/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11501083]

CS hate thread - Meme edition

Post your CS hate me-mes

[Anonymous No.11501099]

>>11501083

[Catherine !ttGirlsPl2 No.11501103]

Computer science is fun, why does this board hate it so much? Mathematics is also fun as well and a required course for any computer programmer.

[Anonymous No.11501105]

>>11501083
We have this thread everyday, Everyday we have the same dumbfucks post the same generalizations, everyday we have the same defense against the same points, and then we always have 2-3 people having a long form argument over the course of 4 days. Don't you ever get tired of this? Why do you keep doing this?

[Anonymous No.11501110]

>>11501103
>Mathematics is also fun as well and a required course for any computer programmer.
No, more like
>Mathematics is also fun as well and a required course for computer science.
there are many good actual engineers who work in software, but then there are a majority of programmers are pretty monkey-ish and don't use mathematics to any meaningful degree in their day to day jobs.

[Anonymous No.11501111]

>>11501103
>Mathematics
>A course

CS is not a subject in its own right and the students and faculty of this "subject" are insufferable as is the tech industy as a whole.

[Anonymous No.11501119]

>>11501105
If I can save one lurker from going into the pit of poo that is CS, then the time I spent hating on CS on this anime board is well spent.

[Anonymous No.11501130]

>>11501111
>CS is not a subject in its own right
Yes it absolutely is. It started as a subfield of mathematics, but it has grown in scope and importance rapidly. It was borne out of math and engineering departments, and especially on the theory side, is in fact its own study. How can you read these papers
http://cs.brown.edu/~mph/HerlihyS99/p858-herlihy.pdf
http://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/pubs/pdf/surflow.pdf
https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/DIFGEO-ppm.pdf
http://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/pubs/pdf/dehn.pdf
https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis610/ppm-smi-09.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.03560.pdf
https://www.cse.huji.ac.il/~shais/UnderstandingMachineLearning/understanding-machine-learning-theory-algorithms.pdf
https://cs.nyu.edu/~mohri/mlbook/
http://www.econ.upf.edu/~lugosi/mlss_slt.pdf
http://www.econ.upf.edu/~lugosi/esaimsurvey.pdf
and not think it's its own field of study?
>>11501119
You know nothing about modern CS research.

[Anonymous No.11501138]

>>11501130
>CS
>A subfield of mathematics

Why do you faggots keep repeating this meme??

[Anonymous No.11501141]

>>11501138
>CS
>being related to software
why do you faggots keep repeating this meme??

[Anonymous No.11501146]

>>11501138
lol nice not reading any of the papers, or even skimming them
must be easy to shitpost if you don't know what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.11501157]

>>11501141
Saying CS is math is like saying psychology is science.

[Anonymous No.11501163]

>>11501157
again, you neglect to actually see what CS is. It has no bearing to code or codemonkeying. I know you're shitposting, but this is pretty lame dude

[Anonymous No.11501165]

>>11501146
>http://cs.brown.edu/~mph/HerlihyS99/p858-herlihy.pdf
Math, not CS
>http://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/pubs/pdf/surflow.pdf
Combinatorics, not CS
> https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/DIFGEO-ppm.pdf
math, not CS
....


I don't feel the need to go on.

[Anonymous No.11501172]

>>11501083

Computer is for people

[Anonymous No.11501180]

>>11501165
>math, not CS
>literally all of them are sites for CS researchers and listed as CS topics
Dude why is it when physicists use Lie algebras in physics, they're proper mathematical scientists who are still physicists, but when CS researchers use topology and the gamut of pure mathematics in their research, they're actually 'just mathematicians in disguise!' This is funny especially seeing that many of these people have various undergrad backgrounds, many of them being CS undergrads into TCS researchers using mathematics with the full confidence of any other math PhD.

[Anonymous No.11501184]

>>11501165
>combinatorics, not CS
this has to be bait
>combinatorics different from math
this has to be the biggest bait

Lovasz, one of the most brilliant mathematicians still alive, even credits computer science as the study that legitimized combinatorics in both the mathematical and non mathematical communities at large

[Anonymous No.11501186]

>>11501180
Because physics unlike CS is a proper field on its own.

