[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