Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-8081-120121-

Computer Science is the purest science

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 16:08

It's the only system that can use itself to prove itself

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 16:10

>>1
Prove my halting anus.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 16:11

Computer Science is neither about computers nor is it about science.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 16:19

>>3
more deceiving then the devil

more worthless than religion


really certs can prove you are more competent than a fucking bs ESPECIALLY ms in Comp Sci

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 16:21

>>3
Well it certainly isn't about magic. It really depends on your definition of science. Some define science as the study of the natural work. Computer science is similar to physics and electrical engineering in that it's really just applied mathematics. The difference is that the mathematics that are applied to computer science is not mandated by nature.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 17:08

>>4
>implying being A+ certified makes you more competent than holding an MS in comp sci

butthurt-poorfag-who-works-at-geek-squad detected!

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 18:04

>>5
Well it certainly isn't about magic.
http://www.newspells.com/gaylovespells.htm

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 18:22

>>6
i didn't know you hippies got wifi in your tents over at wall street

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 19:29

>>8
derp, we got 3G ipads

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 22:10

>>5
CS is most certainly about magic. Inside the computer live abstract data/instruction things that can be considered spirits. We as program writers conjure up these spirits by writing spells. In effect, we are wizards who conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 22:25

Dubs my dubs

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 22:42

>>10
YOU IN THERE PUT YOUR HANDS ON YOUR HEAD AND BACK SLOWLY AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER.
JUST LEAVE THE CRACK PIPE ON THE DESK, THANK YOU

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 22:56

>>10
whoh man, i think your done...

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-28 23:35

Can't logic and mathematics technically be used to prove themselves?

Isn't computer science an applied combination of logic and mathematics?

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-29 6:31

>>14
Gödel's incompleteness theorems

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-29 6:53

>>14
this entire thread is shit, don't waste your breath.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-29 6:53

CS is a branch of mathematics AND a branch of engineering.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-29 8:21

>>15
once we hit the singularity those theorems will be obsolete, and it'll be the golden era of CS

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-29 10:04

>>18
But not for us, for AIs.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-29 18:44

>>19
Why not? Just become a substrate independent mind. Also, Godel's incompleteness theoremes will still apply, but their implications aren't as grim as some people think.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-29 19:01

>not majoring in math

isshydt

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-29 19:13

As The Abelson mentioned in his famous lecture, Computer Science is a rotten name for the field, as we don't really fully understand yet what we're trying to do yet.

I believe in future generations, whatever becomes of Computer Science, and computation in general, will be regarded as the most important and fundamental of fields, more fundamental than physics or mathematics. After all, the Universe is starting to look far more computational in nature than anything else, and mathematics is merely a fuzzy Human language that captures abstract declarative concepts from the computational processes of our own minds, which themselves have emerged from the computational chaos of the Universe over the millennia. The only reason there appear to be mathematical truths is because there are computational truths.

Mathematicians are the ones following a religion and are the ones unable to see the forest for the trees.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-29 19:19

>>14
No, see >>22

Mathematics, and the sub-field of logic, is a distillation of computation. Without our computational minds to interpret mathematics, to give the abstract mathematical objects meaning and semantics and apply the rules that govern transformations and relationships, it is nothing but useless scribbles.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-29 19:31

>>22
mathematics is merely a fuzzy Human language
syntax-hating lispfag detected

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-29 19:57

>>22-23
Computation is still basically equivalent to Peano Arithmetic, or expressible in it. We cannot prove PA is consistent, but it's a very likely bet that it is.
We cannot say anything about (the physical existence or their consistency of) infinitary non-computable objects such as real numbers, hypercomputation, various set theories and ordinals higher than Aleph Null. The only thing we know as absolute is computation (if Church-Turing thesis is correct, which we cannot know, no more than we can know of PA's consistency).
>>24
It's true, but a lot of mathematics can be encoded exactly and verified using a theorem prover. I also don't see what this ha to do with Lisp (I'm not >>22), despite that I am a Lisper.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-29 23:59

Computer Science is an accident created by the typewriter businesses when they hired logicians to make the government's big calculator thing work correctly; all while pouring the foundation of the academic discipline from the seeds of Bourbakian mathematics.

From that till now CS is a diverse hydra that belongs nowhere, yet has features ranging from math to applied monkey coding. When it is ``threatened'' by external and internal perception the discipline pretends the code monkey part isn't there, or re-frames everything as some architecture astronaut-ism, or ivory tower-ism by pretending it is almost pure math.

