Timeline for What kinds of mathematics do we consider computer science enough to be ontopic here?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 18, 2013 at 16:22 | comment | added | Peter Shor | Raphael: then I disagree with both you and @Yuval. | |
| Aug 18, 2013 at 16:21 | comment | added | Raphael Mod | @PeterShor That's how I understand Yuval, yes. | |
| Aug 18, 2013 at 12:34 | comment | added | Peter Shor | @Raphael: basic questions about things that are basics for several CS-things are clearly on-topic using my criteria. I think that's a straw man argument ... is anybody here arguing they're off-topic? | |
| Aug 18, 2013 at 12:23 | comment | added | Peter Shor | @Raphael: this rather elementary combinatorics question received two rather unsatisfactory answers from computer scientists before I answered it. And I was a combinatorist in grad school. However, I don't think that question should be moved because it might be useful for other computer scientists, unlike the question that started this thread. So there should be two criteria ... let me change my answer. | |
| Aug 18, 2013 at 11:10 | comment | added | Raphael Mod | I think the very different opinions about combinatorics expressed here (in particular, compare Kaveh with Yuval) reinforce the observation I start my answer with. | |
| Aug 18, 2013 at 11:02 | comment | added | Raphael Mod | @PeterShor: We can always recommend other sites to users, and migrate upon their request. That is not the same as saying "Your question is offtopic here." (That said, your example does not fit the usual question we are talking about here; they are typically basic questions about things that are basics for several CS-things, whereas yours seems to be very specialized (and advanced.) | |
| Aug 17, 2013 at 22:25 | comment | added | Peter Shor | @Raphael: Mulmuley's program to separate P from NP is using geometric complexity theory is clearly related to computer science. Does that mean that we shouldn't move a question about irreducible representations of reductive groups that is related to Mulmuley's program to math.SE? Who here would be able to answer such a question? | |
| Aug 16, 2013 at 7:22 | history | edited | RaphaelMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Aug 16, 2013 at 6:40 | comment | added | Yuval Filmus | @Raphael I apply my common sense. Otherwise every possible question can be asked in any site, and as a result would get duplicate answers. Sometimes this is good, for example if answers come from a different perspective. But in the case of (say) elementary combinatorics, it just feels silly. Regarding the forcing example, it's like when doing biology, we sometimes have to revert to biochemistry, which is not part of biology, but is connected to it. | |
| Aug 16, 2013 at 6:38 | comment | added | Raphael Mod | @YuvalFilmus: So, arguably, questions about (set-theoretic) forcing, which seems to be the ancestor, can be part of a computer scientist's learning process. I honestly don't get how you get to a workable distinction along this line of thinking. | |
| Aug 16, 2013 at 6:36 | comment | added | Yuval Filmus | @Raphael 1) That's why I said set-theoretic forcing. Other notions of forcing are useful in proof complexity, for example. | |
| Aug 16, 2013 at 6:21 | history | edited | RaphaelMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 30 characters in body
|
| Aug 16, 2013 at 6:20 | comment | added | Raphael Mod | @YuvalFilmus 1) I don't know either concept so I can't really argue the point. Are you certain they are not used in CS? In particular, I am happy to note that Wikipedia states: "Forcing [...] has proven to be an extremely powerful technique [...] within [...] recursion theory." 2) Regarding yourself, my provocatively stated bullets may or may not apply, doesn't matter. I think it's clear that the stated conditions are inherently such that an "afflicted" person is unlikely to diagnose themselves, and any third-party may be very wrong. | |
| Aug 16, 2013 at 4:38 | comment | added | D.W. Mod | @Raphael, Good point. OK, I'll modify my suggestion: if it's obvious to us how the math question is relevant to CS, then there's no need to state the motivation in the question; otherwise, encourage the asker to explain the relevance. I would not find "it's in the course/exercise" to be a good motivation -- but I don't expect this to cause problems in practice. If it's in an undergraduate course, I expect readers here will likely be able to judge for themselves whether it is relevant to computer science. | |
| Aug 16, 2013 at 4:07 | comment | added | Yuval Filmus | "I have yet to find an area of mathematics that is strictly not used in computer science" - set theoretic forcing. Hopf algebras. Also, at least in my case, your two explanations of why people argue that certain questions are properly math do not apply (in my view, anyway). | |
| Aug 15, 2013 at 16:02 | comment | added | Raphael Mod | @D.W. One concern: a regular answer may be "It's in the course/exercise" which is valid, isn't it? Can we ask of students to replace lacking motivation/connection in the lectures they attend? | |
| Aug 15, 2013 at 15:33 | comment | added | Patrick87 Mod | Agreed; I think the key here is that it should be reasonable to expect that experts frequenting this site could provide valuable information or perspective not easily available elsewhere. Questions that don't otherwise clearly satisfy this criterion should contain material explaining how computing experts' answers might be more helpful than others. | |
| Aug 15, 2013 at 14:46 | comment | added | D.W. Mod | I think this is a great answer. If the question contains an explanation of why/how the math question is relevant to CS, that seems like a great reason to keep it here. Let's encourage folks who ask a math question to add the CS motivation and relevance/context to the question, as I think that makes it a better question and also helps us provide better answers. | |
| Aug 15, 2013 at 11:30 | comment | added | Raphael Mod | Note that I have not always been of this opinion, so you can probably find older posts by me saying different things. In particular in the area of asymptotics, I have doubted a number of questions (since they were pure maths questions) but the interest among computer scientists is so high (and they are relevant to TCS) that it feels weird to shove them away. | |
| Aug 15, 2013 at 11:28 | history | answered | RaphaelMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |