[jacobsimon]

I think you’re missing the broader point, which is that there is a lot to computer science outside of the purely mathematical formalism.

For example, distributed systems and networking are more like a physical science because they seek to make generalized learnings and theorems about real world systems.

The author’s last point around complexity theory also resonates because it demonstrates the value of designing experiments with real-world conditions like computing hardware speed and input sizes.

[User23]

Distributed systems are famously hard to get right and mathematical formalism is pretty much the only way to do so at scale. Amazon found that out with S3[1]. TLA+ exists for very good reason!

That’s not to discount the reality that mapping the model to reality is hard work that needs to be done.

[1] https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/formal-methods-amazon....

[ninetyninenine]

The topic is about theoretical computer science which I would say is a math.

The authors last point is basically like what applied math is to math. It’s applied computer science.

[auggierose]

It is either "a kind of math", or "math", but not "a math".

[ninetyninenine]

Sounds ok to me in casual conversation. I use it like fruit. Orange is a fruit. Orange is also a kind of fruit. Orange is fruit doesn’t sound right though.

Empathetically speaking I’m sure it’s quite jarring for you when you read it.

[auggierose]

A single fruit

A single math

One of these expressions doesn't make sense. So no, you cannot use "math" like "fruit".

[ninetyninenine]

Ok, you are right. But as long as people understand my points I’m fine with the grammatical error.