Dijkstra worked his ass off to make the ``programmer'' title fashionable, but some people have insecurities of being even close to the code like they are untrained labor or something. The most important books that define the field CONTAIN CODE NUFF SAID.

Therefore, Computer Science is 'computer-science not '(computer science).

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-30 3:20

>>25
You're stuck in old perspective of viewings such that mathematics should form the foundation of everything.

It's because you think nature operates on some different set of rules aside from computation at the most fundamental of levels. This is not true. See the Holographic Principle and the AdS/CFT Correspondence. Once you accept that the Universe is capable of at least Universal Quantum Computation, and thus simulating any other Universal Quantum or Turing equivalent machine (if the Universe wasn't, it would be impossible to build our modern Von Neumann/Register machines), everything else follows.

Mammalian brains are nothing more than emergent, vastly complex computational networks. Peano Arithmetic doesn't mean anything in the abstract sense without a human mind (or non-human mind with similar capabilities), or capable computational device to interpret and reason about it. That doesn't mean Peano Arithmetic is nonsense, it's just merely an illusion, a facet of the underlying computatiob of our own deliberative thought processes. That's why it appears that computation is equivalent to Peano Arithmetic, or rather, it should be stated that Peano Arithmetic is equivalent to computation.

I agree with the rest of what you say, the reason we can recognize and reason about things like infinity, non-computable reals, etc. is because we have constructed different rules and axioms (hint: algorithms) when thinking about them. There's a lot of implicit piece-wise logic going on. It's quite evident when you look at the source code for theorem provers and equation solvers, for example.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-30 4:09

>>27
You're stuck in old perspective of viewings such that mathematics should form the foundation of everything.
In a way, but PA and computation are expressible in each other, thus I consider computation the absolute minimum (along with logic) of math that is likely 'true' (consistent, physically realizable, if not equivalent, if Physical Church Turing Thesis (PCCT) is true). I have no idea if non-computable math (uncountable ordinals, real numbers, ...) makes sense or is physically realizable.
In a way, I don't think our thinking is too different, so I'll just list my current positions:
- 90% confidence in PA being true, and thus computational processes operating on unbounded, but finite naturals make sense (an ultrafinitist will insist a bound exists, while I think the induction schema makes sense and while any machine can have bounds, there can always exist a machine with higher bounds than any you've previously considered (why am I even thinking about this? if PCCT is true, you have to consider a Computational Universe Hypothesis(CUH) which includes the set of all computational universes (similar to Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis/Ultimate Ensemble, but restricted to discrete/computable math)).
- 30% confidence of infinitary set theories, hypercomputation making sense/being physically realiziable, which is to say that I don't think it is and I would be mildly surprised if it turns out it is the case (but it's impossible for us to ever tell apart a computational universe from a non-computational universe because we ourselves are quite finite and our substitution level is presumably quite high (that is, if you were to perform a functional replacement of one's own brain cells, you would become able a digital abstraction which would function more or less the same as our biological brain, to put it more simply, I conjecture that our brains do not exploit any hypercomputational processes (if our universe would have such properties(unlikely)) and thus such a substitution would work)). Penrose would assign a much higher probability to this - in a way, his hypothesis "solves" one problem by making it intractable (when considering antorphic reasoning within the CUH, there's the "White Rabbit" problem, or why our history appears so consistent; what is the probability that one would find oneselves experiencing this particular moment, in this particular universe? what are the totality of structures that support oneself and why is our past/feature so lawful?)
- If CUH is true, 35% confidence in the set of computational universes being finite, that is, while each universe can be finite, the set of all universes cannot, this is because I consider mathematical induction schema axiom valid (a ultrafinitist would assign a much higher confidence to this, they may also believe in a single universe, or merely refuse to think about whatever meta-rules the universe is based on).

Name: >>28 2011-10-30 4:10

s/feature/future/

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-30 4:28

>>26
Simple additive/subtractive arithmetic aside, Mathematics is an accident that occurred roughly around 3000 BCE when ancient Babylonian and Egyptian Kings and landlords hired a bunch of priests to develop a mechanism by which the boundaries of a plot of land could be precisely determined so as to remedy ownership disputes, even in the face of the seasonal floods that caused the landscape to change due to erosion; all the while pouring the foundation of the academic discipline from the seeds of religious superstition.

