[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 49 KB, 640x353, sat-ai-head-640x353.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9776095 No.9776095 [Reply] [Original]

Is computer science an actual science?

>> No.9776097

>Is computer science an actual science?
No, because computer scientists do not use the scientific method.

>> No.9776103

not really

>> No.9776108

>>9776097
What would you describe it as, then? A type of engineering?

>> No.9776130

Computer science is actually more fundamental than a "science." Physics is built on math, math is built on computer science. It's all new and the scientific community is just beginning to accept it.

Think of it like this...

Some physical constant arises like pi.
Physics uses it... "this constant turns out to be really useful... circles, etc..."
Math describes it... "we can prove it's irrational, we can prove it's transcendental, we're working on proving it's normal, etc..."

But computer science can give you an algorithm that generates it. That algorithm is the real essence of what that constant is. You can't write down pi in a mathematical sense because it is irrational and transcendental, but you can have an algorithm that is a complete description of it.

Things like summation notation in math are just what we had to use before we had computers and could write a "for" loop. Computation is now the most fundamental way to understand the universe.

>> No.9776136
File: 9 KB, 568x161, CS calculus.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9776136

>>9776095
No, you need at least calculus to be a science.

>> No.9776141

>>9776130
>But computer science can give you an algorithm that generates it
No, math does that as well.
Computer science is a subset of math, not the other way around.

>> No.9776142

>>9776141
>>9776130
So you'd say CS is closer to mathematics than anything else?

>> No.9776145

>>9776095
is theoretical physics an actual science?

>> No.9776149

>>9776142
Computer science is just applied math. ALL STEM that isn't math is just applied math.

>> No.9776156

>>9776141
>Computer science is a subset of math
Mathematics are a subcategory of computer science.

>> No.9776158

>>9776156
>Mathematics are a subcategory of computer science.
No it isn't. Computer science is a form of applied math.

>> No.9776167

>>9776149
>Computer science is just applied math.
Other way around.

>> No.9776169

>>9776167
No, it's not. Computer science is just applied math.

>> No.9776174

>>9776145
Yes, because theoretical physicists use the scientific method to develop hypotheses and then test those hypotheses based on available data. Just because it's theoretical doesn't mean experimentation isn't conducted.

>> No.9776177

>>9776169
>Computer science is just applied math.
Other way around.

>> No.9776184

>>9776177
Computer science is the study of the theory, experimentation, and engineering that form the basis for the design and use of computers. It is the scientific and practical approach to computation and its applications and the systematic study of the feasibility, structure, expression, and mechanization of the methodical procedures (or algorithms) that underlie the acquisition, representation, processing, storage, communication of, and access to, information. An alternate, more succinct definition of computer science is the study of automating algorithmic processes that scale. A computer scientist specializes in the theory of computation and the design of computational systems.

>> No.9776186

>>9776174
>Yes, because theoretical physicists use the scientific method to develop hypotheses and then test those hypotheses based on available data.
What about hypotheses that have no available data to test with?

>> No.9776190

>>9776184
>Computer science is the study of the theory, experimentation, and engineering that form the basis for the design and use of computers. It is the scientific and practical approach to computation and its applications and the systematic study of the feasibility, structure, expression, and mechanization of the methodical procedures (or algorithms) that underlie the acquisition, representation, processing, storage, communication of, and access to, information. An alternate, more succinct definition of computer science is the study of automating algorithmic processes that scale. A computer scientist specializes in the theory of computation and the design of computational systems.
What does this have to do with my post?

>> No.9776191

>>9776177
No. Now you're getting annoying. Literally no one considers computer science a supercategory of math, because it's not. There are problems in pure math that computers can not solve and even theoretical computer science is not as pure and abstract as pure mathematics.
Why would you ever make such a bullshit claim?

>> No.9776207

>>9776174
But computer scientists do this. They use simulations etc.

Also, are zoology, geology and ecology sciences?

>> No.9776213

>>9776191
>Now you're getting annoying.
If you stop repeatedly posting the same mistruth then I won't have to keep correcting you.

>Literally no one considers computer science a supercategory of math
This is false.

>There are problems in pure math that computers can not solve
If you think this is relevant than you probably have never taken read a single book about computer science.

>theoretical computer science is not as pure and abstract as pure mathematics.
This is false.

