←back to thread

What is theoretical computer science?

(cacm.acm.org)
166 points levlaz | 1 comments | 18 Oct 24 06:04 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ykonstant ◴[18 Oct 24 07:26 UTC] No.41877090[source]▶
This is a great article and I especially liked the notion:

>Theoretical physics is highly mathematical, but it aims to explain and predict the real world. Theories that fail at this “explain/predict” task would ultimately be discarded. Analogously, I’d argue that the role of TCS is to explain/predict real-life computing.

as well as the emphasis on the difference between TCS in Europe and the US. I remember from the University of Crete that the professors all spent serious time in the labs coding and testing. Topics like Human-Computer Interaction, Operating Systems Research and lots of Hardware (VLSI etc) were core parts of the theoretical Computer Science research areas. This is why no UoC graduate could graduate without knowledge both in Algorithms and PL theory, for instance, AND circuit design (my experience is from 2002-2007).

I strongly believe that this breadth of concepts is essential to Computer Science, and the narrower emphasis of many US departments (not all) harms both the intellectual foundations and practical employment prospects of the graduate. [I will not debate this point online; I'll be happy to engage in hours long discussion in person]

replies(4): >>41877362 #>>41877761 #>>41878005 #>>41887503 #
msravi ◴[19 Oct 24 12:54 UTC] No.41887503[source]▶
>Theoretical physics is highly mathematical, but it aims to explain and predict the real world. Theories that fail at this “explain/predict” task would ultimately be discarded.

This isn't really true, is it? There are mathematical models that predict but do not explain the real world. The most glaring of them is the transmission of EM waves without a medium, and the particle/wave duality of matter. In the former case, there was a concerted attempt to prove existence of the medium (luminiferous aether) that failed and ended up being discarded - we accept now that no medium is required, but we don't know the physical process of how that works.

replies(2): >>41888582 #>>41888744 #
1. westurner ◴[19 Oct 24 16:23 UTC] No.41888744[source]▶
On the Cave and the Light,

List of popular misconceptions and science > Science, technology, and mathematics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions :

> See also: Scientific misconceptions, Superseded theories in science, and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Allegory of the cave > See also,: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

The only true statement:

All models are wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

Map–territory relation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation :

> A frequent coda to "all models are wrong" is that "all models are wrong (but some are useful)," which emphasizes the proper framing of recognizing map–territory differences—that is, how and why they are important, what to do about them, and how to live with them properly. The point is not that all maps are useless; rather, the point is simply to maintain critical thinking about the discrepancies: whether or not they are either negligible or significant in each context, how to reduce them (thus iterating a map, or any other model, to become a better version of itself), and so on.