[math-fun] Want to be a computer scientist? Forget maths
FYI -- http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/13339/53/ Want to be a computer scientist? Forget maths Contributed by Stuart Corner Thursday, 05 July 2007 A new book seeks to demolish the concept that computer science is rooted in mathematics and, in particular that the notion of the algorithm is fundamental to computer science. In particular, he says the notion of the algorithm, "has been largely ineffective as a paradigm for computer science." Fant argues that, because mathematicians, notably John Von Neumann and Alan Turing, were intimately involved with the early development of digital electronic computers in the 1940s they transplanted a mathematical model of computation, including the algorithm - commonly understood to be an exact prescription, defining a computational process, leading from various initial data to the desired result - into the fledgling science of computers. He claims that "What is essentially a discipline of pure mathematics has come to be called "the theory of computer science," and "the notion of the algorithm has been decreed to be a fundamental paradigm of computer science". However, he says this mathematical perspective "is the wrong point of view" and is asking the wrong questions. "Mathematicians and computer scientists are pursuing fundamentally different aims, and the mathematician's tools are not as appropriate as was once supposed to the questions of the computer scientist. The primary questions of computer science are not of computational possibilities but of expressional possibilities. Computer science does not need a theory of computation; it needs a comprehensive theory of process expression." This concept of 'process expression' is, he says, a common thread running through the various disciplines of computer science. "A logic circuit is an expression of a logical process; an architecture is an expression of a continuously acting process to interpret symbolically expressed processes; a program is a symbolic expression of a process; a programming language is an environment within which to create symbolic process expression; a compiler is an expression of a process that translates between symbolic process expressions in different languages; an operating system is an expression of a process that manages the interpretation of other process expressions; any application is an expression of the application process." And, he argues, important process expressions do not qualify as algorithms. "A logic circuit is not a sequence of operations. An operating system is not supposed to terminate, nor does it yield a singular solution. An operating system cannot be deterministic because it must relate to uncoordinated inputs from the outside world. Any program utilising random input to carry out its process, such...is not an algorithm." "The notion of the algorithm," he concludes "simply does not provide conceptual enlightenment for the questions that most computer scientists are concerned with." Fant is the founder and CEO of Theseus Research, a consulting firm specialising in the design and implementation of real-time image processing systems as well as ongoing research into the theory of computers. "Computer Science Reconsidered: The Invocation Model of Process Expression" is published by John Wiley. http://www.itwire.com Powered by Joomla! Generated: 9 September, 2007, 08:55
I took this mighty sentence from the article A logic circuit is an expression of a logical process; an architecture is an expression of a continuously acting process to interpret symbolically expressed processes; a program is a symbolic expression of a process; a programming language is an environment within which to create symbolic process expression; a compiler is an expression of a process that translates between symbolic process expressions in different languages; an operating system is an expression of a process that manages the interpretation of other process expressions; any application is an expression of the application process. And translated it to to German via Babelfish, with this result: Eine Koinzidenzschaltung ist ein Ausdruck eines logischen Prozesses; eine Architektur ist ein Ausdruck von Prozeß ununterbrochen fungieren, zum der symbolisch ausgedrückten Prozesse zu deuten; ein Programm ist ein symbolischer Ausdruck eines Prozesses; eine Programmiersprache ist ein Klima, innerhalb dessen symbolischen Prozeßausdruck verursachen; ein Compiler ist ein Ausdruck eines Prozesses, der zwischen symbolischen Prozeßausdrücken in den unterschiedlichen Sprachen übersetzt; ein Betriebssystem ist ein Ausdruck eines Prozesses, der die Deutung anderer Prozeßausdrücke handhat; jede mögliche Anwendung ist ein Ausdruck des Anwendungsprozesses. Seems to improve it, somehow. Anyway: at the Stanford Computer Science Dept 40 year anniversary event last year, they had a panel discussion about the direction of computer science. Someone in the audience suggested that computer science needs more students, but that a growing perception that CS majors end up in dead-end programming jobs was working against that. Response from a panelist: CS is not about programming, it's about ideas and creativity. Response by questioner: Perhaps, but still, aren't students right that if you don't want to end up being a programmer, why choose CS? People get boring jobs writing programs to APIs defined by others---it's just a kind of primitive scripting and argument-passing job. It makes for a boring career. I don't remember where it went from there, but I remember thinking, "well, that questioner is on to something...". There was a bit of a pall hanging over the room at that moment. Then, Don Knuth got up from the audience, and said something to the effect of "It was suggested that Computer Science graduates are often writing programs to interfaces, and that's not fun, and I think that person is right...." [caveat --- this is not a quotation, but I pretty sure that's the spirit of what he said, and I welcome correction.]. "So," he went on, "how can we make it fun again? It's not as much fun as it used to be." [ quote approximate caveat, again] I don't remember anyone giving a good answer to that On 9/8/07, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
FYI --
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/13339/53/
Want to be a computer scientist? Forget maths
Contributed by Stuart Corner
Thursday, 05 July 2007
A new book seeks to demolish the concept that computer science is rooted in mathematics and, in particular that the notion of the algorithm is fundamental to computer science.
