>>11584688>There is no such thing as "TCS."There clearly is dumbfuck, seeing as how there are corresponding departments that get nontrivially large amounts of funding for traditional mathematics research (definition - proposition - proof - lemma)
>Stop calling it thatnah, it's not even the name I decided.
>Fuck off back your your own board./g/ is about consumer tech culture. If you think TCS is "applied worthless computer shit" you have little idea what you're talking about. TCS has almost nothing to do with technology at all.
>There is only one theory of computing...I mean, there's a collection of theories that comprise computation, sure
>classical computability theory which studies decidability of problemsYou have a dunning-krueger'd high school student's understanding of 'CS theory.' Classical decidability, aka recursion theory, is good foundations but long in the dust in comparison to modern research. Your claim is like "there is only one analytic theory and that is basic calculus."
>The rest is all applied.Complexity theory, domain theory, type theories, and so on are pure mathematics - I don't even see any argument against that.
Even more 'applied' sides like computational topology, geometry, computational and statistical learning theory, and expander graphs / spectral theory are all still close to pure in nature - your original motivation might have been to characterize persistent features of data, but getting papers about the following:
http://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/pubs/pdf/surflow.pdfHell even papers in applied journals can hardly be called 'applied'
https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/DIFGEO-ppm.pdfyou can hardly call these '''applied.'''
