hmm nice reply. i like that. big names supporting the theory.. interesting. and this time it was lghtining when the clouds parted....
Computer is a Tool. To learn how to operate a tool can be science to some people.
It has only increased in its power to to add/subtract/divide and multiply numbers over the time. If you say logic, applying logic is no science it is the natural thinking process of an individual brain, using simple/complex mathemateical and physical fundamentals. Theorums? they are one long/short/simple/complex mathematical functions happening/witnessed in nature. You can solve it and establish it without ever using a coimputer. Only if your mind and method is capable enough to crunch and co-relate such huge/complex figures and relationships. (This might be difficult for you to agree because there exist no such great historical work done in west which involves such calculations and relationships done in the past (before computers) ). The computer languages themselves have not solved any phenomenon/mysteries or established any theorms (as far i know). they are merely a medium to reach to goals. The only reason that they are not science(s), you keep seeing new languages developed. they are different in symbols and procedures doing what you can very well do without those languages or computers themselves. Whereas you can not do without mathematics or physics or chemistry.
Data collection and processing? computers only increase the speed to process. They only help us in repeating the hard-work done by the programemr once. Cryptography? thats mathematics helping computer programs; it is number crunching it is not something which can not be done/achieved/proved without the help of computers or computing languages. It will be called science when things will stem from it, and will be explained only on it own baiss alone. But it is not like that, computer exists because science make it so. Science is reason behind its evolution from 286/silicon wafer to windows2xxx or solairs5.x or whatever. Programing is not science. It is 'programming'. It will be called science when things could be solved/explained only & only on the basis of computing laguages.
Look at any script and any program it boils down to mathematics ( majority of the software we know it as, today), the guy writing perl code is also doing logical and mathematical operations, if he is better then me, because he just knows some more functions (layers of information) and his mind is capable enough to apply more refined logic (which is no computer science) to the given situation/problem.
All this does not minimize the sharpness/intellect of the computer programmer/'scientist' in any way. Thier ability to solve a problem with a restricted set of tools is admirable. Whatever is written in this email has not been reproduced from any dictionary on web or some other intellectual's thoughts.
thanks,
Rajeev *going back to work. just think of me i will be there ;) __________________________________________________ There are as many paths as there are travellers...
From: Brian Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Training in the Middle and Far East Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 14:28:53 -0800
And the clouds parted, and Rajeev Prasad said...
>
> computer science is no science at all. It is only layers of information. It
> is physics and mathematics which makes this number crunching plastic do its
> job. that is science. rest of the stuff as Jerry said it is a BIGENNER's
> list. so it will be like the way it is.
>
Hi Rajeev-
I'm afraid I must disagree. Science can be defined (in this sense) as
"knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the
operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through
scientific method"[1], and lest I be accused of circular reasoning, the
scientific method referred to above would be "principles and procedures for
the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation
of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and
the formulation and testing of hypotheses."[2]
It is true that mathematics and physics (as well as chemistry) are integral
parts (excuse the pun) of computer science, just as mathematics can be said
to be an integral part of quantum mechanics. They are prerequisite bases of
knowledge without which the composite science would be well nigh impossible
to discuss, much less work in. This does not mean that the composite
science is not a science in its own right. Computer scientists propose
theorems and design experiments to test said theorems. Their theories
predict behaviors resulting from given conditions and can be demonstrated to
be valid or not.
"Big O" notation, analysis of algorithms, cryptology, information theory,
pattern recognition, graph theory, computational biology; all of these are
examples of tools, branches, and applications of a real, definable, rigorous
science. Try reading through one or two volumes of Knuth's[3] "The Art of
Computer Programming" and try to tell me that computer science isn't a "real"
science. ;)
Sorry, I know far too many brilliant CS researchers to let this comment go by unanswered. :)
Respectfully, Brian
[1] http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=science Definition 3a.
[2] http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=scientific+method
[3] http://www-cs-staff.stanford.edu/~knuth/index.html
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
| Brian Gerard Any sufficiently advanced technology is |
| First initial + 'lists' indistinguishable from a perl script. |
| at technobrat dot com |
\______________________________________________________________________/
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Great deals on high-speed Internet access as low as $26.95. https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
