Is CS science or math?

Ha. ha.
Mathematics actually steals from CS.
Things like the halting problem, NP complete etc, same way it tries to steal from principles of logic.

CS is definitely distinct from mathematics.

>t. don't know anything about the modern academic landscape in math

you don't understand what math or science are

a science is a study of something that's ultimately governed by natural laws

mathematics are conceptual systems with no definite connection to reality, but are really useful for describing it

bingo
add empiricism to the definition of science and you've got it
math is just a subfield of analytic philosophy

>Mathematics actually steals from CS.
>Literally the entire field of CS came from mathematics
>Nearly all of theoretical CS stems from mathematics
>The halting problem was conceived and proved by mathematicians

You are a very confused user.

What is true is that CS was not a very big field,
say in the time frame of Babbage, or Turing.
So mathematics sort of "appropriated" (stole) various computer science topics.

Obviously mathematics is used a lot in CS as it is in many, many fields.

> The halting problem was conceived and proved by mathematicians
Depends on how you look at it.
But that is really irrelevant, since "pure mathematicians " have made contributions in a lot of different areas of science.

> something that's ultimately governed by natural laws
You mean like switching transistors in a JK flip-flop ?

yeah, that's the science (or engineering) side of computer science. but there are deeper mathy truths which transistors are used to carry out, rather than transistors 'being' cs

>Babbage, or Turing
If you were gonna name some big people in CS to show how math stole from it why did you name two mathematicians of all people.

You sound like one of those people that say the entire realm of physics is just math. In a way it may be. My bank checking account is not a real human thing it's just math.

i'm no physicist, but it seems like much of the field is based on observation of natural occurrences. it's old enough though that much of the science has been settled and the active fields of study are mostly theoretical (read mathematical) with the occasional crucial observation happening.

Physics has a fabric of logic that's based on reality, the field of mathematics doesn't have that pretext which neither adds or subtracts from the field, it's just a basic difference, we use physics to describe reality and our tools are math and reality, physics isn't just math but it's not far from it.

t. Physics student who transferred to CS to eventually work as a Data Scientist (statistician that can use a computer).

> but there are deeper mathy truths
Can you give an example of what you mean ?

algorithms, the formalization of imperative knowledge and pretty much anything else in CS that might be mistaken for math.

or data structures like a binary search tree. yeah, it fits well in hardware but it's also a piece of knowledge that can be utilized outside hardware, like searching for someone's name in the phonebook

> algorithms
Like flow charts with diamond and other shaped bubbles ?
That seems distinct from mathematics.

> formalization of imperative knowledge
This involves the use of computer memory, which is definitely distinct from simple math formulas.

> piece of knowledge that can be utilized outside hardware, like searching for someone's name in the phonebook
Phonebooks are a branch of mathematics ?

Where should I be looking to get a job as an actual computer scientist?

>data structures like a binary search tree
I wonder if you are thinking of numerous mathematical analysis of the use of such a structure, the structure itself seems to belong in the realm of computation.

stop being obtuse, an algorithm isn't flow charts, flow charts describe algorithms. 'mathy' in the sense it shares characteristics of mathematics. namely that it isn't rooted in natural law but is instead a conceptual system.

a computer with memory is useful in 'doing' computer science but not necessary. it may as well be some mechanical system. or your own head.

the thing about the phonebook is an example of how some lesson of cs can be applied so as to do something more efficiently; in the same way geometry helped to build the pyramids but pyramids aren't a "branch of mathematics".

in a way, the scientific method is a program
that's my point, the structure itself can be overlayed on real world problems, but doesn't really "come from" reality

academia

if that's honestly what you think an algorithm is, please leave.

>shares characteristics of mathematics
Fine, but CS is not mathematics.

> isn't rooted in natural law but is instead a conceptual system
So philosophy, logic, learning, intelligence itself, ... etc, are all just synonyms for math ?

would it please you if i said "math-like" instead of "mathy"? is that the part you're taking issue with?

You could do that, but what about logicky-like, or problemsolvingy-like or machine-like.

I guess you could make CS whatever you want !

Depends on the subtopic in question.

>Depends on how you look at it.
No it doesn't. They either did or they didn't, and they did.
>But that is really irrelevant, since "pure mathematicians " have made contributions in a lot of different areas of science.
Huh?

>Mathematics actually steals from CS.
No field steals from another you moron. Progress is a group effort, after all.

The term has so many meanings it's meaningless. To some it means theoretical CS, to some it's programming.

math.upenn.edu/~wilf/AlgoComp.pdf
does this look more like math or science?

See above posts, you can do the same thing with physics and chemistry

>They either did or they didn't, and they did
You could I suppose claim they were mathematicians practicing primordial computer science, which would mean they can technically be called early pioneering Computer Scientists, which indeed they are sometimes called that.

Mathematics routinely and arbitrarily appropriates turf from CS and claims it is within their discipline.

That needs to be recognized for what it is: stealing.

>Mathematics routinely and arbitrarily appropriates turf from CS and claims it is within their discipline.
That's because it is you stupid fuck. They take a topic that relates to computer science, develop it using math, and rightfully claim that this work is within their discipline. That doesn't mean that it isn't computer science, retard. Your field would be nothing if it weren't for mathematicians and their work

Maybe you wouldn't act like such a retard if you understood what a fucking subset is

It is logic, mathematics, and engineering.