From then till the advent of the the Classical Greek period in 400 BCE, a total of some 2600 years, the field of Mathemetics remained a diverse hydra that belonged nowhere, yet had features ranging from elementary algebra to applied monkey measuring. When it was ``threatened'' by external and internal perception the discipline pretended the measure-monkey part wasn't there, or re-framed everything as some divine theism, or granite pyramid-ism by pretending it was the will of the gods.

Euclid worked his ass off to make the ``mathematician'' title fashionable, but still some people had insecurities of being even close to the formulae as if it would invoke the wrath of Hades himself! The most important scrolls and tablets that defined the field at the time CONTAINED FORMULAE NUFF SAID.

Eventually, after many further centuries of strife and struggle, most of humanity got over it. It was only then that the field, originally mistaken to be 'γεω-μετρία, but in reality `(γεω μετρία) (or `(geo metria), or `(Earth measurement)) evolved to take on the modern catch-all name 'mathematics.

Moral of the story: Humanity still needs to get over the insecurity of dealing with computation and recognize the field for what it truly is. This includes you.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-30 6:15

>>26
>>27
>>28
>>30
you're very stupid

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-30 6:20

>>31
Going for the ad-hominem against multiple posters without even giving a valid argument against their posts.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-30 9:45

>>31
math/physics/biology major detected!

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-30 11:12

>>32
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-30 11:25

>>28
I see, so we're pretty much on the same page, just slightly differing yet mostly isomorphic viewpoints.

I think it will be interesting to see the look on the faces of those who are opposed to the idea that human brain are nothing more than computational machines in the next decade or so once we succeed at fully simulating a human brain.

I'm a little worried also about the ethical ramifications of doing this, I mean, if I were the simulated mind, I don't think I would fancy having my simulated environment changed and parts of mind altered (which might actually be very painful) to monitor the underlying results of doing so. But I suppose it's for the greater good of all of humanity.

Perhaps we should elect >>31 as the candidate to have his brain scanned so he can be tortured for eternity in a simulated hell.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-30 12:19

>>33
oh look its this guy ... again

Name: HAXUS THE WISE 2011-10-30 12:28

>>32
No one from [sppoiler]/praugue[/spoiler] understands debate logic and rule anyways so you are wating your "breath" as it were.

There are a lot of Master Debaters in there however...

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-30 16:15

>>35
(which might actually be very painful)
You probably won't remember it (as the final simulation is unlikely to have the temporary modifications that were used to tweak their models/implementation), but the painful experiences would exist, even if only for a limited amount of time and only to be forgotten afterwards.

There's actually quite a few other problems that might arise when we achieve substrate independence, both ethical and legal problems (how to handle multiplicity (forking instances of oneself), what about identity and legal ownership?, and trivially nasty stuff like experimenting on a SIM(substrate independent mind) without its consent). Even so, what we stand to gain by getting to SIM dwarfs what we stand to lose. Among the gains could be: increasing subjective experience speed by orders of magnitude given appropriately specialized hardware to implement a brain, efficiency gains/cost lowering (for supporting a life), multiplicity/parallelization (forking copies of oneself to do work much faster), after a while, it might even be possible to invent various forms of "telepathic" communication (not trivially accessible just by getting to SIM, but possible given enough work), various interesting modifications (think about adding extra sensory pathways, removing some useless biological functionalities that one does not want(now that they are no longer biological, controlling moods/emotions much more exactly than current rough psych medications, likely ability to fix various mental illnesses (especially those rooted in biology), VR environments much less restricted than real ones, likely the ability of realtime decoding of various mental processes (for example, recording one's own dreams or imagination, internal voice might be possible - they can already do some of this inexactly by only using fMRI and statistical methods, think what they could do if they had access to all the internal states of one's brain), ability to test the Computational Multiverse Hypothesis (this is potentially troublesome if true, but also the things one stands to gain from this are immense, I could elaborate what practical benefits this would have, but it would be too long to include in this small margin, instead I'll just recommend you read "Permutation City" for an example of how one could test this hypothesis if SIMs are possible), likely many others I'm overlooking right now.

