. Those are software engineering jobs. CS jobs are locked behind the PhD as well. At that point, they’re both difficult in the way mathematical sciences are difficult. If you’ve never had to work with the pcp theorem, expanders, etc. but call CS easy, you legitimately do not know what you’re talking about

>>11240229
The whole ads/CFT and quantum computing collab has been complexity theorists giving physics more models to work with

>>11239996
CS is more rigorous than math but it's not more rigorous than physics.

Quality thread. Seethe.

>>11240616
People accepted the 4 color theorem years ago grandpa

>>11240858
adscft is a fucking MEME. hep-th is getting way more out of the "collab" than quant-ph is. anyone who is actually actively researching ecc with adscft is a high energy theorist first, quantum informationist second.

tell me how to actually implement a holographic ecc, until then I'll keep to my surface codes, thank you very much

>>11239996
This is bad bait but CS is rigorous for different reasons. The efforts of CS researchers to make semantics rigorous using domain theory/topology are only one example of the use of traditional math in modern topics. Geometric complexity theory is the wild Wild West as far as getting closer to p vs np. Hell, even something as simple as studying compilers appeals to the basics of algebra like free groups, presentations, etc. the rigor in CS is obvious to anyone who takes more than a second’s glance to shitpost about software devs

>>11240855
I was talking about software engineering. My bad!
Indeed pure CS is similar to physics and math in terms of difficulty

>>11240053
>As for rigor, Im not sure how you can say retarded garbage like type theory is rigorous, while feynman diagrams and general relativity arent rigorous.
Type theory is explicitly defined in complete detail and generality. Feynman diagrams and general relativity however are vaguely defined around vaguely understood ideologies regarding real world phenomena.

>>11241444
>defined around vaguely understood ideologies regarding real world phenomena.
general relativity is just differential geometry retard

>>11241451
No, differential geometry is differential geometry. General relativity just uses differential geometry for analogies.

>>11241456
>uses differential geometry for analogies
the word you are looking for is application

>>11240053
(((CS)))cucks on suicide watch

>>11241469
They're the same thing. It's not like you're actually creating a formal model.

At any rate, differential geometry is babby math compared to type theory.

>>11241473
you dont know diff geo, you probably don’t even know undergrad analysis

>>11241474
I was in differential geometry for a short period during my undergrad. It was boring babby shit that seemed to only be useful to applied math people and physicslets so I withdrew and took a grad level category theory course that was running at the same time (incidentally, there's a large comp sci community using category theory at my university so the category theory course runs in the comp sci department and typically has 50% math students and 50% comp sci students).

>>11241473
>At any rate, differential geometry is babby math compared to type theory.
ok youre delusional

>>11241494
You obviously don't know any type theory.

>>11241496
I do not need to dig into a pile of feces and investigate every element of its composition to gather that its a pile of festering dog shit

>>11241503
t, physicist

I hope you look forward to complaining that your field has been taken over by mathematicians and you don't understand it anymore.

>>11241503
Get a load of this guy.

>>11241508
I far much prefer pure mathematics than autistic tranny musings about category theory, type theory and other garbage.

>>11241509
kek

>>11241510
Category theory and type theory are pure mathematics.

>>11239996
some of my peers drop out of CS and even college, just because they could not pass Physics.

>>11241490
lol

>>11241473
No.

>>11239996
>CS is more rigorous than Physics
Because CS don't measure real world
Yes

>>11241543
Lol sounds like your friends were bad students, because intro physics is baby tier shit. Hardly the thing you want to point toward showing off the physics major

>>11241557
Depends on your subset. Approximation and randomization results are rigorous but are also very “real world” applicable.

True! I was not the easiest course for me, but I push myself and they didn't.

>>11241564
>Real world applicable
and
>A real world application
are not the same thing. One is an abstract mathematical structure, formally defined in full generality, with theorems rigorously proven. The other is just an analogy that alludes to mathematics.

>>11240907
I couldn’t tell you, it’s not my active field of research, but I do believe avi widgerson on this one when he says the communication between these two groups is pretty tight
>>11241451
>>11241469
>>11241474
>>11241494
>>11241556
Not the guy you’re responding to, but differential geometry at the undergrad level is usually catered towards physics majors as applications of rudimentary analysis and calculus 3 to surface geometry. However, in my experience, it ends up being a more applied class more than “muh pure mathematics” since people usually have only had a semester of introductory analysis going in at most. Like, you’re not going to convince me that physics majors have the topology background to do anything with differentiation and manifold theory, especially because I’ve seen them struggle with anything that isn’t 3-space.
Now type theory is great and really hard, but you should be able to get through the canonical year of algebra in university (group theory, rings, fields, modules, symmetry,
representation, Galois theory, etc.) before doing it.

