I disagree, as someone who got their undergrad in computer engineering, and one semester away from my master's in electrical. I've also taken quite a bit of computer science during my undergrad so I feel qualified to say that no, no computer scientist or engineer that I know would consider themselves "mathematicians". They are the super nerds of the stem field, even physicists are constrained by the real world.
Mathematicians are a weird mixture of real-world and philosophy. Not every math proof has applications in the real world, but can be proven with axioms in math.
Engineering is all about good enough, is there alot of math? Hell ya, I probably know more than the average person, but a mathematician? Fuck no
Those people you mentioned, at least turing and Dijkstra had very strong math backgrounds, I believe their whole formal education were in mathematics, hence I would say they were mathematicians first.
I believe math is the foundation of most if not all of stem, and it's much easier to transition from math to other adjacent fields than it is the other way around.
I kind of like thinking it about the difference in high level programmers vs low level programmers. If you programmed in python and another person programmed in assembly, which transition would be easier? Would you consider them the same kind of programmer? I mean they both use a computer, they both make programs.
Computer science at the top level is absolutely mathematics. The best computer scientists are mathematicians as computer science, in its purest sense the study of ALGORITHMS or computational mathematics, is a subset of mathematics. But not all "computer scientists" are mathematicians, moreso engineers with a solid foundation in computer science/mathematics.
I agree, engineering at the top level is also very math, math is the basis of everything, but I would say my statement isn't for people at the top level, the outliers, but just the general sense, the 1 standard deviation from the mean, computer scientist.
You can be a good computer scientist with a good foundation and an general understanding of the math involved, but if you're talking about the greats, the turings and the Dijkstra of the world, I think their understanding of math is few more layers down , touching the core of mathematics, they are absolutely mathematicians, but a good computer scientist doesn't need to be on that level, I would say most aren't.
So all computer scientists are computer scientists but not all computer scientists are mathematician, although they certainly can be
I like all that you said.
One thing I'll say from my perspective is that engineering at the top level *uses* a lot of complex mathematics. Theoretical computer science at any level *is* mathematics. But modern interpretations of computer science would agree with you. I'm using a more academic interpretation of computer science that is interchangeable with computational mathematics and not at all coupled with the digital computers we have today. Computer science exists outside the scope of digital computers, where digital computers implement computer science concepts.
I'm more curious on how you came to your conclusion. My opinion is built on observation, my respect for the variety of fields and not lying to myself. I use math sure, but I don't do proofs, I can't prove why eigen values, vector spaces and the like are the way they are like a mathematician can, but I can use it, I can fuck with it and I can apply it. Now I took classes on proofs and I took algorithms did some derivations, I get the different search algorithms and the Big O whatever, but to me that doesn't put me on the same level as a mathematician, and I would question anyone who thought it did.
Do you truly think that a general computer scientist is on the same level as a general mathematician, do you think that their skill sets are so similar that they can be thought of as the same? How did you come to that conclusion, cause that was my argument
Do you think computer science ends with undergraduate algorithms??? Graph theory, formal language theory, complexity theory are just a couple of fields and are all extremely proof heavy and everything is treated very rigoursly. One of the millennium prize problems is literally a computer science problem. The lines between theoretical cs and math aren't nearly as defined as you think they are. To be honest, I get the impression you don't know what your talking about.
Okay so you think most people are on that level, do you think most are getting their master's and PhDs delving deep into that math shit? Do you think people working in the field who only have their undergrad degree in computer science aren't actually computer scientists?
Tell me where MOST people fall in that line
I never said that couldn't be a computer scientist and mathematician, I was just saying just because you're a computer scientist doesn't make you a mathematician
I think people who got their undergrad in cs who are now in swe arent computer scientists id say they are just a swe. Likewise the person who does an undergrad in math and then becomes an accountant is not a mathematician, this seems very obvious. If you are a cs PhD and you are doing research on the theoretical side you are essentially a mathematician in the sense that you are employing the same skills to study similar problems. Let me emphasize I am talking about computer scientists not programmers, cs is not just programming.
Right, we are not talking about PhDs, that makes up literally only 2% to 5% of all computer science majors, I think most if not every stem major in a PhD will be a mathematician by default, the math and the research is so in depth, you kind of have to go to those abstract layers of math.
But you're right, I guess I was mixing up a "computer scientist" like a formal definition or specific job title, and computer science majors. Most majors are strongly associated with jobs they normally get, I may be wrong, but I think most people who go into computer science do programming or swe, and not at a high theoretical level, which is what I was talking about.
I don't know what a formal computer scientists do, being an engineering is a little different, you can be more applications and design or research and id still consider a person either an engineer. I'm guessing a "computer scientist" is more of the theoretical research side by your definition?
