Computer Science is the purest science

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

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

>>81
autistic*

>>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.

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

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

>>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.

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

>>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.

>>88
4chan quality bullshit

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.

>>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.

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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

I eat out of trashcans.

>>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?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

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.

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

>>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.

http://feor.org/wiki/Which_Touhou_Would_You_X

>>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?

>>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.

>>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 ;)

>>107

No you.

>>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.

>>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!

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

>>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.

>>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).

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

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

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

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

>>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.

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

>>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.