>>11240848
>CS topics like complexity, domain theory, etc. are pure.
These are pure maths with applications to CS
>And there are plenty of continuous topics to study in CS - locality of computation is much more core than discreteness
Unironically interested in knowing what you mean by this

>>11239996
Physics tries to model the world. The models are mathematical.

CS tries to build machines capable of modelling a certain subset of all possible mathematical models. The models are mechanical.

Yeah, totally the same. The concept of rigour is completely analogue.

>>11242469
>These are pure maths with applications to CS
You can arbitrarily distinguish between theoretical computer science and pure mathematics by your own tastes, but the fact is
1) many departments have tight collab between TCS and math
2) many professors are jointly in both departments, both those with CS phd’s And math phd’s
3) the topics I listed are BY FAR studied more in the CS department. If you think CS researchers stay away from pure research...you don’t have much experience about what you’re talking about. I think as recently as a few years ago Cook of all people had a paper on the complexity of operator analysis in Type-2 Effectivity. I know several papers that end up being about pure number theory. TCS research is by in large not motivated by “applications.”
>Unironically interested in knowing what you mean by this
The biggest things that are fundamentally discrete about computation is state control / steps, since we are interested in algorithms that can terminate. However, the conventional Turing model has clear limitations as a logical / combinatorial structure, and there have been many other *reasonable* extensions to the machine that help us study more problems. Read more on “Complexity and Real Computation” by Blum, Shub, and Smale and then read Koiran’s weakening of the model, which makes it much more realizable. What you can’t escape in some sense (unless you claim you can make an oracle machine) is needing to examine the parts of a problem in order to make a decision - at no point can you really make a decision based on a global state in unit time or a unit step. And you can only really solve problems, which is evident in the Turing model, for whom the answer can be determined by only looking at these parts. This is a sort of elementary explanation, but Widgerson explains it better in his online book.

>>11242487
>CS tries to build machines
No, retard. CS focuses on mathematical theories related to computation. The theoretical models that computer scientists work with don't really have much in common with real world implementations (in fact the implementations are often much messier and far more limited) which are of interest to CE and EE people.

>>11242469
>These are pure maths with applications to CS
It is pure math just like the rest of CS is. Those areas of pure math are most often studied in CS departments by computer scientists.

>>11242469
>>11243390
As far as continuous mathematics in CS, - it’s not the 70s anymore. Continuous math is EVERYWHERE in CS. Fourier analysis on the Boolean cube to study noise stability. Information theory / signals and communication complexity. Advanced randomized algorithms. Cryptography. Recursive game theory (studied in both CS and Econ departments). Type 2-Effectivity and computable analysis. Geometric complexity theory is literally topics in algebraic geometry. On the applied side, almost all of modern graphics / rendering / visualization is an application of differential geometry and some baby topology. There’s the memed homotopy type theory, but it’s got legit research in the CS departments of the world. The list goes on and on.
Really as far as I can tell, only pure algorithmicists concerned with finding the most efficient algorithms for currently existing technology do chiefly applications of discrete math.

>>11242487
>CS builds machines
>they’re mechanical
Based dumbass speaking out of his ass.
CS is concerned with the fundamental mathematical theory underlying computation, which is a study that provokes new topics such as complexity that almost always tie back into being studied as pure math in their own departments. You will not convince me the PCP theorem is not pure math.
There are concerns to model “what is reasonable” in the sense one does not want to define an object that can do everything that blasts away at what we cannot do conventionally. Other that that - computer scientists, especially theorists, are concerned with the mathematics of their assertions. They made impossible oracle machines to make theorems that showed the limits of relativization proofs (i.e. diagonalization and cleverly running / constructing new machines, seeing in the big paper by Baker-Gil-Solovay). When Arora found the conventional class characterization wasn’t really workable, he came up with the PCP to give a precise probabilistic characterization to well understood problems. The list goes on.
Complexity theorists do not give a shit about the “mechanical models.” They are not motivated by engineering a computer. They are solving hard problems around solving hard problems using mathematics, and the overwhelming majority of these problems are pure.

>>11243402
>mathematical theories related to computation.
You mean mathematical models? Like the ones I talked about in my post?
>The theoretical models that computer scientists work with don't really have much in common with real world implementations
Oh yeah? I would say they absolutely do! They are blueprints of the abstract data structures that these machines realize. That said, computers do not try to model the real world like physics do, and that is the main point I am trying to get across, which proves that OP is a floppy disk.

>>11243431
>You mean mathematical models? Like the ones I talked about in my post?
No, mathematical theories.
>Type Theory
>Category Theory
>Domain Theory
>Computability theory (including stuff like recursive function theory)
>Complexity Theory
>etc..