Note that "science" has a more general meaning and the meaning of something being scientific. It is often used to denote any field of knowledge with sufficient depth, not explicitly a field that derives itself from the Scientific Method. Just like "theory" in the general sense is applied differently to every day speech and other fields, like mathematics. Theory as a broad term isn't the same as scientific theory. Just as science as a broad term isn't the same as scientific science. Kind of retarded, I know, but that's what language is like.

I don't see how you can divorce math from any of the sciences. Even biology, which my major is, uses a bunch of it.

I don't agree with him but fuck off mate. The people who established Computer Science were not obviously called computer scientist as the field didn't exist back then. You are literally one of those philosophers who claims credit for everything because at one point all scientist were called philosophers.

>fell for the CompSci meme
>graduate
>still don't know how to program
>Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums says STEM degrees are highly valuable
>finance jobs require a business degree or experience
>CompSci degree jobs require me to know how to program
WTF

If you went to learn CS for programming you went to the wrong place, though you are still taught it. So what you're essentially saying:
>i'm a shit student and didn't learn anything
>i can't get jobs

I just want to be a manager and tell my code monkeys what I want from the program.

>Your field would be nothing if it weren't for mathematicians and their work
A lot of fields are like that, yet mathematics
is not quite so arrogant with them.

its the science of applied logic

>Your field would be nothing if it weren't for mathematicians and their work
Your conjecture is presumptuous.
It relies on the idea that early computers were seen as a tool to be used for basic kids arithmetic.
One could also easily imagine a world where analog computers were developed to monitor
mathematically related rates and also used for sophisticated control and feedback systems.

Compare analog TV with modern digital TV for example.
It's a good thing the modern flat screen TV using digital data compression wasn't developed in the early 50's because a bunch of turf conscious arrogant mathematicians would
claim all the fame.

Omg this is so fucking cool.

Words are useless and definitions are oppression yay postmodernism!

what kind of experiments do you do in computer science?

Hardware:
There is a lot of experimenting done to improve the speed/ memory capacity of computer related equipment.

Software:
An example would be you can hypothesize a computer neural net will have the ability to effectively solve a problem or perform a task then through experiments verify the results.

>Hardware:
>There is a lot of experimenting done to improve the speed/ memory capacity of computer related equipment.
EE not CS

>Software:
>An example would be you can hypothesize a computer neural net will have the ability to effectively solve a problem or perform a task then through experiments verify the results.

how is this different from running an experiment to see if mergesort can sort a list of numbers?

> EE not CS
It's a close call, but arguably if the problem that requires EE finessing is directly related to an improvement specific to CS then it can be called CS. EE is kind of analagous to math in that they are both important tools in CS.

> how is this different...
Who said it was ?

>analagous to math in that they are both important tools in CS

Here ye, here ye, all mathematicians. You will immediately stop all attempts to classify CS as a subset of math in order to satisfy your vain megalomaniac desires.
Henceforth mathematics is declared merely a tool of CS to be used, or unceremoniously cast away, purely on the whim of the CS expert.

You do science on libraries to figure out what they do!

That's SA - Software Archeology.

>read SICP

>Will this compile?
>Can I finish this game before it compiles?
>If I get caught playing, can I use the fact that it's compiling as an excuse?

It is math, because it is deductive reasoning, not empirical. Hardware and E.E is definitely science though. Most of the industry programming is neither math or science. Pick related.

>It is math, because it is deductive reasoning
You don't know the difference between logical reasoning and math, so why should we trust this silly meme ?

Please don't say good things about EE. I don't want EE to become the next bandwagon major that all the autists jump to once they fail out of CS or Physics.

The worse the reputation it has the less idiots I have to work with and less job competition.

It is an open question whether math is reducible to logic (see logicism). Not arguing that they are identical. But math is clearly not an empirical study, which is what clearly distinguishes it from natural sciences. CS is much the same.

For some reason it has middle aged dad stigma.

Foundations CS comes from mathematics and physics.

>But math is clearly not an empirical study
Not sure it's that clear.
How can some people say physics is ultimately
math and then others say, no, mathematics is pure abstraction ?

Math actually has a lot of empiricism. Calculus
is pretty meaningless unless connected to real world relationships and problem solving.

Other posters have argued along these lines: CS is "abstract" like math so it's not really a science, but yet it is always connected to the real world in interesting ways much like other sciences.

I agree that mathematical ideas are influenced by observations and the real world, nothing exists in a vacuum. I still think there is something different in methodology.

Science:
> There are "natural laws" which govern the universe.
> By observation we can understand how they might operate.
> We can formulate ideas or models of how these laws work, and test them to see if they correspond with the world.

The verification and ideas are primarily formed from observation, even though the hypothesis construction is pretty abstract.

Math
> There are necessary truths and logical rules that govern them.
> Given the existence of something with certain properties, what logically must follow?
> What patterns exist between properties and logical systems?

Just my thoughts.

The verification, and theory generation are a different style of thinking process.

Similarly CS is a about building abstract models, and logical necessities, even though they usually model something in the real world.

.

Your definition of science seems to be biased towards figuring out some known truth that is there.
Some would also include more creative aspects of science. Scientists often ask What if ? or What if we tried this ?
Take for example materials science. We don't discover nylon fabric in the world and then "figuring it out" - we create it.

Your definition of math seems to forget to mention numbers, which is a primary concern of math, so logicians might allege infringement.
Arguably math is also not actually suppose to be "creative" in the sense above, it is supposed to find rigorous unescapable facts
about numbers and there relationships. Some of the tools used, such as cartesian coordinate graph systems might be a little creative however.

both art also

cs and mathematics in general follow the scientific method to produce an algorithm for predictedable outcomes

EE is actually a little bit difficult though