>> No.9776234

>>9776213
>If you stop repeatedly posting the same mistruth then I won't have to keep correcting you.
You're the one repeating the lie. Computer science is a subcategory of pure mathematics and is also in the department of applied mathematics in universities.
>This is false.
Okay, no one worth their salt who studies math and/or computer science considers it a supercategory of math.
>If you think this is relevant than you probably have never taken read a single book about computer science.
I double majored in pure mathematics and computer science.
>This is false.
No it isn't.

Actually explain why you're making this claim that is so clearly incorrect that it borders on insanity.

>> No.9776243
File: 297 KB, 836x1136, 1513067679808.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9776243

>>9776141
>>9776142
>t. brainlet

>> No.9776246
File: 1.79 MB, 2738x1749, cs discrete math.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9776246

>>9776142
No, just compare "Math for CS" with "Math for Physics"

>> No.9776249
File: 1.15 MB, 1200x4816, Hassani.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9776249

>>9776246

>> No.9776251
File: 316 KB, 979x1669, szekeres.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9776251

>>9776249

>> No.9776255

>>9776234
>You're the one repeating the lie.
This is false.

>Computer science is a subcategory of pure mathematics
Other way around.

>and is also in the department of applied mathematics in universities.
This is true for a small subset of universities, and even if it was always true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

>I double majored in pure mathematics and computer science.
What's the relevance of this?

>No it isn't.
Yes it is.

>> No.9776267

>>9776255
>This is false.
No it isn't. Again, stop repeating this lie.
>Other way around.
Nope, pure mathematics is the most fundamental discipline and computer science is a subcategory of math.
>This is true for a small subset of universities, and even if it was always true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
It's true for the majority of universities, and if you want to make an argument than actually make an argument other than just repeating your statement as though it's an argument.
>What's the relevance of this?
You claimed I never read a book on computer science.

So far, your claim is literally "durr durr we can use for loops to calculate power series therefor computer science is more fundamental than math!!!" It's actually retarded. If you don't actually make a good argument for why you think what you do, you will be considered both a moron and a troll.
Now put up or shut up.

>> No.9776277

>>9776267
>No it isn't.
Yes it is.

>Again, stop repeating this lie.
If you stop repeatedly posting the same mistruth then I won't have to keep correcting you.

>It's true for the majority of universities
[citation needed]

>and if you want to make an argument than actually make an argument other than just repeating your statement as though it's an argument.
If you stop repeatedly posting the same mistruth then I won't have to keep correcting you.

>You claimed I never read a book on computer science.
So why did you mention a degree?

>So far, your claim is literally "durr durr we can use for loops to calculate power series therefor computer science is more fundamental than math!!!"
I have not made this claim.

>> No.9776283

>>9776108

Math, if you take a good Comp Sci course its very math intensive. If you bend a few things then you can sort of say that math uses the scientific method, but most people here would probobly disagree with that

>> No.9776284

>>9776277
>Yes it is.
No it isn't.
>If you stop repeatedly posting the same mistruth then I won't have to keep correcting you.
You're a moron.
>If you stop repeatedly posting the same mistruth then I won't have to keep correcting you.
Actually make your argument or shut up.
>So why did you mention a degree?
Because unlike you, I actually went to university and studied from multiple books on both mathematics and computer science.
>I have not made this claim.
Yes you did, in this post: >>9776130 and I quote:
>"But computer science can give you an algorithm that generates it. That algorithm is the real essence of what that constant is. You can't write down pi in a mathematical sense because it is irrational and transcendental, but you can have an algorithm that is a complete description of it."
>"Things like summation notation in math are just what we had to use before we had computers and could write a "for" loop. Computation is now the most fundamental way to understand the universe."
These claims are so laughable retarded, that if you don't make an actual good argument in your next post, I will be the winner of this debate, you will be proven a moron, and I will not respond to your post.
Now put up or shut up.

>> No.9776289

>>9776284
>No it isn't.
Yes it is.

>You're a moron.
This is false.

>Because unlike you, I actually went to university and studied from multiple books on both mathematics and computer science.
The evidence (your posts) points to the contrary.

>Yes you did, in this post: >>9776130
That's not my post.

