[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?

[ninetyninenine]

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

False. I said I acknowledge linguistic issues that can cause confusion. There is overlap but there is NO contradiction. There isn't a case where there are two conflicting definitions for a single term.

>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?

Meanwhile you seem hung up on me setting up clear and categorical distinctions as not useful or relevant.

Let me make it clear why your hang up doesn't make sense. The entire topic of this thread is an argument for "why CS isn't math." I am staying on topic and saying that CS IS a MATH and NOT a SCIENCE. Thus because I am on topic the distinction is ON context and HIGHLY relevant. You can disagree and state your points but saying my point isn't relevant is false.

It's not a valid argument. I literally stated the premise is false and stated the reason why, and you stated the reason is off topic as if I changed the topic .

[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".

[ninetyninenine]

>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".

And I stated this in this thread several times. I defined what science is and I literally said, Computer Science isn't ACTUALLY a Science. It's incorrect terminology due to historical reasons. It's similar to greenland. Greenland isn't actually Green.

If you followed carefully what I wrote in this thread I defined what definition of science I'm using very very clearly and I ALSO stated why for the context of defining what "Theoretical Computer Science" using this definition has the most utility for the task at hand.

Look, not just you Koshkin, but everyone. This isn't even a thing that's really up for debate. Look at the wikipedia page for "theoretical computer science". The FIRST intro literally says it's the mathematical foundations for computation.

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

[Koshkin]

You believe that your definition of the word "science" is actually correct. (I have my doubts.)

[ninetyninenine]

Well that's the basis of my arguments. If you disagree on foundational definitions then we have a disagreement on language and our choice of what definition to use for what word is rather arbitrary. There's no way to conclude a discussion at this point.

Additionally if you actually follow the wiki definition above of "theoretical computer science" all of the contents of that article are literally describing mathematics and nothing else. EVEN the introduction says it's math. You haven't commented on this point.

Also It's not a "my definition" it's more of a definition within a well known body of study called the philosophy of science.

Sources:

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

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