Also partially relevant, to your idea/fears is this novel: http://sifter.org/~simon/AfterLife/

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-31 18:17

is computer science the newest science?

by calling it the "purest" science, are you >implying that all the other sciences (including the soft ones like biology and chemistry) are merely subset of computer science?

if so, what is computer science the subset of (aka, what will be the next ``science'')?

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-31 18:20

>>39
Computer Science Science, or CSS. So, web development.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-31 18:24

>>39
>implying that all the other sciences (including the soft ones like biology and chemistry) are irrelevant?

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-31 18:56

>>41
Go back to /g/.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-31 19:30

>>39
quantum computer physics

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-31 20:48

>>42
noobfag

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 4:28

Gödel has proven you wrong OP.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 8:53

>>45
godel is about math (peano arithmetic) not computers (turing complete)

Name: >>2 2011-11-01 10:16

>>46 HALT MY ANUS, SCRUB.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 10:41

>>39
Logic, math, philosophy.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 11:57

>>47
But we can't know!

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 14:14

>>49
No, the system computing it can't know.
We, the almighty observers, can.

Therefore man is not a machine.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 14:54

>>49,50 The fuck you two are talking about?

First, Goedel's Incompleteness theorems mirror the Halting problem, it's basically the same fundamental thing seen from two different angles, and not even that different anyway.

Second, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver#Exact_values_and_lower_bounds_for_some_S.28n.2C_m.29_and_.CE.A3.28n.2C_m.29 , -- now tell me about your super-algorithmic powers, scrubs.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 15:02

>>50

(if (= (rand) 0) (let loop () (loop)) #t)
rand is a true random number generator. Will this code halt?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 15:40

Solution: Every prog will halt because Windows needs to reboot to install important ANUS security updates.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 16:53

>>52
True random sources are not computable. You might as well prompt for input and choose whether or not to halt on that. This has nothing to do with the halting problem.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 17:27

>>54
I realized that after posting >>52 and felt ashamed.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 17:31

Solution: Every program will halt because every system will halt.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 17:52

>>56
The system can't halt if a program is still running.

Name: VIPPER 2011-11-01 18:39

>>55
You should feel haxed instead.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 21:31

>>58
No, /prog/ has solved the Haxing Problem.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-01 21:35

>>59
Quality post.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-02 15:10

`
>implying implications implicitly implied

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-02 15:31

>>54
No need to compute them when you have /dev/random.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-02 16:03

The only system that won't halt is a system that can counter any situation, because an infinite random walk will cross every point an infinite amount of times.
The random walk need not be "truly random", or even Turing-complete. All it needs to do is survive.
I learned this from Neon Genesis Evangelion, the best anime of our time.

Therefore the halting problem is essentially "can I survive any situation?". Gödel says that you can't tell that by formal logic.
Therefore you need transcendental logic. Maybe a quantum computer will be able to solve this interesting problem?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-02 16:24

>>63 it is quality post!

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-02 17:26

Once we figure out how the human mind works, we will later be able to program a machine to compute/simulate it.

Your mind == Blown

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-02 17:27

my dubs are the purest dubs

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-02 18:11

>>66
Nice dubz, bro.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-02 18:27

>>22

In Germany and The Netherlands the field goes by the name Informatik of Informatica, the latter I find a really nice name.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-02 18:44

>>68
but then how can we ever use ``mad computer scientist'' when the occasion will arise.
A user of the Lisp arts may one day summon an army of autist gorillas back to life to do his bidding and we'll be fucked to stop him.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-02 19:13

>>69
I could deal with being a `mad informatist.' That sounds kind of vague and mysterious yet modern and dangerous.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-02 19:51

>>69,70
umad?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-02 21:25

>>71
Damn skippy, I'm ma, son. The best part is that you have no idea how mad I am or what I'm mad about.

Nor am I about to tell your sorry faggot ass either.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 16:57

Um, even the best super-computers can experience a flipped byte once every couple hundred million (or I guess every few billion) computations...  Computation and mathematics are inseparable.  Actually, that's a lie.  Computation is an element of mathematics.  Simply put, there would be no computation without mathematical laws and axioms.  One cannot compute 1=1 without first acknowledging that 1 is a number.  Computation is only a subset; just as the knot theory used to bind our DNA is a subset of math, or how stochastic calculus is used in finance.  You can't separate the two.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 16:59

>>73
I can ack that hat 1 is a memory cell. That is enough.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 17:26

>>74
ACK MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 18:20

>>73
I take it you didn't read the thread. There would be no mathematics if there wasn't computation. If computation didn't exist, the Universe could not do work, star systems couldn't condense from the opaque gas clouds, life couldn't evolve, our brains would not function, and thus we would not be able to create a language that captures some of the underlying computational thought processes of our minds.

