[BoiledCabbage]

> No this guy doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand what science is.

> In science nothing can be proven.

Who are you referring to? Nobody has mentioned anything about proven. Your entire comment is focused on arguing against science being proofs, but nobody has said science is proofs.

OP said that scientific theories should "explain and predict" which they should. Those that don't should be discarded eventually (which they should). Why are your discussing mathematical proofs of science when nobody brought it up nor proposed that?

[ninetyninenine]

Im demarcating what science is and what math is.

    - In science nothing can be proven.
    - In math things can be proven. 

From those two points above we know this:

    - computer science is not a science because you can prove things
    - computer science is a kind of math because you can prove things 

This goes fully against the ops main point that computer science isn’t math when it is. There’s a big nomenclature issue that confuses everyone, him and you, and it just throws everyone off in terms of clear categorical thinking. Namely, Computer science is not actually a science.

You guys don’t understand what math is and you don’t understand what science is and thus you guys are classifying incorrectly that computer science isn’t a math and they are making a completely invalid comparison with physics which is actually a science.

[BoiledCabbage]

Ah, I see what you're misunderstanding. You're not thinking about the problem in the correct light.

If you start with the premise that computer science is math, of course you'll reach the conclusion that computer science is math. And that's why you're so surprised that anyone else can reach any other conclusion. But the issue is in your premise - that's what you need to re-examine.

The math portions of computer science are math - and the non math portions are not. Your argument is equivalent to saying that Europe is defined by the counties in that continent using GMT - and concluding "Of course Italy isn't in Europe!".

Parts of Computer Science (the theoretical parts) sit in formal science just like logic and math do. But parts of CS like applied CS don't. All of the hardware design and software falls into applied CS and eventually slides into pure engineering.

But CS also is more amorphous than many other disciplines. Parts of it almost touch up against behavioral science with its subfield of linguistics, and syntax and semantics of language. And a failure of CS over the past 50 years has been the utter lack of progress in empirical data around human modeling of computation. We still don't have any empirical framework for evaluating what languages or modeling approaches are more efficient than others, or even what makes a more efficient programing language. As a result that is stuck in alchemy and cargo culting.

Models of computation and information theory begin to intersect with the natural sciences n the realm of physics. Physicists begin to push up against what is computable by nature in a given region of space. And Quantum computation begins to redefine what the physical bounds are on computation.

Don't begin by looking at what math is - if you do then the only thing possible to conclude is that it's math . An informal definition you could begin with might be "The theory and application of tools (ie formal cs) and models (ie applied cs) that predict and explain behavior related to Computation"

How do you model the real world via computation? What are the limits of computation? How do you implement computation?

Computer Science is the study of all aspects of computation.

[ninetyninenine]

False, it is you who misunderstands and your terminology is incorrect.

The term is "theoretical computer science." Not just "computer science"

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Computer_science

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Theoretical_computer_sc...

The OP is making a claim on "theoretical computer science" NOT "computer science". Hence the title "What is theoretical computer science".

If you look at the wiki entry you will see that "Theoretical computer science" is highly mathematical and different from "computer science".

Honestly even I mis-used the term and this leads to tons of confusion. The naming of everything really changes the way people think and mixes everyone up. It's entirely a linguistic problem.

[3np]

I mean...

Consider this school of thought: My school burned down last week. The one where I went to elementary school.

A strawberry is not botanically a berry. A peanut is not a nut. A tomato is either a fruit or a vegetable. Nobody thinks this is a problem.

This is just language. Perhaps it's not actually a big deal that "Theoretical Computer Science" does not cleanly fall into your usual "Science" label?

[ninetyninenine]

>This is just language. Perhaps it's not actually a big deal that "Theoretical Computer Science" does not cleanly fall into your usual "Science" label?

What are you talking about? You're regurgitating points I already made as if I never made those points...

I literally said Computer science is NOT a science.

I said several times, it's a linguistic/nomenclature issue.

I don't think you're reading my responses. Are you trolling? If not please read over my responses more carefully.

[3np]

So, we are acknowledging that there exist parallel non-overlaping equally valid notions and definitions of science.

Menawhile, you seem pretty hung up on the "In Science, nothing can be proven" part of a whole long argument as to why CS shouldn't be referred to as a science. Perhaps that distinction is not useful or relevant in context?

[Koshkin]

> I literally said Computer science is NOT a science.

But the point was that this entirely depends on one's definition of what the word "science" means - and that depends on the context and the language. I can say, for example, that math is science - simply equating "science" with "knowledge" and "research".

[Koshkin]

> - In math things can be proven.

Some things can, some cannot (be either proven or shown to be false).

[ninetyninenine]

Right so I never said anything to the contrary. In fact, ironically, it's been proven that in Math there are statements that are true, but can never be proven to be true. See Godel.