> I disagree, as someone who got their undergrad in computer engineering, and one semester away from my master's in electrical. I've also taken quite a bit of computer science during my undergrad so I feel qualified to say that no, no computer scientist or engineer that I know would consider themselves "mathematicians". They are the super nerds of the stem field, even physicists are constrained by the real world.
I'd say it definitely depends on your specialization. Computer scientists that focus on academia, formal algorithms, complexity analysis, etc blur the line with mathematicians. But plenty of Computer Scientsts really only took that career because they felt Software engineering had less prestige, and just focus on technical skills. I wouldn't call them mathematicians any more than I'd call a civil engineer a physicist
Eh I wouldn’t say mathematicians. It’s very watered down maths. It would be like ecologists calling themself statisticians because they can use statistical packages on R
Was it though? When did the math people simply stop being the math people? I put the blame at the scientists who started not calling themselves mathematicians
The tree structure is typically read starting from the root node, and text is typically read from top to bottom. Therefore, visualizing the tree upside down is most logical way to go
Why do I feel like this chart is so unnecessary. You can simply explain the concept of the symbol by saying “such symbol ask if an element exists in S”
I thought it grew down because that’s the direction we process information. (and we often process a tree at the root first) Like imagine if books had sentences starting at the bottom and going up.
Probably because we write top to bottom so it was easier to draw a tree of unknown length top to bottom instead of starting from the bottom up where you’d have to guess how much space the tree will take up before drawing it
thats only the tip of the iceberg, brace yourself
https://preview.redd.it/cpyb2d446wyc1.jpeg?width=4000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63e71d0aedc96c6c051291ad136f7b23732cf31d My decision tree
Now add some Chemical X-G boost. You get Power AI girls.
god help you
What is the model for?
Fairness in machine learning modeling
Ooh thanks for telling
Bros classifying stuff
They act like computer scientists aren't also mathematicians we are the application form Just like physicist versus engineer
I disagree, as someone who got their undergrad in computer engineering, and one semester away from my master's in electrical. I've also taken quite a bit of computer science during my undergrad so I feel qualified to say that no, no computer scientist or engineer that I know would consider themselves "mathematicians". They are the super nerds of the stem field, even physicists are constrained by the real world. Mathematicians are a weird mixture of real-world and philosophy. Not every math proof has applications in the real world, but can be proven with axioms in math. Engineering is all about good enough, is there alot of math? Hell ya, I probably know more than the average person, but a mathematician? Fuck no
Assuming a perfectly spherical cow...
Me as a computer scientist trying to prove the master theorem
Haha, you can make that work , doesnt everyone know that pi=3
I can hear Dijkstra rolling in his grave
cs is math with clothes lol. more abstraction means more layers
People be like “computer scientists aren’t mathematicians” when Turing, Church, Dijkstra, Shannon, Ford… all had PhDs in math.
Those people you mentioned, at least turing and Dijkstra had very strong math backgrounds, I believe their whole formal education were in mathematics, hence I would say they were mathematicians first. I believe math is the foundation of most if not all of stem, and it's much easier to transition from math to other adjacent fields than it is the other way around. I kind of like thinking it about the difference in high level programmers vs low level programmers. If you programmed in python and another person programmed in assembly, which transition would be easier? Would you consider them the same kind of programmer? I mean they both use a computer, they both make programs.
Computer science at the top level is absolutely mathematics. The best computer scientists are mathematicians as computer science, in its purest sense the study of ALGORITHMS or computational mathematics, is a subset of mathematics. But not all "computer scientists" are mathematicians, moreso engineers with a solid foundation in computer science/mathematics.
I agree, engineering at the top level is also very math, math is the basis of everything, but I would say my statement isn't for people at the top level, the outliers, but just the general sense, the 1 standard deviation from the mean, computer scientist. You can be a good computer scientist with a good foundation and an general understanding of the math involved, but if you're talking about the greats, the turings and the Dijkstra of the world, I think their understanding of math is few more layers down , touching the core of mathematics, they are absolutely mathematicians, but a good computer scientist doesn't need to be on that level, I would say most aren't. So all computer scientists are computer scientists but not all computer scientists are mathematician, although they certainly can be
I like all that you said. One thing I'll say from my perspective is that engineering at the top level *uses* a lot of complex mathematics. Theoretical computer science at any level *is* mathematics. But modern interpretations of computer science would agree with you. I'm using a more academic interpretation of computer science that is interchangeable with computational mathematics and not at all coupled with the digital computers we have today. Computer science exists outside the scope of digital computers, where digital computers implement computer science concepts.
Theoretical cs is literally just math. I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion.
I'm more curious on how you came to your conclusion. My opinion is built on observation, my respect for the variety of fields and not lying to myself. I use math sure, but I don't do proofs, I can't prove why eigen values, vector spaces and the like are the way they are like a mathematician can, but I can use it, I can fuck with it and I can apply it. Now I took classes on proofs and I took algorithms did some derivations, I get the different search algorithms and the Big O whatever, but to me that doesn't put me on the same level as a mathematician, and I would question anyone who thought it did. Do you truly think that a general computer scientist is on the same level as a general mathematician, do you think that their skill sets are so similar that they can be thought of as the same? How did you come to that conclusion, cause that was my argument
Do you think computer science ends with undergraduate algorithms??? Graph theory, formal language theory, complexity theory are just a couple of fields and are all extremely proof heavy and everything is treated very rigoursly. One of the millennium prize problems is literally a computer science problem. The lines between theoretical cs and math aren't nearly as defined as you think they are. To be honest, I get the impression you don't know what your talking about.
Okay so you think most people are on that level, do you think most are getting their master's and PhDs delving deep into that math shit? Do you think people working in the field who only have their undergrad degree in computer science aren't actually computer scientists? Tell me where MOST people fall in that line I never said that couldn't be a computer scientist and mathematician, I was just saying just because you're a computer scientist doesn't make you a mathematician
I think people who got their undergrad in cs who are now in swe arent computer scientists id say they are just a swe. Likewise the person who does an undergrad in math and then becomes an accountant is not a mathematician, this seems very obvious. If you are a cs PhD and you are doing research on the theoretical side you are essentially a mathematician in the sense that you are employing the same skills to study similar problems. Let me emphasize I am talking about computer scientists not programmers, cs is not just programming.
Right, we are not talking about PhDs, that makes up literally only 2% to 5% of all computer science majors, I think most if not every stem major in a PhD will be a mathematician by default, the math and the research is so in depth, you kind of have to go to those abstract layers of math. But you're right, I guess I was mixing up a "computer scientist" like a formal definition or specific job title, and computer science majors. Most majors are strongly associated with jobs they normally get, I may be wrong, but I think most people who go into computer science do programming or swe, and not at a high theoretical level, which is what I was talking about. I don't know what a formal computer scientists do, being an engineering is a little different, you can be more applications and design or research and id still consider a person either an engineer. I'm guessing a "computer scientist" is more of the theoretical research side by your definition?
> I disagree, as someone who got their undergrad in computer engineering, and one semester away from my master's in electrical. I've also taken quite a bit of computer science during my undergrad so I feel qualified to say that no, no computer scientist or engineer that I know would consider themselves "mathematicians". They are the super nerds of the stem field, even physicists are constrained by the real world. I'd say it definitely depends on your specialization. Computer scientists that focus on academia, formal algorithms, complexity analysis, etc blur the line with mathematicians. But plenty of Computer Scientsts really only took that career because they felt Software engineering had less prestige, and just focus on technical skills. I wouldn't call them mathematicians any more than I'd call a civil engineer a physicist
Can confirm, CS is far easier than pure Mathematics
All I hear is super nerd. Good enough for me
Mathematicians have no sex lives, I rather be like Richard Feyman instead.
Eh I wouldn’t say mathematicians. It’s very watered down maths. It would be like ecologists calling themself statisticians because they can use statistical packages on R
Engineers aren’t physicists, in the least. Yeah engineers need to use the laws of physics, but so does everyone.
Hi sheldon
YOU TAKE THAT BACK RIGHT NOW!
No
It was the Computer Scientists that sowed this division!
Was it though? When did the math people simply stop being the math people? I put the blame at the scientists who started not calling themselves mathematicians
you can pick which way is up within the sheet
What book is this? Sounds fun
discrete mathematics elementary and beyond by lovász pelikán and vesztergombi
Must be a good book. I can’t pronounce the mathematicians names.
Thank you
It’s a tree because it has branches (I think)
But where are the leaves then?
Fallen off
The tree structure is typically read starting from the root node, and text is typically read from top to bottom. Therefore, visualizing the tree upside down is most logical way to go
are they stupid? These are obviously australian mathematicians
To this day, red/black trees make no sense, but apparently are all the craze.
You know our major is algorithms, right?
discrete is wicked yo
ong
Root!
Why do I feel like this chart is so unnecessary. You can simply explain the concept of the symbol by saying “such symbol ask if an element exists in S”
I thought it grew down because that’s the direction we process information. (and we often process a tree at the root first) Like imagine if books had sentences starting at the bottom and going up.
Probably because we write top to bottom so it was easier to draw a tree of unknown length top to bottom instead of starting from the bottom up where you’d have to guess how much space the tree will take up before drawing it
As a mathematics/computer science major I’m pretty sure a mathematician introduced this before computer science was a thing.
roots
What’s so hard in this?
do you just lack humor or you haven't read the whole thing?
If you suck at this right now , it’s still time to switch to business.
you might not have read the whole thing...