>>11246204>Proof or evidence?All of the Simons Institute and IAS collaborations, not to mention the myriad of CS papers written with co-authors from these fields. I think Aaronson's Boson Sampling paper alone has a ton of follow ups from both physics and CS authors iirc.
>Highly convoluted, has relatively no interesting results or methods.In what regard? Classical complexity is themed around pushing relativization and basic reducibility to its core, and then modern complexity is about throwing traditional mathematics in characterizing old problems (throwing probability at classes with PCP, proof systems and complexity, resource bounded measure, etc). If you think something like Baker-Gill-Solovay, PCP, Asynchronous Computability Theorem, derandomization, expanders, Hastad's switching lemma, etc etc. are not interesting results or methods, I can assure you that you're either larping or you didn't get far in your "personal experience"
>even if you actually like it, there's a lot of substantially more interesting stuff out there.I've always adored studying topology. I found that domain theory and computational topology questions to scratch the itch alongside algebraic topology, which itself is employed in many applications within CS theory
>I can't imagine someone actually preferring it to set theory and the like.>to set theorylolwhat. You, a fan of set theory, are trying to tell me complexity and computation are less interesting than construction of the reals? Cmon anon, I appreciated my set theory class, and I see it as a valid research field, but not even mathematicians on the whole would agree with you that set theory is a very interesting field, much less in comparison to a young, active field of research which has attracted the eye of many logicians, unlike set theory, which is mature to the point where progress in the field is incredibly slow compared to the rest of mathematical logic, not even mentioning mathematics as a whole.