Physicists construct models that use a special case of more general mathematical theories specifically with the purpose of drawing inferences that can be experimented against empirically. Computer scientists do not care about computers or empiricism.

>Oh yeah? I would say they absolutely do! They are blueprints of the abstract data structures that these machines realize. That said, computers do not try to model the real world like physics do, and that is the main point I am trying to get across, which proves that OP is a floppy disk.
It's clear you don't know dick about what you're talking about. A computer scientist studies "abstract data structures" by studying the interplay between category theory, type theory, and logic. The general purpose programming languages you use are extremely primitive compared to what CS is doing.

>>11239996
For 95% of cs graduates cs is no more than imports, lists, pajeet languages and uml diagrams. There is no rigor in that.
>but this is not true cs
Yes, but this is mostly what you get when you study cs in current year.

>>11243507
I mean, sure if you’re an undergrad at an okay school. I don’t think it’s quite as bad, and especially not if you go to a good school. I double majored in math and CS, and software engineering was an elective, not a requirement

>>11241580
Lol physics undergrads BTFO

>>11243584
Regardless of where you study you get this at the latest when you work in a job.

>>11243588
Huur

>>11243601
Sure. What I’m saying is that CS and software engineering are not the same, and it’d be great if more programs didn’t cater for students who want to codemonkey

>>11241490
BEHOLD ALL OF /SCI
THE UNDERGRAD CATEGORY THEORIST HIMSELF

>>11243609
>CS and software engineering are not the same
I do agree. I also commented on this in my initial post already. From a practical pov you only ever get pajeet courses/work.. even when you actively seek out theoretical cs. You always drift towards that path even if it's only when you begin to work. When your degree has something with cs in the name you're automatically perceived as a codemonkey.
I'd go for applied math with focus on cs just to get rid of the code monkey cliche.
>more programs didn’t cater for students who want to codemonkey
It's sad to see how the degrees at my uni develop over the years. Every year some math heavy courses get canceled while more random other things get thrown in. They're sometimes really unrelated courses like some language courses, hot to present, how to write...and in the exams they then ask some wikipedia definitions of some things. There's a engineering degree which doesn't even teach diff eq.
>Engineer
>never seen a diff eq...
Sad world

>>11239996
You do realize that computers require a lot of physics to be created? So it is beyond being retarded to state that physics is shit, while you would not being coding anything without a freakin computer

>>11240067
this

>>11240251

>>11240229
Implying it was ever different. Poor CSfag OP has no fucking clue about semiconductor industry and thanks to what it is even possible that he can compute his little Erastothenes' sieve.

>>11243460
>No, mathematical theories.
It's interesting that you make that "distinction" yet another time. I only said that because I wanted to find out if you did it for some rhetorical reason, or if you really didn't understand my point in the first place. Guess which it was!
>Physicists construct models that use a special case of more general mathematical theories specifically with the purpose of drawing inferences that can be experimented against empirically.
Yes. I completely agree with this, and if you had understood those two previous posts of mine that you were replying to, you would not had felt the need to point this out to me.
>Computer scientists do not care about computers
Maybe some of them :)
>or empiricism.
Completely agree. It's not a science. They do not need empirical data to test their models of reality against. At least not in the same fashion as in physics.
>It's clear you don't know dick about what you're talking about. A computer scientist studies "abstract data structures" by studying the interplay between category theory, type theory, and logic. The general purpose programming languages you use are extremely primitive compared to what CS is doing.
LOL

>>11239996

lol no

>>11243424
>You will not convince me the PCP theorem is not pure math.
I am not trying to convince you of that! But I guess you have a point, many people in CS are only concerned with these "machines" as far as their metaphysical aspects. In other words, I do not deny that people in CS ARE DOING MATH! Remember I said "a certain subset of all mathematical models". I underline this to be CLEAR AND FAIR to both you and this other guy here >>11243402 . You both seem to have misunderstood the point of my post. Or maybe you both actually agree with it, but only wanted to scratch this IMAGINARY ITCH??? Either case, my original point still stands.

physics made the computer

The difficulty of majors is going to depend on the university you attend.

Most of your are pseudointellectual retards who attend mediocre state schools so bragging about your major is like someone bragging about winning the special olympics. In the end, you're still a retard.

>>11243424
>You will not convince me the PCP theorem is not pure math.
I am not trying to convince you of that! But I guess you have a point, many people in CS are only concerned with these "machines" as far as their metaphysical aspects and how I phrased my post might given the impression that I didn't acknowledge this. Point taken! In other words, I do not deny that people in CS ARE DOING MATH! Remember I said "a certain subset of all mathematical models". I underline this to be CLEAR AND FAIR to both you and this other guy here >>11243402 . You both seem to have misunderstood the point of my post. Or maybe you both actually agree with it, but only wanted to scratch this IMAGINARY ITCH??? Because what you both are saying is pretty concordant with my views.