[Anonymous No.11501191]

>>11501165
>math, not CS
>look at paper
>clearly talking about computation
>clearly talking about networks
Hm, sounds like someone is in denial here.

[Anonymous No.11501196]

>>11501083
Software Engineers have to do it all now goober, from kicad to designing circuits to writing the C. You are the disadvantaged.

[Anonymous No.11501199]

>>11501184
>combinatorics, not CS
True
>combinatorics different from math
Well in the sense that combinatorics is a sub-field of math sure, but it is math.

[Anonymous No.11501202]

>>11501083
Loads of physics and maths and even electrical engineers end up as ORACLE slaves, type in that SQL boys, forget what u learnt at uni

[Anonymous No.11501207]

>>11501199
>True
False.
a large part of combinatorial theory was studied primarily in the context of CS theory. We have so much research now on expander graphs because of CS.

[Anonymous No.11501208]

>>11501186
Its getting your head round a few concepts and applying maths. A software engineer learns more in one month working on something like flight in sims or aircraft instrumentation. Physics degree equals wears a tutu

[Anonymous No.11501213]

>>11501186
but CS is a proper field on its own as well. Again, the study of computation is well grounded in a real phenomenon, and like physics it makes judicious use of mathematics to start talking about its subject. However, unlike physics, computation is incredibly precise mathematically and can be reasoned with pure structures and proofs rather than just modeling. Your reasoning for why one field is proper and why another isn't has no basis in actual fact

[Anonymous No.11501214]

>tfw too stupid for computer science

[Anonymous No.11501215]

>>11501202
that's software dev, not CS

[Anonymous No.11501357]

>>11501111
Computer science is unironically and irrefutably a super category over mathematics.

[Anonymous No.11501366]

>>11501138
CS is a super category ABOVE mathematics

[Anonymous No.11501448]

I'm doing CS right now and enjoying it

[Anonymous No.11502934]

I have a biomed degree by accident and now doing cs

I was interested in AI and wanted to crack the way the brain works so I can develop an AI that mimics this.

Any lab around the world doing this atm?

>look it up

[Anonymous No.11502962]

>>11501083
Anons I'm in sort of a mental crisis right now.
I love computer science very much. I love algorithms, TCS and the mathematics behind it. I'm also relatively good at competitive programming and machine learning. But all my uni projects and assignments require you to have skills like making a website, app etc which I don't like at all. I have to spend a lot of time learning that stuff and thousands of frameworks and technologies involved. Now I admit that these web and app dev skills are very useful for getting jobs and internships but I'm not able to get a grip on it. I don't want to end up getting bad grades for my projects just because my website was uglier and less responsive than the other guy's. Most of you will say do both, but I'm not smart enough to keep up with both the tracks.
What should I do?
t. Computer Engineering sophomore

[Anonymous No.11503048]

>>11502934
look it up

[Anonymous No.11503696]

>>11502962
>But all my uni projects and assignments require you to have skills like making a website, app etc which I don't like at all.
>Now I admit that these web and app dev skills are very useful for getting jobs and internships but I'm not able to get a grip on it.
I'm sorry to hear, but it sounds like your CS program is more focused on basic dev skills than with actual CS. I would say that you should try and skip these classes as much as you can and focus on core TCS and systems classes.
If those classes aren't intense or interesting, I would say it's worth your while to get a math minor instead since that will give you more exposure.
CS undergrad programs tend to be pretty hit or miss as far as quality, so if you need to appeal to math in undergrad, you should feel no qualms if algorithms and the like are your end goal.

[Anonymous No.11503699]

>>11502934
>I was interested in AI and wanted to crack the way the brain works so I can develop an AI that mimics this.
AI researchers by in large are more interested in how to solve problems using learning, on the whole. More general inference systems are seen as either very far off or infeasible given our current developments in theory. So people are less interested in recreating the human brain at the moment (though it's a goal and buzzword that catches a lot of public eye and grants) and more about how to solve abstract problems.