>> No.9776315

>>9776289
So you are proven a troll with no argument
Goodbye

>> No.9776317

>>9776315
t. brainlet

>> No.9776319

>>9776315
>So you are proven a troll with no argument
This is false.

>Goodbye
Goodbye.

>> No.9776346

>>9776097
Not what 'science' means but some areas of computer science do in fact use the scientific method.

>> No.9776349

>>9776346
>Not what 'science' means.
What does it mean?

>> No.9776359

>>9776149
>ALL STEM that isn't math is just applied math.
Retarded notion. STEM isn't taking mathematics and then working from there. Most of it is based in or contains other content. Applied mathematics is applied mathematics, most of STEM is not applied mathematics and contains little of it. Computer science isn't even solely applied mathematics, only 1/3 of it is.

>> No.9776394

>>9776349
Body of knowledge and mode of study, organised and conducted in a systematic manner.
You have further divisions that break this very general meaning down, usually as 3: physical sciences, social sciences, formal sciences.
'Physical sciences' contain: natural sciences and life sciences. In all of these except formal, the so-called 'scientific method' is utilised to varying degrees. Theoretical computer science is a formal science, but the rest of computer science is not. It fits under quite literally everything, as it has its hand in everything. Though the engineering part is considerable.

'Science' as used colloquially basically means the surface-level knowledge, products, or technology produced and displayed by all of these sciences, including what can be considered 'applied sciences' (such as engineering). One simpleton says 'I fucking love science!' at a launching rocket. They include these applied sciences. It's really kind of it's own vague deity that stretches beyond sciences into technological society in general.

>> No.9776396

>>9776394
Correction: switch the terms 'physical' and 'natural'. Natural is considered more fundamental than the physical, physical doesn't include life and such.

>> No.9776404

>>9776394
>conducted in a systematic manner.
What is that other than the scientific method?

>> No.9776415

>>9776191
Your way of writing is the most obnoxious and infuriating I've come upon so far. Congratulations you absolute fucking waste of space, you've managed to enrage me not by the content of your comment, which is just you being a little bitch boy about a subject you're too much of a brainlet to understand, but by its very form. Please fuck off.

>> No.9776463

>>9776415
>Congratulations you absolute fucking waste of space
Do you need to swear?

>> No.9776468

>>9776095
Yes it is as a it is basically a subset of math.
For "muh scientific method" people (who actually nevert started to think about what knoowing means and what certaintyu means, who never studied logic nor proof theory): keep in mind that the scientific method is a mean not an end. The experimental part of computer science just happens to be trivial and that's it.
I am sick of this meme question honestly, I encountered it so much.

>> No.9776551

>CS is subset of math
I don't know a thing about CS except the programming classes but how much math do you guys use in the following courses

Software engineering
Database
Computer system
Operating systems
Computer architecture

>> No.9776567

>>9776394
>Body of knowledge and mode of study, organised and conducted in a systematic manner.
Is Theology science?

>> No.9776578

>>9776551
Software engineering
>almost nothing
Database
>highschool level
Computer system
>?
Operating systems
>zero
Computer architecture
>zero

Im an EE undergrad, not CS but we had many of the same courses.
If you want math heavy CS courses:
"Digital technology", it was mostly boolean algebra but it went a pretty deep.
"Foundation of Computer Science", a lot of math. Everything about graphs, applied graph theory, problem classifications, algorithm theory, number theory.

>> No.9776579
File: 166 KB, 945x261, x k c d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9776579

>>9776567

>> No.9776600

>>9776130
I'm a CS major , and I think your explanation is retarded.

>> No.9776602

>>9776184
This is a reasonable answer.

>> No.9776604

>>9776191
Don't listen to him he probably is an engineer who wants to make cs look retarded. Of course, CS is a subset of math.

>> No.9776609

>>9776213
You are an idiot . You give us CS a bad rep.

>> No.9776610

>>9776095
It's a formal science.
More about how we solve things.

>> No.9776883

>>9776604
>CS is a subset of math.
This is false.

