Yeah.. I can sit here in my apartment, at noob with a piece of paper and pen
and work on the hardest comp sci problem.. just relaxing.. no computer needed, no proofs needed, no textbooks.. just a mind
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-17 14:17
btw im trying to prove P=NP
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-17 14:23
UR A NOOB LOL
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-17 14:27
:(
Anyone who hasnt tested or thought a lot about the P=NP problem is missing out on of the true beauties of existence
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-17 14:30
Computer science has as much to do with computers as astronomy has to do with telescopes.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-17 14:34
Yes I dont have a degree.. or tbh much programming experience
Although I've read sicp.. and gotten pretty deep into math
Nothing is as awesome as P=NP.. Im pretty sure it's true but the solution is so insanely elegant. It's almost like solving P=NP is NP complete and the one answer requires almost like a an origami like original answer
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-17 14:34
The major differences between European and American CS are that American CS is more machine-oriented, less mathematical, more closely linked to application areas, more quantitative and more willing to absorb industrial products in its curriculum. For most of these differences there are perfect historical explanations, many of which reflect the general cultural differences between the two continents, but for CS we have also to take into account the special circumstance that due to the post-war situation, American CS emerged a decade earlier, for instance at the time when design, production, maintenance and reliability of the hardware were still causes for major concern. The names of the early professional societies are in this respect revealing: the "Association for Computing Machinery" and the "British Computer Society". And so are the names of the scientific discipline and the academic departments: in the US, CS is short for Computer Science, in Europe it is short for Computing Science.
Yeah.. I can sit here in my apartment, at noob with a piece of paper and pen
and work on the hardest mathematics problem.. just relaxing.. no computer needed, no lisp needed, no textbooks.. just a mind
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-18 21:10
>>7
get out e. dickstrap. i actually love you <3 ;3
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-18 21:32
>>19
But you still need to have mastered thousands of years of mathematics knowledge; computer science doesn't have all that overhead for you to worry about.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-19 11:46
>>1 no proofs needed
You'll need a proof if you want to convince anyone else that P = NP, especially since most computer scientists expect P != NP.
If it's proven that P != NP, then we can just move on. Nothing interesting would be left.
If it's proven that P = NP, and a polynomial algorithm to solve an NP problem is created to demonstrate it, then shit changes radically. Many previously intractable problems suddenly come well within the realm of practicality.
The last possibility is that P = NP is proven, but no actual algorithm is given (i.e. it's proven with a bunch of mathematics, maybe perhaps a proof by contradiction). This would be the most interesting solution, as there would still need to be more work to actually find a polynomial solution to an NP problem.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-19 11:52
It may be such a fact that P=NP but the algorithms require beyond human intelligence to comprehend. The Matrix has you, Anon.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-19 12:55
Can't a quantum computer be a model of a non-deterministic Turing machine? We could then still find solutions to FNP-hard problems in polynomial time.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-19 13:24
>>24
It's currently unknown whether or not a quantum computer is equivalent to a non-deterministic Turing machine, but most of those doing the research think that it is not. Instead, there's another complexity class (BQP) for problems with a quantum solution in (bounded) polynomial time. BQP is thought to encompass *some* NP problems as well as a few outside-NP problems, though nothing has been proven yet.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-19 13:29
>>25
It's only because our reptilian overlords don't want us thinking we can crack their RSAs.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-19 15:43
>>26
>It's only because our machine overlords don't want us thinking we can crack their RSAs.
FTFY
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-19 16:19
>>7
I'm a European and in this country it's referred to as computer science as well. Can't speak for the rest of Europe, but at least not all of Europe refer to it as computing science.
>>28
This [i]was[i] true when Dijkstra wrote it, I doubt anyone calls it computing science anymore. Computing, in Britain anyway, refers to a shitty class where they taught me important life skills like how to use Office.