>>11244100
A 'theory' and a 'model of a theory' are distinct formal concepts. There are several theories studied in CS. Physics (and the sciences in general) looks at several models of theories.

>>11239996
Imagine starting this argument on /sci/, well known for its hatred of CS, fucking hell.

>>11244407
mathfags hate physics more than CS tho

>>11244407
>hatred of CS
more like hatred for codemonkeys, CS itself is straight /sci/

>>11244232
I suspect the problem is that CS attracts a lot of brainlets who should really be applying to Software Engineering. It seems reasonable that some departments would rather cater to said brainlets to get their money instead of sending them away to other departments.
We should really just send all those "I just wanna make vidya game" retards into coding bootcamps to move them through the system faster (towards debt, unemployment, and bankruptcy where they'll end up anyways).

>>11244404
>formal concepts
LOL! Dude you're cracking me up here! You need to step out formal logic terminology to understand my point. Holy fuck! It's hilarious that you believe I don't know shit about math or CS!

What's even more hilarious is that you think that I actually disagree with you! Earlier in thread you were violently arguing for points that I had argued for in an even earlier post! :D

>>11244404
>formal concepts
Hmmm ;)

>>11239996
Glad to see that frivolous shit-posting isn't confined to /pol/.

>>11244411
no we don’t want them here in any capacity

>>11244749
>we
Lol imagine feeling a sense of collective identity on an anonymous board full of insecure weebs. Hell, imagine feeling like you could even represent them as a single person.
>them
Who are you referring to in this statement? Exactly how is actual CS not /sci/? I don’t think any other board is more appropriate for topics like complexity theory.

I bet that you’re an engineering major, who belongs even less on a math and science board.

>>11240115
i need calculus for animation system.

>>11243674
Computer science is not about computers you dumb fuck. It's about computation and only retarded code monkeys from shit unies believe CS to be about "coding"

>>11245338
>Computer science is not about computers you dumb fuck.
Imagine being this much of a retard.

>>11246321
But it's not. Computer science was done before the advent of software and the modern computation machine, and it's still done on blackboards in TCS departments today. Lots of computer science research has little to do with the machines we call computers. To reduce all CS to just physical computers is missing the point. Your opinion sounds like some undergrad engineering student who can't see the value of the field past "durr i want to program something for an application in my field. CS is about that!"

>>11244985
>heyall y’all are ignorant incel weebs
go back
>engineer
Not even close, but it is much more related to math than CS and is also actual science :^)

>>11246386
>go back
You go back undergrad
>he’s a physics undergrad
>he thinks he can shitpost based on relative distance to math
Lol I double majored in math and CS. Nobody claimed that CS was a “science” in the same way physics or chemistry is. But if you seriously think physics, is closer to pure math, then you’re deluding yourself.
As far as abilities go, almost every physics major likes to blow themselves on their ability to apply basic calculus to problems in physics, but they’re dogshit at any actual math. With CS, I’ve found the software dev crowd to be stupid, but the ones that either double major or who do CS for the actual CS are more than fine in the upper div math classes. Meanwhile, physics majors struggle with anything basic yet non euclidean. As far as actual mathematics, computer science is in fact closer than physics

>>11246376
>>11246376

Then CS is not even a science by itself, it is just another area of mathematics.

>>11246972
Ding ding ding. TCS, is a field of mathematics. Systems CS is more in line with how CS intersects with technology, and applications in CS such as ML are also contingent on currently existing technology. However, the study of these fields is still done largely on blackboards and simulations, likely to be implemented later.

>>11246989
Ding ding ding. Its still only an area of mathematics, just like you can you can build your career studying only theory of differential equations or its numerical solutions.

>>11247011
Not exactly. TCS is wide and covers an assortment of different topics. It's less a field of math like differentials alone and more a collection of mathematical theories, such as complexity, domain theory, recursive theory and computability, etc. to the point where it broke off into its own department. When you append it with systems CS, since CS *as a whole* inherits its culture and methodology from pure math and EE, you see that math is not reducible in the same way that differentials are. You could study like 3-5 different topics and still be in the realm of TCS.

>>11247026
You almost got me yet, I want to make thinks a bit more simple. I am math graduate but I attended at many physics courses, and if my 8 yo niece comes to me and asks me why the sky is blue, in order to answer her I have to use knowledge that I would have not acquired if had not taken any physics course. So tell me: what knowledge does computer science brings to science or the world, industry or whatever that it is only exclusive of this area? Try to give a simple or practical example