Math is a subset of computation, a declarative distillation of algorithmic process. Computation doesn't need math, as each element that comprises a computational process is not aware of every other element, as can be seen in cellular automata. Mathematics is emergent.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 18:22

>>73
Oh look, it's a Jew, one who confuses the model for the real thing.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 18:30

>>73
And I bet you believe in a God in the sky who's calculating all of these mathematical formulae and applying the results in micromanaging the world.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 18:46

http://youtu.be/bRNaJhCtHwk

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 18:55

>>77,78
Same person. Tell me, how do you separate computation and mathematics?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 19:06

>>80
Tell me, how do you separate real thing and artistic representation of it?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 19:07

>>81
autistic*

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 20:18

>>80
See >>76.

Computation doesn't care about mathematics. We can build physical computational machines which are nothing more than vast collections of fermions interacting with one another according to emergent principles which are merely consequential and can be explained according to the anthropic principle. The fermionic particles composing the computer have no knowledge of mathematics. The Universe doesn't care about mathematics.

Knot Theory isn't what binds DNA. That is insanity. Knot Theory models how DNA binding works in terms that humans can understand it and make valid predictions concerning it, but it doesn't explain the "hows" or "whys" of DNA. To explain the "how," you must look at how the underlying molecules that compose DNA interact with one another, and the underlying subatomic particles that compose the atoms and so on. The fact that DNA binds the way it does is an emergent consequence. The Anthropic Principle explains the "why."

Mathematics itself is emergent.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 20:53

Why math isnt copyrighted or patented? It is more like abstract poetry, than real science.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 20:55

Set Theory could be sold to colleges, just like M$ Windows.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 21:04

>>84
Same reason why software shouldn't be copyrighted or patented. In fact, nothing in this universe should be patented or copyrighted, it already has the potential to exist. Humans are merely discoverers. The concept of invention or ownership is merely an illusion. Money and ownership are immoral. Most humans have a very wrong understanding of what computation is. Hopefully, in the near future, this can be corrected.

Computation is to the abstract poet as mathematics is to abstract poetry. An abstract poet can write abstract poetry, but abstract poetry cannot yield an abstract poet.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 21:08

>>83
You're a fucking idiot with no possible future as a computer programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 21:19

>>87
I'm actually a successful computer programmer/scientist and software developer. In fact, I've made some important contributions to the field of computer vision and I've built devices that help the blind interact with things that were currently off-limits to them, and this has seen commercial success. I believe you have no future as a human being unless you can see past your own cognitive biases and learn to be more pragmatic in a sea of ever-changing knowledge.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 21:42

>>88
4chan quality bullshit

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 22:22

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/6914/can-someone-copyright-own-a-math-problem
Wolfram blocked Cook from publishing his work for a bit, so at least in some cases reproduction may be illegal.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 22:50

>>89
I agree. I bet >>88 can't tell us what university he graduated from, his area of concentration, and who he works for right now.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 22:55

>>91
I graduated from the university of life, I'm concentrating on earning money, and I'm working for the Man.
Now suck it!

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 22:58

>>91
Yeah, I thought so. Fucking uneducated bitch. I bet you haven't even contributed to one major piece of software. Now go run along and replace another network switch you fucking jew.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 23:00

>>92
And now how did I know you that you didn't go to college? How did I know that you are not the sharpest cookie on this planet? Could it be that you sound like a total fucking dumbass to those of us who went to a real school?! No way! Could it be that you sound like a fucking moron to those of us who have done advanced degree work in computer science at a major university? No way! I know. Not possible.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 1:17

>>94
Man, I've got a PHD. in computer technology of vision, and there is nothing you can do about it except stand and be jealous.