[Anonymous No.11503845]

In 15 years kids will only be learning PhysX in schools because we'll all be living inside VR

[Anonymous No.11503893]

>>11502962
You remind me of myself. Computers are wondrous when they work as they should. Unfortunately, they rarely work as they should. Real-world informatics is shit. One has to spend most of the time finding solution for inane problems with no intellectual value; one rarely finds applications of non-trivial algorithms in practice, etc.

>Most of you will say do both, but I'm not smart enough to keep up with both the tracks.
* Alternate: 1 week on theory and then 1 day on learning real-world garbage.
* Use stimulants to boost your productivity. Read the diagnose criterion for ADHD in the DSM-V. Legally get amphetamine or methylphenidate from a psychiatrist or buy from a classmate.
* I assume you are somewhat of a perfectionist, then you will get stressed that in practice, you *have* to be mediocre because APIs are ambiguous, software has race conditions, etc. Use a SSRI to stop caring about this and bear in mind the phrase “perfect is the enemy of good”.

[Anonymous No.11503922]

>>11503893
>one rarely finds applications of non-trivial algorithms in practice
This is actually untrue and sort of indicative of you relative inexperience with actual algorithms research. I would have believed you if you said complexity theory or even computational topology to some extent, but algorithms by in large is the most practical subfield of theory and is generally followed up with grounded papers and implementation. For example, vEB trees, fusion trees, polynomial multiplication with fast Fourier reduction, ford fulkerson, etc., are all slightly more esoteric theoretical results that have a fuckton of practical nontrivial use.

From your talk about API's and SSRI, I assume you're just a coder or software dev whose ideas about theory and "much algorithms out of reach" come out from not understanding some algorithms in a basic undergrad book. For as much talk as you have about 'the real world" you do not understand just how practical the overwhelming majority of sophisticated algorithms research actually is. Go to your local paper review and spend a few weeks learning.

[Anonymous No.11503928]

>>11501099

I'm an electrical engineer the only thing I learned in 10 ECTS points worth of digital electronics was digital logic, flip flops and VHDL.

[Anonymous No.11504229]

>>11501448
Same. Second year undergrad.
I have to admit though that many of my classmates are retarded autists. It's bad saying it like if I was worth more than them, but they ruin the experience.

[Anonymous No.11504287]

>>11501083

Well, they are kind of related. If you're good at solving mathematical problems, you would also be good at designing algorithms for computer applications. The problem is people who are weak in maths trying to become programmers. They just flood the market with bad coders.

[Anonymous No.11504513]

>>11504287
>Well, they are kind of related. If you're good at solving mathematical problems, you would also be good at designing algorithms for computer applications.
>well, they are kind of related
>kind of
you sound like you haven't read any algorithms papers, much less know what the study actually entails

[Anonymous No.11504536]

>>11504513
nowadays it is hard to figure out what the notion of CS really means. It used to mean what it says. But increasingly more code monkeying has crept into it, and it overlaps with disciplines that are no longer related to science. Maybe there is a point when the original concept should be called Theoretical Computer Science, and the engineering oriented discipline should be called Applied CS.

[Anonymous No.11504654]

>>11504536
That's mostly because there are very few open problems in CS that would be considered "pure" and they're also really hard. People have been forced to move on, find an application area that's interesting, don't forget first principles, and maybe solve an open problem on accident if you're lucky. Also train lots of code monkeys to keep the gravy train flowing.

[Anonymous No.11504668]

>>11504654
There are lots of open problems in "pure" CS. But you are right, they seem hard, because there are enough clever people around that have already solved the easy ones. The reason why there are still some people left who pursue the hard problems is that they are important problems.

[Anonymous No.11504679]

>>11504668
And because they made it into academia at the right time. It's really hard to get funding if you say you want to work with a prof. to solve graph isomorphism.

