Theory A vs Theory B

[Anonymous No.12279529]

For all the CS guys here, do you prefer Theory A or Theory B? Which do you find harder? Which is funner? I personally prefer Theory B but I'd like here some other anons opinions. For those who don't know, Theory A is Algorithms and Computation complexity, Theory B is semantics and logic.

[Anonymous No.12279561]

Stop making op words, anon.

[Anonymous No.12281326]

>>12279561
I didn't make up a single word lol

[Anonymous No.12281515]

>>12279529
>Theory A is Algorithms and Computation complexity, Theory B is semantics and logic.
I've honestly never heard referred to them this way. I guess Theory A was harder, it's been a while though.

[Anonymous No.12282328]

>>12279529
Uhh it’s hard to say. I like complexity, but I’m a big fan of structure and theory building mathematics than I am pure combinatorics and problem solving. So I find a lot of the complexity theory about characterizing novel problems in algebra and topology interesting...but naturally I start shifting to logic because logic is unreasonably good at letting us understand computation as and involving higher mathematics. So naturally I feel like my interests are somewhere between A and B.
>which is funner?
Not to shit on theory A, but I just don’t give a fuck about a lot of the flavor of the year STOC and FOCS algorithms papers - there are a lot of interesting algorithms papers, especially the ones involving functional analysis and higher mathematics in general, but I find most algorithms papers to be sort of boring as far as their content and math. They’re important, but they’re not necessarily what I care about.
>which is harder
They’re both pretty difficult. Theory A had geometric complexity, which I adore and think is a sleeper candidate for one of the hardest fields of *mathematics* out there period. On the other hand, the research into HoTT and domain theory from Theory B is also hard in almost the same way that topology is hard - and that’s even before you’ve gotten any results about computation (like the distributes computability thesis).

I wish older computer scientists at large though wouldn’t be so averse to higher mathematics. The younger generation seems to be advancing the maturity of this field forward rapidly though, and CS is now a topic rich with mathematical flavor

[Anonymous No.12282690]

>>12282328
>geometric complexity, which I adore and think is a sleeper candidate for one of the hardest fields
is it? I mean the people who came up with it did so with the goal to solve p vs np. So I'd expect it to be hard.

>The younger generation seems to be advancing the maturity of this field forward rapidly though
I think that has it's roots in applied work though. When CS was starting to grow combinatorics, logic, lots of discrete math in general was needed and that is starting to change.

[Anonymous No.12282829]

>>12282690
>is it? I mean the people who came up with it did so with the goal to solve p vs np. So I'd expect it to be hard.
It's really tough. It's not an exaggeration that you need to know way more math than even just algebraic geometry and representation theory to even get far. You really need a lot of algebra, a lot of topology, a lot of combinatorics, a more than a decent amount of analysis, etc etc.
>I think that has it's roots in applied work though
What, the maturity of the field, or the fact that there's a lot of nondiscrete math in CS? I'm interested in the parts of CS theory, both its fundamental theory and applications of the theory, that are nondiscrete and closer to "traditional" math.
> When CS was starting to grow combinatorics, logic, lots of discrete math in general was needed and that is starting to change.
I'd say it's still needed, but I think that more and more math is starting to be added to the core. What do you think?

[Anonymous No.12282830]

>>12279561
Theory A and Theory B are well known terms in the theoretical computer science research community. Theory B is also referred to sardonically as Eurotheory

[Anonymous No.12283326]

>>12279529
All of TCS is broadly interesting, and how few posts this thread is getting speaks to how many normies and undergrads who know absolutely nothing about CS roam this board

[Anonymous No.12283420]

Where does category theory and stuff like realizability topoi fit in?

[Anonymous No.12283633]

>>12283420
mostly Theory B

[Anonymous No.12283932]

>>12282829
>I'd say it's still needed, but I think that more and more math is starting to be added to the core. What do you think?
I'm not really sure how much will be added to the core curriculum, just because there's so many CS specializations and fields now where the required math varies widely.

I guess the way I formulated it was kinda of unclear. I think part of the reason that a lot of CS theory was dominated by discrete math was because discrete math was what was dominant in the applied side and so it's what most undergrads were taught, rather than merely because it was the math required to solve CS theory problems. Now of course all of that it still important, but there's definitely a shift right now, whereas discrete math used to be the focus it's more equal now. Linear Algebra and Calculus are becoming more important as tools in a standard CS curriculum. The point I just wanted to make was that this "bottom up" effect made more traditional math seep into every aspect of CS that could made use of it and especially into niches that attract mathematically inclined people anyway like theory

[Anonymous No.12283950]

>>12283932
That's fair, and I largely agree. I'm happy that more mathematics that the rest of mathematical stem is familiar with is becoming more common in CS, but I'm also happy to see theoretical CS attract more mathematics in general. That being said, do you feel like there's a bit of pushback from the 'old guard' against this? Do you feel like there's a culture among a decently sized group, if not the majority, of computer scientists who really don't want continuous and other forms of pure mathematics to become part of the theory? That was a bit of the implication I got when I looked for opinions on geometric complexity theory.

[Not math and not science No.12283955]

>>12283326
It’s just a gay thread for insecure pseuds lol, if you wanted to do math why didn’t you do mathematics? Seems like a strange way to cope tbqhdesufam

[Anonymous No.12283984]

>>12283950
my impression is less of an active pushback, rather than that they themselves don't want to make a shift, which in turn obviously influences what kind of research positions are available to grad students.

[Anonymous No.12284128]

>>12279529
Theory C, paying an autistic retard to do all that for me while I collect 90% of the contract proceeds as the nepotistic middle man. I make phone calls and sign dumb papers minimum wage secretary arranged while you do all the work, nigger. Deal with it goy, we own you.

[Anonymous No.12284192]

>>12283955
>why didn't you do mathematics
But anon, I largely do math. I double majored in math and CS, and then did theoretical CS because of the professors I wanted to work with. I just end up getting larger research grants and can still get the regular math funding ;^)

[Anonymous No.12284206]

>>12283984
Yeah, you're probably right. Clearly there are people who don't do this, like Mulmuley, Ikenmeyer, etc etc., but I just had some doubts. CS researchers are by no mean stupid, but sometimes it feels like some of them can be shortsighted or averse to nondiscrete theory. That number is getting smaller though.

[Anonymous No.12284213]

>>12284128
>paying an autistic retard to do all that for me
>Deal with it goy, we own you.
Doubt it lol, you have no use for theory. You do own all your codemonkeys though

[Anonymous No.12284218]

>>12284128
Go back to your other thread, no one cares LARPer

[Anonymous No.12284264]

>>12282328
>I wish older computer scientists at large though wouldn’t be so averse to higher mathematics.
Are they? That has not been my experience at all. The old crowd is probably less familiar with continuous mathematics for the simple reason that it's less obviously applicable to computer science (the links are much less direct, and a fairly recent innovation), but I don't think I have seen any hint of people disliking it, no matter the age. As for higher mathematics, that has been part of theoretical computer science since at least the 70s, just not so much the continuous part of it.