>> No.9777065

>>9776249
You compared a springer book to a meme book. If you want a fair comparison, use springer books from both topics

t. physics PhD student

>> No.9777106
File: 36 KB, 645x320, 4449911-en-attendant-godel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9777106

>>9776319

kek

Computer Science truly is a supercategory of math

>> No.9777141
File: 76 KB, 1024x768, 33832385_2012368302309336_1198880296078934016_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9777141

Here you guys go. This should settle the whole cs/math subset/superset conundrum :^)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence

>> No.9777397
File: 54 KB, 512x512, 52BC4367-3789-4EC3-B450-E48F9034C9CD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9777397

Why the fuck does this board have such a hard on for arguing over the legitimacy of CS? Undergrads are generally dumb, but that’s usually the case with STEM dorks in majors that lead to high paying fields.

Every PhD (math, cs, and physics) I’ve talked to has told me that once you get your doctorate, you can study whatever you please as long as you can spin it into your qualifications or make yourself qualified to study it. You guys really need to take an ego check.

On that note: if you consider mathematics a formal science (rather than a natural one), then computer science can be a formal science. This is ironic since computer science is an inherently intuitionist view of mathematics and processes.

>> No.9777404

>>9776097
What is open source?
What is gpl license?
It applys

Formulate hypothesis
Collect data
Test hypotheses
Conclude

>> No.9777415

>>9777065
Rosen is the standard discrete math book. CS is a meme.

>> No.9777816

>>9776883
You were arguing this the whole thread but you never explained why.

>> No.9777820

>>9777816
>You were arguing this the whole thread but you never explained why.
The burden of proof is not on me.

>> No.9777836

>>9777820
Yes it is because you're making the claim "computer science is a super-category of math".
Why is computer science a super-category of math? Explain why.

>> No.9777857

>>9777820
>>9777836
I'm not making the claim either way, but you are making the claim that it's a super-category, so why is it a super-category? The burden of proof is now on you and you should be able to explain why.

>> No.9777902

>>9776108
I would call it: computer theory.

>>9776191
Turing machines, complexity etc are pretty pure to be honest.

>> No.9777939

>>9777902
So is computer science a supercategory or is math the supercategory and why? Why won't you answer the question?

>> No.9777941

Who gives a FUCK?
CS, Math, Philosophy, and all of science is a subset of logic. That's all.

Is CS more sciencey than idk literature? Yup. It's technology so it's at least STEM. Idk why it's called science, maybe because it's a step above IT?

Also this is like the worst thread ever

>> No.9777943
File: 1.23 MB, 500x500, 1521738008713.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9777943

I hope you people realize that transistors were manufactured and put together in a very specific way because humans wanted the end-product to be used for a set of use-cases generally known to them. The mathematics governming the understanding of how we can take abstract ideas and turn them into executable statements is still very much a pure field.

>> No.9777950
File: 86 KB, 640x640, 5BDF1658-5D85-48DD-97B2-ACD0F648B574.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9777950

>>9777415
Are the other physics books standard physics books in undergrad? I doubt springer is used for freshman material, much less undergrad. At my uni, discrete math is first taught in the freshman year and is followed with more math. Looking to my uni’s physics curriculum, it looks like the springer books are used in junior and senior classes, if not early grad for reference. Similarlu, we have some springer books for our upper level cs classes.

I’m not the other anon, but at my uni, the proof based discrete mathematics course was taught mostly through the professor’s notes. We used Rosen for the problems, and I felt that the tests (which didn’t resemble any of the textbook problems) were about as rigorous as my first proof class in math (I double major in math/cs). Your average CS dork might not always be awe inspiring, but to be honest, neither is your average math dork.

>> No.9777952

>>9777941
So they're all subcategories of logic, but is computer science the subcategory of math or is it the other way around and more importantly, why?

>> No.9777957

>>9777950
To clarify, I meant to start off with “are those other springer books standard for physics, and if so, are they first year courses?”

Also, *similarly

>> No.9777962

>>9777939
Math is superset of CS. Just like logic is superset of math, and it's part of math, not CS.

>> No.9777964

>>9777943
Computer science =/= computer engineering

>> No.9777967

>>9777962
But why? Everyone in the thread other than that one guy is saying this too, but so far no one has said WHY it's one way or the other.
To me it seems like all of them (math, logic, comp sci) are equivalent and there is no supercategory or subcategory.

>> No.9777973

>>9777967
Purity.

>> No.9777974
File: 14 KB, 512x419, 31402525_1852733188120139_5370193778525077504_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9777974

>>9777964
pic is you
nobody is saying it was, I was saying they are distinct. learn to read

>> No.9777979

>>9777974
Yeah, you are right.

>>9777967
Or in other words, you need the superset to use other. You can't do math without logic, and you can't do CS without math. You can do logic by itself because it's based on paradigms which are simply assumed to be true without any purer framework to prove them.

>> No.9777996

>>9777952
Well again who gives a fuck? Computers are a different thing man. They are the contrast to chaotic nature that never existed until we built it. Pretty much anything can be done on computer or in real life. Math included. But that doesn't mean math is a subset of CS per se.

Consider the real world application of saying that math is a subset of CS. What is the result? You annoy a bunch of people who like math a lotmore than computers. That isn't good or bad per se. But there is the truth and there are results and you don't alwaysneed to be so hell bent on truth that you forget about existence.

Personally I think math and CS are the most pure forms of logic. Math wouldn't be where it is now without computers, and also physics. But again that doesn't mean math is a subset of either.

Math and CS are similar enough in their application of logic that I don't really consider them to be different things entirely. It's just words man. Yes they are different things but it's just irrelevant. The fact that we're arguing which is which means they're on a similar level in regards to their application of logic. All science requires some objectivity but both of them are pretty fuckin objective. A formula vs a line of code, who cares? Same thing.

>> No.9778015

>>9777973
>Purity.
Purity has nothing to do with containment.

>> No.9778017

It goes:
Language > logic > math > computer science
Any other structure is wrong.

>> No.9778041

>>9777962
>Math is superset of CS.
Other way around (and you mean supercategory, not superset).

>Just like logic is superset of math
Other way around (and you mean supercategory, not superset).

>and it's part of math, not CS.
This is impossible, since math is a subcategory of CS (being a subcategory is transitive).

>> No.9778057
File: 8 KB, 268x326, Luitzen_Egbertus_Jan_Brouwer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9778057

https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/extensionality-intensionality-and-brouwers-dictum/

>The interesting conception of the propositions-as-types principle is what I call Brouwer’s Dictum, which states that all of mathematics, including the concept of a proof, is to be derived from the concept of a construction, a computation classified by a type. In intuitionistic mathematics proofs are themselves “first-class” mathematical objects that inhabit types that may as well be identified with the proposition that they prove. Proving a proposition is no different than constructing a program of a type. In this sense logic is a branch of mathematics, the branch concerned with those constructions that are proofs. And mathematics is itself a branch of computer science, since according to Brouwer’s Dictum all of mathematics is to be based on the concept of computation.

>> No.9778120

>>9778041
Again, you keep making this claim but have not explained why. You can't just say "The burden of proof is not on me" because it is.
So why? If you're right you should be able to explain your reasoning.

>> No.9778139

>>9778120
You're never going to get an argument from him because he's a troll.

>> No.9778147

>>9778139
>he's a troll.
What do you mean?

>> No.9778149

>>9778057
But this would just mean they are equivalent which is what I thought in the first place.
>>9778139
Oh I see.

>> No.9778153

>>9778149
>this would just mean they are equivalent
How so?

>> No.9778157

>>9778139
>You're never going to get an argument from him because he's a troll.
I'm not a "him".

>> No.9778163

>>9778157
dumb meme, and you're a troll either way

>> No.9778166

>>9778163
>you're a troll
Your ad hominems hold no weight.

>> No.9778170

>>9778166
Your lack of explanation is already weightless. The burden of proof is on you.

>> No.9778177

Computer science is logic and therefore math.

>> No.9778179

>>9778177
This is what I'm saying, logic and math and comp sci are equivalent.

>> No.9778182

>>9778170
As I already told you anon you will never get an explanation from her because she's a troll.

>> No.9778188

>>9778179
>This is what I'm saying, logic and math and comp sci are equivalent.
Equivalent in what sense?

>> No.9778194

>>9778179
No they're not.
There are things I can describe in natural language that are not describable in logic. Language is more powerful than logic.
There are things in logic that are not quantifiable and thus are outside of math. Logic is more powerful than math.
As I said here >>9778017 The order actually goes:
Language > logic > math > computer science

>> No.9778195

>>9778188
Equivalent in that they are all the same thing just different branches, but neither less or more "fundamental" than the other.

>> No.9778198

>>9778139
It's true though, math really is a subset of computer science. Most computer scientists are ugly brainlets but that doesn't change the fundamental facts.