In particular, he says the notion of the algorithm, "has been largely ineffective as a paradigm for computer science." Fant argues that, because mathematicians, notably John Von Neumann and Alan Turing, were intimately involved with the early development of digital electronic computers in the 1940s they transplanted a mathematical model of computation, including the algorithm - commonly understood to be an exact prescription, defining a computational process, leading from various initial data to the desired result - into the fledgling science of computers.
He claims that "What is essentially a discipline of pure mathematics has come to be called "the theory of computer science," and "the notion of the algorithm has been decreed to be a fundamental paradigm of computer science". However, he says this mathematical perspective "is the wrong point of view" and is asking the wrong questions.
"Mathematicians and computer scientists are pursuing fundamentally different aims, and the mathematician's tools are not as appropriate as was once supposed to the questions of the computer scientist. The primary questions of computer science are not of computational possibilities but of expressional possibilities. Computer science does not need a theory of computation; it needs a comprehensive theory of process expression."
This concept of 'process expression' is, he says, a common thread running through the various disciplines of computer science. "A logic circuit is an expression of a logical process; an architecture is an expression of a continuously acting process to interpret symbolically expressed processes; a program is a symbolic expression of a process; a programming language is an environment within which to create symbolic process expression; a compiler is an expression of a process that translates between symbolic process expressions in different languages; an operating system is an expression of a process that manages the interpretation of other process expressions; any application is an expression of the application process."
And, he argues, important process expressions do not qualify as algorithms. "A logic circuit is not a sequence of operations. An operating system is not supposed to terminate, nor does it yield a singular solution. An operating system cannot be deterministic because it must relate to uncoordinated inputs from the outside world. Any program utilising random input to carry out its process, such...is not an algorithm."
"The notion of the algorithm," he concludes "simply does not provide conceptual enlightenment for the questions that most computer scientists are concerned with."
Fant is the founder and CEO of Theseus Research, a consulting firm specialising in the design and implementation of real-time image processing systems as well as ongoing research into the theory of computers. "Computer Science Reconsidered: The Invocation Model of Process Expression" is published by John Wiley.
http://www.itwire.com Powered by Joomla! Generated: 9 September, 2007, 08:55
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Thane Plambeck tplambeck@gmail.com http://www.plambeck.org/ehome.htm
Why have I never seen a math-challenged individual write a useful computer program? Somewhere between a misconception of an what you want the machine to do and the machine doing something that makes you happy, there is a heap of mathematics, and telling would-be computer scientists otherwise is at best wishful thinking and at worst dangerous misguidance. The "process expression" paradigm is nothing new has been around in various guises since the dawn of computing. The business world has always slavered at the idea of removing the geek from the software development process. Business visionaries would all love to be able to reach into their process toolbox and pick out their desires, and have the computer automagically glue them together into a functional business system. or consumer product. Unfortunately, these desires are almost invariably vague and conflicting, and there is a vast gap between these desires and the hardware, a gap that heretofore has never been successfully breached by anyone except the technically proficient. Previous attempts at computer intelligence have fallen far short of their promise, and I see little to inspire hope on that front. For better or worse, geeks and algorithms will continue to stand between visionaries and their dreams for the foreseeable future. Yes, there are lots of things that are not algorithms, but algorithms are the presently necessary factor that makes these things useful.
At 03:59 PM 9/8/2007, you wrote:
FYI --
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/13339/53/
Want to be a computer scientist? Forget math
maybe it is a natural science http://cs.gmu.edu/cne/pjd/PUBS/CACMcols/cacmJul07.pdf thanks --- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/
On 9/14/07, Ray Tayek <rtayek@ca.rr.com> wrote:
maybe it is a natural science http://cs.gmu.edu/cne/pjd/PUBS/CACMcols/cacmJul07.pdf
thanks
I do not suppose for one moment that Peter Denning was intending his article for the digital dinosaur which I without doubt am --- if still able to recognise that the issues it addresses are sufficiently important and interesting to warrent my attempting to extract enlightenment therefrom. Sadly, the experience proves both irritating and disappointing. Replete with sententious hand-waving --- "... the GP Web site contemplates a Great Principles Library, an evolving collection of materials, tools, and editorial process to support the learning, teaching, application, and cross linking of technologies and principles" --- allusions so vague as to be almost devoid of discernible meaning --- "An example of a new principle is the scale-free structure of network connectivity; an example of an out-of-use principle is the guideline for vacuum tube logic circuits" --- and, where it does deign to descend to concreteness, fatuous --- "For example, they teach binary numbers by having children build numbers from cards with 1, 2, 4, and 8 dots on them ... The subtle genius of their approach is exposing how many computing concepts don't need computers." --- I'm afraid this is not the revelation to bouleverse my attitude to Computer Science. Fred Lunnon
participants (5)
-
David Wilson -
Fred lunnon -
Henry Baker -
Ray Tayek -
Thane Plambeck