Name: VIPPER 2011-11-06 4:48

I eat out of trashcans.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 6:44

>>83
So what is computation if it isn't mathematics? Are you implying that physical processes are computation and mathematics is a model of that computation?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 8:04

>>97
They're one and the same. I don't get why is that ``in LISP'' guy trying to make them seem different when they are not. Current math may have some fictional parts, but we don't know that for sure (for example some infinitary set theories may or may not be consistent). If you accept computation, you accept Peano Arithmetic and if you accept PA, you accept computation.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 8:18

>>83
Computation doesn't care about mathematics. We can build physical computational machines which are nothing more than vast collections of fermions interacting with one another according to emergent principles which are merely consequential and can be explained according to the anthropic principle. The fermionic particles composing the computer have no knowledge of mathematics. The Universe doesn't care about mathematics.
I'm afraid you don't understand what mathematics are.

Why does your computation device ends up in being a specific state after performing 1000 operations X and 1000 operations Y, or 1001, or a 1000000? Why not in a random state, or something?

"Because it works that way", right? Now if you define what exactly "that way" means, you have defined mathematics in their entirety. It is not necessary to also have mathematicians actually enumerate and name the consequences of such a definition, since said consequences will always be the same.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 8:22

>>98
That's exactly what I understood about computation and maths. I have trouble understanding Mr in LISP because I don't understand the premises for his arguments.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 8:46

It's not that mathematics is the same thing as computation; It's that mathematics can effectively describe computation. I think that's the source of confusion.

The two are, otherwise, unrelated.

Mathematics's goal is heuristic. Computer Science's goal is pragmatic.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 8:52

It's that mathematics can effectively describe computation.
Anyone who would try to describe computation would get mathematics.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 9:03

>>102

>Anyone who would try to describe computation would get mathematics.

That seems about right.

>Mathematics's goal is heuristic. Computer Science's goal is pragmatic.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 9:47

http://feor.org/wiki/Which_Touhou_Would_You_X

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 11:53

>>103
I think we are discussing three things here, kind of, and you are confusing two of them.

>>83 was talking about the Real World and computations that happen in it, or the computation that is it even.

This can be opposed to our theories about the real world, such as mathematics or CS (though I personally don't quite understand what's supposed to make a difference, or what "Mathematics's goal is heuristic. Computer Science's goal is pragmatic" sophomore bullshit is supposed to mean).

My point was that mathematics are not merely inspired by the real world, like a poem might be inspired by a sunset, but defined by it. Any theory that describes a certain important subset of natural phenomena is anal touring-complete, so to speak: it includes Peano arithmetic + first order logic and is included by it. It is not invented, it is discovered.

By the way, most probably no one here knows shit about it, but still: I vaguely remember that there is a curious thing about Peano arithmetic, that it can express the notion of proof, but still doesn't have a universal function, how so?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 12:52

>>105

The hand waving distracts from the point, but, I guess I could have been more blunt; Computer Science is a business. Mathematics lives in an Ivory Tower.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 13:17

>>106
Computer Science is a business. Mathematics lives in an Ivory Tower.
Ha. Ha. Ha. Next time someone here says "go fuck an autistic nigger", be aware that they mean you ;)

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 13:22

>>107

No you.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 13:32

>>108
No, dude, imagine a picture of a black boy polishing some rich white guy's shoes; on his face you can see his aspirations: he is going to live the American Dream, today he polishes shoes, tomorrow he would hire some more African Americans to polish shoes for him, the day after tomorrow he would go around like a phat cat, with a cigar and a tie and a white girl on his hand, managing a transnational shoe-polishing consortium.

Now imagine the same, but the negro boy in question is trying to figure out how a red-black tree works, and has hints of stubble all over his lower face/upper body.

That's you.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 13:42

>>109

I can't believe I'm arguing on the internet with some who thinks I'm of African Decent! I'm actually Polish, faggot!

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 14:01

>>110
Imagine a picture of a Polish boy blacking some rich white guy's shoes.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 14:07

>>107

Computer Science is, unfortunately, a business. As you may already know, programs are compiled to machine codes that are fed to the processor of your computer, that are, then, decoded into micro-code which, then, arbitrarily, changes the state the millions of transistors in the processor, all so you can compute a [spoiler]fucking[\spoiler] factorial of n. These same processors, also, happen to be manufactured by businesses that make money by selling you these devices. So, i think it's fair to say, that CS is a business. Get over it.

Now, if you do computer science with pencil and paper, or on a whiteboard, for some strange reason, then, maybe that's different.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 14:27

>>112
Implementation details are irrelevant as far as the theoretic work is concerned (even if you may direct your studies in ways that it includes models of various implementation details).