[Anonymous No.11504706]

>>11504654
>That's mostly because there are very few open problems in CS that would be considered "pure" and they're also really hard
this is plain untrue
>they're also really hard
this is true, but CS theory is one of the most fruitful theoretical subjects out there. There are a lot of great problems that aren't *that bad* and provoke exciting new directions.
>People have been forced to move on
No, people have moved on to other theoretical problems that they can develop a theory for. It's worked really well. Open problems in CS theory are typically not solved by practitioners in software nor applied people.
>>11504668
>The reason why there are still some people left who pursue the hard problems is that they are important problems.
there are both hard and interesting pure problems in CS that have a lot of leads. This is no different from math or theoretical physics, where yes you do encounter hardship, but you'll find a direction sooner than later
>>11504679
>It's really hard to get funding if you say you want to work with a prof. to solve graph isomorphism.
Well here's the thing - a lot of the combinatorial tools aren't sharp enough to address the problems as they are now. We've found in probabilistic algorithms and their theory, there's a demand for measure theoretic approaches now that the theory has matured sufficiently. Similarly, algebraic, topological, and category theoretic approaches are slowly entering the picture as CS matures. It's not that these problems are insurmountable - it's that the research provokes directions that requires you to mature how to talk about CS theory through both the traditional mathematical venues (ie algebra, topology to address structure) and then actually create new mathematics out of them.

This is almost exactly the case of our discrete mathematical / logic definition of the class NP vs. the PCP probabilistic characterization given by Arora. Theory in CS is more than alive.

[Anonymous No.11504712]

>>11504679
The timeline of the development of CS is interesting, I grant you that. Now you mention graph isomophism; this is an extremely interesting main stream problem, because its solution has implications for a lot of other open questions. If you want to get funding, and you are unable to formulate a convincing application on you own, the you should sit down with an expert, and hopefully your supervisor will agree to act as such, to outline a research program. Somehow the program has to explain both how this problem is extremely tough, in that hundreds if not thousands of researchers have already worked on it without finding a solution. But you can convincingly argue that your idea at least contributes to a possible solution, or gives a substantiated amount of evidence.

[Anonymous No.11504715]

>>11504679
But it is also okay if all you want to do is whine about how others have it easier than you. Then /sci/ is pretty perfect.

[Anonymous No.11504718]

>>11504679
working with a prof to solve graph isomorphism in undergrad? That sounds foolish, especially if you don't have a very solid combinatorial and algebraic background.
If you're a grad, you won't get funding unless you have a very good direction. If this is the case, why don't you put the grant application under developing these tools for other areas and have the lead on graph isomorphism be the cherry on top?

[Anonymous No.11504726]

>>11504712
>>11504715
>>11504718
I'm just speaking to my experience as a grad. I came back to school wanting to work with a prof. on computational models, but I ended up getting pushed into intersecting application areas. It's mostly my own fault and I still wish I hadn't fallen for it. Although my department really only has one prof. anymore who deals in this space and I'm not sure how much longer he'll be in it for.

[Anonymous No.11504747]

>>11504706
>Open problems in CS theory are typically not solved by practitioners in software nor applied people.
Hedetniemis' problem comes to mind, which is essentially just a question about how in a particularly simple situation to schedule something like assigning time slots to operators that have to perform specific duties. This seemingly purely algorithmic question got solved very recently, I believe in 2019, by a russian mathematician Shitov, using arguments that are far from anything having to do with how to write a computer program. My good friend Xuding Zhu posted a video on youtube which explains the idea. Xuding is stuck on Taiwan right now and cannot return to his home in China soon.

[Anonymous No.11504751]

>>11501366
99% of math isnt computable

[Anonymous No.11504768]

>>11504747
>Hedetniemis' problem
Hedetniemi's conjecture has a pure graph theoretic formulation. I don't see how this refutes that CS theory problems aren't solved by non theorists - shitov is a mathematician

[Anonymous No.11504774]

>>11504751
Please mention a fact in math that is not computable.

