>>12621406>Same reason statistics isn't "real" math.But statistics is real math. Being a statistician proper (ie phd holder) means more or less specializing in measure theory and probability towards experiment design. Being a theoretical computer scientist is more eclectic yet somewhat less mature (ie, the field is super young) as far as mathematical reach: again, read
>>12620166 or any of the papers posted in
>>12618028>>12618742Seeing as how these, papers typical of computer science, are written in def-prop-proof-lemma style, are largely motivated by investigation of pure structures, whose study might involve application but is predicated on theory first and foremost, and whose subject matter is both studied by mathematicians with math PhDs AND featured in prestigious math journals (geometric complexity theory by Mulmuley have appeared in Annals of AMS and Algebraic Combinatorics, similar stories for other papers), it's *really hard* to make the case that theoretical computer science isn't "real" math.