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!VIk1pgCZf9P/QBQ 2011-11-06 15:00

You all suck. I think all you fags needs to take some actual computer science classes.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:02

>>114
To end up in some CRUD sweatshop like you?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:04

>>112
Well, you know, it's like saying that since making socks is a business, jerking off into a sock is a business.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:14

jerking off into a sock is a business.
That's quite a good idea for a business. I will make a startup of that. ycombinator startup incubator gonna love it. I will get a chance to bang Leah Culver. Thanks >>116

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:16

>>102
Anyone who would try to describe computation would get mathematics.
Look at static type systems - they describe computation, but you can safely live without them, using dynamic typing. Same with math. In most cases it only limits expressiveness.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:31

>>118
Do you think dynamic type systems don't actually tag their data with types?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:35

>>116

Yep, still a business. The same goes for knave electrical engineers who design and manufacture processors for most of the general public to use and the only use they make of it is watching YouTube videos all day.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:38

>>119
Tags are just integers, not mathematical "sets".

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:41

>>121

And what's an integer in programming? It's a range of numbers you fucking idiot. Again you suck. And again, you have no possible future as a computer programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:43

>>122
Integer is a memory cell.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:46

>>123
And integer represents a range of finite number. This in turn represents a finite set. The element of this set is a number that gets stored in a memory cell.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:48

>>123
But I don't expect some idiot with zero scholastic aptitude to comprehend this.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:51

>>121

No. Dynamic languages are still typed; its just that a variable's type is not manifest to you or your program until it's actually running.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:54

>>124
Nope. It's just a memory cell, you can work with using machine code.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:55

>>126
Dynamic languages are still typed;
That is just your jewish imagination.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:57

>>128

shit, i need to find my angloid imagination.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 15:58

>>129
Pure races have no imagination, they see the world as it is.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 16:00

>>130

You don't have to remember very much, when you always tell the truth.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 16:03

>>131
truth is subjective.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 16:08

>>132

so are you.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!RUok9kNlfAMW6vT 2011-11-06 16:18

>>127
You aren't making the difference between what is known as the 'abstract machine' and the 'actual machine'. Geeze, have you ever considered taking some kind of computer programming class? Just curious. It might help your apparent confusion.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 16:28

>>134
abstract machine
That is just your jewish imagination.

have you ever considered taking some kind of computer programming class
Classes have nothing useful, only Set Theory bullshit.

I once wanted to be a psycholigist, but modern psychology relies heavily on Set Theory, so it must be a jewish pseudoscience. That is why I have choosen programming instead, as it's purely empirical.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 16:44

>>132
It is objective in math, at least as long as your axiomatic system is consistent (free of paradoxes).

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 16:51

>>136
It is objective in religion, at least as long as your dogmatic system is consistent (free of non-believers).

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 16:55

>>137
Math isn't insisting on its truth, it's merely defining truth within some system and if that system is true, then other true statements follow.
If A then B is not the same as stating that A is true.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 16:56

>>135
Not according to section 1 under 5.1.2.3 Program execution in the ANSI/ISO C standard you fucking jew.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 17:08

>>139
C/C++ is obsolete.

>>138
Religion isn't insisting on its truth, it's merely defining truth within some diocese and if that dogmas are true, then other true statements follow.
If God then Man is not the same as stating that God is true.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 17:30

>>140
It seems to me that you define any belief as religion. You can't function without any sort of beliefs (about the environment, the world, how stuff seems to behave, and so on). My belief are updatable and probabilistic, I don't mind being wrong as long as I can update my beliefs to be less wrong when evidence contradicts them.
I'll stop arguing with you as if you advocate holding no beliefs, you're merely lying to yourself as your mind still holds some, you're just not consciously thinking about them, but unlike you, I prefer to consciously think and change them as I see fit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-06 19:32

>>128
Dynamic languages are still typed. Prove me wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-07 4:20

Mathematics's

s's

exit(badarg).

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-07 4:46

Mathematics's


s's


exit(badarg).


spellcheck.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-07 7:37

s/s's/s

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-07 8:50

>>145
s/s's/s'/
FTFY

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 13:23

Is mathematics created or discovered?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 13:26

>>147
depends on what you mean by ``mathematics''

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 16:53

>>148
2 + 2 = 4

Was this statement created or discovered?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 17:39

>>149
Yes.

Name: !!M8okqD4wRfs+xmp 2012-01-10 20:24

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -