[cubefox]

> It makes sense that it's a mathematical approach because Computer Science is ultimately a Mathematical discipline

The fact that the abstraction "logical circuits" is much closer to actual computers than any "mathematical" or "functional" abstraction casts doubt on this claim.

[082349872349872]

"Computer Science" comes in two flavours, systems and theory. Each of you is talking about a different flavour.

(most CS departments cater to a single flavour: yes, it would be easier for everyone involved if theoretical computer science was called "informatics", but that'd probably be funding-sub-optimal)

[cubefox]

But the logical abstraction is no less theoretical than other abstractions, even if it closer to practice. I don't understand why theoretical computer scientists ignore it.

[goodbyesf]

> The fact that the abstraction "logical circuits" is much closer to actual computers than any "mathematical" or "functional" abstraction casts doubt on this claim.

But 'logical circuits' are abstracted using symbolic logic and boolean algebra which are mathematical disciplines. It's still math.

Also, computer science doesn't necessarily mean computers as we know it today. A 'computer' in computer science is something that can process 'computable numbers'. For example, in Turing's paper, he imagine a person ( computer ) 'doing math' with a pen and paper.

[cubefox]

> But 'logical circuits' are abstracted using symbolic logic and boolean algebra which are mathematical disciplines. It's still math.

Whether logic itself counts as math or something separate from it is contentious. If you do count logic as math, assume I was talking about the rest of mathematics excluding logic.

> Also, computer science doesn't necessarily mean computers as we know it today. A 'computer' in computer science is something that can process 'computable numbers'. For example, in Turing's paper, he imagine a person ( computer ) 'doing math' with a pen and paper.

Yeah, but persons are the opposite of simple and primitive.