>> No.9778205

>>9778194
>logic > math > computer science
This is in the reverse order.

>> No.9778207

>>9778194
But even if language is able to explain more I dont' see how there is a difference between logic and math and computer science.
>>9778198
Then explain how. You and the other anon keep making a claim without explanation.

>> No.9778210

>>9778198
>math really is a subset of computer science.
You want 'subcategory' here.

>> No.9778211

>>9778205
No, your statement is false. It's in the right order as per my explanation.

>> No.9778215

>>9776551
none of those need any non obvious math.
the math heavy subjects tend to be shit like graphics, vision, algorithms, machine learning, cryptography, and data science.

>> No.9778220

>>9778211
>It's in the right order as per my explanation.
Your explanation is false since it relies on several wrong assumptions, i.e. that math is a subcategory of logic.

>> No.9778228

>>9778220
No, your statement is false.
My statement is true as per my explanation. Logic is a supercategory of math, as there are things I can describe in logic that I can't describe in math but not vice versa, just like there are things I can describe in natural language that I can't describe in logic but nothing in logic that I can't describe in natural language.
It goes Language > logic > math > computer science.

>> No.9778270
File: 95 KB, 733x561, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9778270

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/649408/is-computer-science-a-branch-of-mathematics

>> No.9778278

>>9778270
That's not an argument.
So far I am the only one who has put forth an explanation, as it stands:
language > logic > math > computer science.
If you disagree, you must explain why, and it can not just be in the form of denying my claims, you must explain the reason for your order of categorization as well.

>> No.9778283

>>9778278
>and it can not just be in the form of denying my claims
Unfounded claims are just that, unfounded claims.

>> No.9778289

>>9778283
This is true, but there are no unfounded claims in my assertions.
My statement is true.

>> No.9778299

>>977828
>This is true, but there are no unfounded claims in my assertions.
Here are ten of them:
>your statement is false
>My statement is true
>Logic is a supercategory of math
>there are things I can describe in logic that I can't describe in math
>but not vice versa
>there are things I can describe in natural language that I can't describe in logic
>nothing in logic that I can't describe in natural language
>Language > logic
>logic > math
>math > computer science

>> No.9778307

>>9778299
>>your statement is false
Your statement is false, so this is true.
>>>My statement is true
My statement is true, so this is true.
>>Logic is a supercategory of math
This is true.
>>there are things I can describe in logic that I can't describe in math
This is true
>>there are things I can describe in natural language that I can't describe in logic
This is true
>>nothing in logic that I can't describe in natural language
This is true
>>Language > logic
This is true
>>logic > math
This is true
>>math > computer science
This is true
So my statement "there are no unfounded claims in my assertions" is true.
The statement:
"Language > logic > math > computer science"
is true.

>> No.9778315
File: 36 KB, 504x432, main-qimg-bac54ded08ac96858a0d0fb3a56c3abd-c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9778315

>>9778307
Each of those unfounded claims are only true if you assume them to be true. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

>> No.9778325

>>9778315
>Each of those unfounded claims
None of them are unfounded.
>only true if you assume them to be true
They are objectively true whether or not one assumes them to be true.
>What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
This is true.
My statement
"language > logic > math > computer science" is true.
In fact, you still have not given evidence for YOUR assertion that it goes "computer science > math > logic", therefore by your own reasoning, we can dismiss you without evidence (although being kind, I have proven you wrong with evidence anyway).
If you disagree, give evidence for your assertion that it goes:
computer science > math > logic.

>> No.9778343

>>9778315
>>9778325
So are you going to give evidence for why it goes "computer science > math > logic" or not?

>> No.9778348

>>9778307
math>logic
What things can be described in logic that can't be described in math?

>> No.9778350

>>9778325
>I have proven you wrong with evidence
What evidence?

>> No.9778356

>>9778348
Everything that has to do with causality but no quantity. Most of math is actually just logic.
>>9778350
Prove your assertion
"computer science > math > logic"
with evidence or you are dismissed as per your own reasoning. The burden of proof is on you, you are the one who made the original claim itt and you have yet to provide evidence or argument.

