>>12232046>None of those things are CS Then why are there nontrivially large amount of people in CS studying it...?
>they’re people using CS methods to do questionable scientific research>questionable computational physics is questionable? It's one of the most consistent things physicists and engineers have in their toolkit next to theory
>this is like saying quantitative science is math, it is not at all, you aren’t working on mathematical research, you’re doing science with mathematical modelint.I'd have agreed with you about 3-4 years ago, but given that time, I spent a lot of time seeing how computers and math research have intersected, and in particular, a lot of results from the prestigious Experimental Mathematics. You don't cast away rigor when you start using a computer to help you out - you extend it to a machine that can help you. All the results in that journal are rigorous and proven, but they wouldn't gotten there without a computer
> kill yourself if you don’t understand the different you mentally ill pseud faggot.you first buddy.
I study more pure theory out of interest (ie, number theory side of sphere packing and differential geometry are what I like), but it's clear that CS has a nontrivial impact on math and science. That, and CS researchers have results that relate both to their field and traditional mathematics - Jelani Nelson's papers in dimensionality reduction are also papers on functional analysis.
Kill yourself jealous dumbfuck. Research is collaborative and spread out among disciplines now, and nobody gives a shit what your title / training was, just as long as you can work on the problem and contribute. It's clear that computer scientists have started contributing to serious math, science, and engineering at large post '95 after people stopped doing just discrete math in their departments.
