>>12279529Uhh it’s hard to say. I like complexity, but I’m a big fan of structure and theory building mathematics than I am pure combinatorics and problem solving. So I find a lot of the complexity theory about characterizing novel problems in algebra and topology interesting...but naturally I start shifting to logic because logic is unreasonably good at letting us understand computation as and involving higher mathematics. So naturally I feel like my interests are somewhere between A and B.
>which is funner?Not to shit on theory A, but I just don’t give a fuck about a lot of the flavor of the year STOC and FOCS algorithms papers - there are a lot of interesting algorithms papers, especially the ones involving functional analysis and higher mathematics in general, but I find most algorithms papers to be sort of boring as far as their content and math. They’re important, but they’re not necessarily what I care about.
>which is harder They’re both pretty difficult. Theory A had geometric complexity, which I adore and think is a sleeper candidate for one of the hardest fields of *mathematics* out there period. On the other hand, the research into HoTT and domain theory from Theory B is also hard in almost the same way that topology is hard - and that’s even before you’ve gotten any results about computation (like the distributes computability thesis).
I wish older computer scientists at large though wouldn’t be so averse to higher mathematics. The younger generation seems to be advancing the maturity of this field forward rapidly though, and CS is now a topic rich with mathematical flavor