>> No.9778359
File: 95 KB, 700x525, 729FB377-EA17-4849-BBFD-31A2B90D7EFB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9778359

Conversations about math and cs and which one is more fundamental is a hard one to have since both fields have contributed a lot to the foundations of how we think about science and logic. If they’re both not the same field by some category, then they must at least be incredibly close to each other.

>> No.9778371

>>9778356
>Prove your assertion
>"computer science > math > logic"
>with evidence or you are dismissed as per your own reasoning. The burden of proof is on you, you are the one who made the original claim itt and you have yet to provide evidence or argument.
Did you misread my post?

>> No.9778374

>>9778356
>Everything that has to do with causality but no quantity.
What misled you to believe mathematics requires quantities?

>> No.9778375

>>9778359
>Conversations about math and cs and which one is more fundamental is a hard one
This is false, as I already showed it goes:
language > logic >math > computer science
And there has been no proper argument against this.
>both fields have contributed a lot to the foundations of how we think about science and logic
This is true but not really relevant to the point.
>>9778371
Prove your assertion with evidence or you are dismissed as per your own reasoning.

>> No.9778377

>>9778375
>Prove your assertion with evidence or you are dismissed as per your own reasoning.
Did you misread my post?

>> No.9778382

>>9778374
The mathematics without quantity (like category theory, for example) is logic.
>>9778377
Prove your assertion that it goes
computer science > math > logic
with evidence or you are dismissed as per your own reasoning.

>> No.9778389

>>9778382
Yeah, I am going to go ahead and point to Gödel because you are full of shit.
Gotta make that virgin logic vs chad math now.

>> No.9778390

>>9778382
>Prove your assertion that it goes
>computer science > math > logic
>with evidence or you are dismissed as per your own reasoning.
Did you misread my post?

>> No.9778397

>>9778382
>The mathematics without quantity (like category theory, for example) is logic.
Why?

>> No.9778400

>>9778389
Math without quantity is logic, Godel's incompleteness theorem doesn't apply here.
>>9778390
Prove your assertion that it goes
computer science > math > logic
with evidence or you are dismissed as per your own reasoning.

>> No.9778407

>>9778400
>Math without quantity is logic
Why?

>> No.9778408

>>9778400
Logic masturbates to math retard.

>> No.9778410

>>9778397
>>9778407
As per definition, math is defined as "logic applied to quantity, structure and change".
Logic applied to things other than quantity is thus not math, which makes logic a supercategory of math.
>>9778408
What are you talking about

>> No.9778420

>>9778410
shitbird.
Math, from this archaic route you are taking, would be the essence of quantity, structure, and number. Logic would be the essence of words. I can't believe you think math is the logic of numbers.

>> No.9778421

[math] \text{physics } \hookrightarrow \text{ maths } \hookrightarrow \text{ computer science} [/math]

>> No.9778437

>>9778420
It's not what I think, it's what it is and how it's defined. Mathematics is logic applied to quantity space and number.

>> No.9778443

>>9778437
>It's not what I think, it's what it is and how it's defined.
No, it's how you think it's defined.

>> No.9778447
File: 74 KB, 658x550, Screen Shot 2018-05-30 at 4.41.54 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9778447

>>9778443
No, it's how it's defined.

>> No.9778459

>>9778447
>No, it's how it's defined.
Strange, it doesn't say "logic applied to quantity, structure and change" anywhere on that page.

>> No.9778465

>>9778459
So do math without logic then.

>> No.9778471

>>9778465
>So do math without logic then.
That is how it's done, which is why logic is only a small (strict) subcategory of mathematics.

>> No.9778478

>>9778471
>That is how it's done
No it isn't. Give me one example of math without logic.

>> No.9778503
File: 56 KB, 1312x119, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9778503

>>9778478
>Give me one example of math without logic.
Take your pick.

>> No.9778508

>>9778503
All of those fields use logic, the study of logic outside of them doesn't mean they are illogical.
Logic is also the only field there that doesn't use quantity.

>> No.9778545

So it's settled then, as I have shown
There are things I can express in language not expressable in any of the other fields, so language is the super category
There are logical statements I can make that cannot be made in math but can all be made in language, so it's next
Mathematics is logic applied to quantity, space, and numbers, so it followed after logic
Computer science is concerned with all the math that can be run on a UTM, so it completes the chain.
Thus my categorical ranking
Language > logic > math > computer science
Is true.