[Anonymous No.11504777]

>>11504751
it's not necessarily constructible vs non constructible - the two worlds have classically been described as an insanely tall yet thin tower of stacked rooms vs a very fat and wide yet short building. However, it's not hard to see how these worlds collide when you study areas like computable analysis or anything from the Brouwer school (constructible measure comes to mind)

[Anonymous No.11504782]

>>11504751
the implication you're trying to walk towards is that having some fundamental limitations on reasoning discredits the field - but this is sort of absurd, given that we already have Gödel's incompleteness to tell us the limits of our mathematical reasoning. Despite the problems this brings up with, say, continuum hypothesis, mathematics remains unfettered by this development.
In this way, it's clear that CS and mathematics are fields that are intertwined with each other, and any preconceived notions of computable vs noncomputable don't actually change this fact. Exactly how would we encounter such a limitation when doing both activities?

[Anonymous No.11504789]

>>11504768
Yes of course. I did not say that I disagreed with you. If you look at solutions to specific problems in the area of CS then they tend to be highly mathematically sophisticated. Everyone who is informed agrees on this. Unfortunately the average attendance to /sci/ is anything but informed, so it has to be expressed clearly.

[Anonymous No.11504822]

>>11504768
>Hedetniemi's conjecture has a pure graph theoretic formulation. I don't see how this refutes that CS theory problems aren't solved by non theorists
On re-reading this accumulated sequence of negations, I should admit that yes, we cannot deny that some CS theory problems may get solved by "non-theorists". But that has nothing to do with this particular case.

[Anonymous No.11505255]

>>11504536
Some schools have already split the applied stuff into a "software engineering" degree

[Anonymous No.11505330]

I disagree, though there is a large spectrum for what is being considered as "computer science" in order to pump up those minority and gender numbers. Plus computer science is often preferred by the first world so you don't have to deal with dangerous industrial and reproductive hazards you might run into in an actual science. However computer science is an extension of math, built on top of electrical engineering.

[Anonymous No.11505352]

The problem with CS is that every Tom, Dick, and Shaniqua thinks they can learn enough stuff in 4 months to be a competent developer. It is such a diluted field compared to others.

[Anonymous No.11505376]

get off my board

[Anonymous No.11505381]

>>11501180
>Dude why is it when physicists use Lie algebras in physics, they're proper mathematical scientists who are still physicists
Because physicists are intelligent, and recognized as such. respect is offered involuntarily you fucking faggot. they aren't mathematicians either and mathematicians don't see mathematical phsyicists as mathematicians, physicists don't see mathematicians as physicists even when they collaborate. scientists and mathematicians are comfortable being segregated into their own disciplines because regardless the respect they're offered is involutnary and earned by merit and achievement not by salary or by leaning on the shock and awe of computational fire power. People give social status to CSfags because they earn 6 figures and the average person knows so little physics and math that any semblance of technical prowess and computer savvy is considered valuable to the public. you are faced with the massive divide in ability and achievement inherent in the sciences and mathematics versus the unending adoration of the idiotic innumerate public. You are upset about this because you want respect from people whose lives and skills you envy, whose titles you covet, whose status you envision usurping. Its simple spite, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.11505507]

>>11501357
This.
>Also
If you didn't go to a shit school you basically have a CS degree and a Minor in math. CS should be both hardware, software, theory, AI philosophy... most people are calling garbage schools churning out coders: that isn't computer science.

...Nevermind that universities are liberal shitholes that hate actual science--so I can also see hostility to people good at logic from those who make a living on having none.

[Anonymous No.11505695]

