|
|
|
|
|
|
by jltsiren
615 days ago
|
|
|
Now you are assuming that rigidly defined science is a useful category. I'm less sure about that. It's certainly not a universal category, as the concept does not even exist in many European languages. Instead of "science", they have something like "Wissenschaft". It has retained the original wider meaning, while English "science" has narrowed in scope. There can be subdivisions such as "naturvetenskap", but they are typically defined by the topic of study rather than the methods used. |
|
|
It's useful for categorization (which is the overall topic). For formalization of concepts. Formalization is always useful for technical concepts. Programming is one of those things that requires formal definitions.
It's probably less useful for common communication. But that's not what I'm referring to. Sure in communication we don't require technical definitions. I'm not arguing for whether MY definition has utility in a variety of contexts.
I'm simply saying for the rigorous categorization being performed by the OP on what "theoretical computer science" is.... he should ALSO use the rigorous definitions of the Categories themselves.