QED

>> No.9778554

>>9778508
>All of those fields use logic
Every carpenter uses a hammer, but that doesn't mean carpenters are hammers.

>> No.9778555

>>9778545
>There are logical statements I can make that cannot be made in math
Such as?

>> No.9778564

>>9778554
analogies are not arguments

>> No.9778574

>>9778382
>The mathematics without quantity (like category theory, for example) is logic.
But this implies that logic is a subcategory of mathematics.

>> No.9778579

>>9778508
>All of those fields use logic
By your faulty definition all of them use quantities as well, does that mean mathematics is a subcategory of number theory?

>> No.9778632

>>9776359
> Computer science isn't even solely applied mathematics, only 1/3 of it is.
Implying that the other 2/3ths are not just algorithms and sets but something greater than mathematics

>> No.9778646

>can cs and logic alone explain all math problems
no
>can math and logic alone explain all cs problems
yes
>can math alone explain all cs problems
no, because the logic used in some math problems is too trivial to name it math, so is just logic. used in cs but still is in math. you can't say the other way around.

so in conclusion math is not a superset of cs but cs still smaller than math, also is trivial that cs neither is a superset of math. there you have it now fuck off

>> No.9779435
File: 125 KB, 1202x900, 1512494310189.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9779435

Jesus Christ how hard are people in this thread falling for the "cs is a superset of maths" bait?

>> No.9779621

>>9776177
I actually agree. From Principia Mathematica to Godel and then Shannon, I think we started to realize there's something fundamental that must exist for us to even conceptualize mathematics. And that fundamental level includes the ability to compute and the limits of transferring information.

>> No.9779635

>>9777996
>computers never existed before we built them

What an asinine statement

>> No.9779775

>>9779635
Shut up retard

>> No.9779788

>>9779775
>retard
Why the ableism?

>> No.9779799

>>9779435
>Jesus Christ how hard are people in this thread falling for the "cs is a superset of maths" bait?
It's a supercategory, not a superset.

>> No.9779827

>>9779799
Prove it

>> No.9779835

it's meaningless to discuss notions of hierarchy of these fields since none of them are well-defined

in contrast, one can meaningfully speak of obvious hierarchies like ring theory being a supercategory of field theory

>> No.9779837

>>9779621
That fundamental level is logic gates, which are structures that detect coincidence.

>> No.9779843

>>9779837
>which are structures that detect coincidence.
Would you mind expanding?

>> No.9779845

>>9776136
Just finished Calc 3 and linear algebra for my CS program.

>> No.9779853

>>9779775
Non argument

>> No.9779867

>>9779843
An AND gate is a structure that detects the coincidence of two high potentials.

An XOR gate is a structure that detects the coincidence of a low potential and a high potential.

OR and NOT gates are more difficult to describe in terms of coincidence. There's probably a concept that subsumes the concept of coincidence and can be used to describe OR and NOT gates.

>> No.9779870

>>9779837
No, the fundamental level is logic itself, we simply construct a material system that we can manipulate to follow whatever we want (in this case, logic, which comes from the platonic realm).

>> No.9779873

>>9779870
>platonic realm
No such thing.

>> No.9779875

>>9779873
>t. brainlet
Logic precedes the physical structures we build.

>> No.9779876

>>9779870
I'm not an atheist but I don't believe the platonic realm or consciousness are necessary for logic. It's a physical phenomenon.

>> No.9779881

>>9779876
No, logic precedes physical systems.
You can not build a set of physics that are illogical (and no, superposition are not illogical)

>> No.9779910

>>9779881
Oh, I see your point. I thought you meant the interpretation was from the platonic realm.

>> No.9779954

>>9779881
>You can not build a set of physics that are illogical
Why not?

>> No.9779974

>>9779853
This wasn't an argument in the first place moron

>> No.9780236

>>9779974
>coming back an hour later to write another worthless comment

What's got you rattled

>> No.9780272

>>9779954
I think he means a consistent physics. The ultimate counter-example is a universe where every particle is programmable.

Supposing that this is possible in our universe, then discovering how to program particles would be the holy grail of science and non-ironically equivalent to magic. This is the premise of a few games/anime like BlazBlue.

>> No.9780738

>>9780236
>Coming back two hours later
Oh my

>> No.9781894

without CS math would not exist