>>11505381
>Because physicists are intelligent
source required
> mathematicians don't see mathematical phsyicists as mathematicians
this is straight up false though. Mathematical physicists:
1) by in large are employed in the math departments
2) publish in mathematical physics journals, which are written in proposition-proof-lemma style of regular mathematics papers.
This idea that mathematical physicists aren't mathematicians shows you're legitimately full of shit. The most meaningful difference between theoretical physics and mathematical physics comes down to the departments and rigor in which they are studied - and mathematical physics is absolutely the mathematically rigorous setting here.
>scientists and mathematicians are comfortable being segregated into their own disciplines because regardless
myriads of mathematicians and scientists have joint appointments in various departments. I know a math professor who has a joint appointment in the aerospace engineering department. I know a physics professor who has a joint appointment in the math department. I know a CS professor who has a joint appointment in the math department.
These people, unlike your clear undergrad-tier hangups, do not give a shit about their title. They consider themselves researchers and study whatever helps them advance the topics they're interested in.
> People give social status to CSfags because they earn 6 figures
you literally think muh software devs and engies are CSfags? You legitimately have zero idea about what you're criticizing. CS researchers in PhD programs have the same process as mathfags and physicsfags - that is, paper crunch and low salaries.
> the average person knows so little physics and math that any semblance of technical prowess and computer savvy is considered valuable to the public
You're as stupid as the masses if CS to you is codemonkeying and 'computer prowess'

[Anonymous No.11505716]

>>11505381
>>11505695
(cont)
> you are faced with the massive divide in ability and achievement inherent in the sciences and mathematics versus the unending adoration of the idiotic innumerate public
No, the papers and results speak for themselves. You need only to point to >>11501130 to see the abilities of CS researchers. What's actually fairly irritating is that you willingly reject excellent research, even by traditionally rigorous standards in mathematics and science, simply because it has the label of CS on it. You've judged these results because you've decided you wanted to denigrate these people - and if you know anything about grants, you're probably salty that CS theory ends up getting a lot of grant money given how lucrative the theory is for both CS and mathematics.
>You are upset about this because you want respect from people whose lives and skills you envy, whose titles you covet, whose status you envision usurping. Its simple spite, nothing more.
lol not at all. I did undergrad in math and do research papers with math professors in grad now. What I can tell about you is that you are the type that calls undergrads by their intended majors - that is, you consider physicsand math majors to be physicists and mathematicians, because you seem to call undergrads in CS (ie the people who are most likely to codemonkey) computer scientists. However, you also compare these people to PhD holders in research...so your idea of the computer scientist is someone who writes code at a terminal vs a scientist who does academic research...when the computer scientist is an academic who does research, not one who writes code to any capacity. These activities are mostly theorems on blackboards, simulacra, design, etc.. So you intentionally dilute the comparison by selecting the industry monkey in place of the computer scientist in order to set up the punchline that they're not researchers.
You're either not arguing in good faith, or you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.11505717]

>>11505352
Computer science and being a developer are two different venues.

[Anonymous No.11505853]

>>11503699
Thanks anon
Can't help with that curiosity.

I'll keep exploring

[Anonymous No.11506438]

lmao all this broke ass niggers living in their mothers basement, playing with cells or some shit lmao
imagine thinking that software engineering is even marginally related to computer science lmao niggas lmao
imagine ignoring the fact that computer science is what computer scientists do and attaching arbitrary and imprecise definitions to the term to justify your inferiority complex because you have no money lmao

[Anonymous No.11506448]

>>11501083
Why do these threads make people seethe, I don't even hate CS but I love these threads cause of how mad the CS students in them are.

[Anonymous No.11506450]

>>11506448
nobody here is 'mad'
it's mostly baiting both ways and intentionally being obtuse.

[Anonymous No.11506503]

:( but I like CS. I get a generous stipend, go to cool conferences, and work with interesting people solving interesting problems. If CS is a meme it's a good one.

[Anonymous No.11506516]

anyone that chooses computer science over mathematics or physics does so because those fields are more challenging and he realises his brainlet ways
computer science is a tool, not an end
it's fine that some people are brainlets, but it's not fine when they don't recognize their brainletness
accept being the untermensch and no one will hate you anymore

[Anonymous No.11506530]

>>11506516
See
>>11505716
anybody who thinks computer science's goals or methods are to 'better computers as tools' has no idea what the fuck they're talking about and generally refer to codemonkying as CS.
Again, how can you deny CS is by in large a field of mathematics after reading >>11501130

[Anonymous No.11507223]

>>11506516
or they would rather work in industry right away.