>>14321810>You've linked group theory paperI see people say this shit posted all the time. People say CS doesn’t use real math. Someone asks them what they mean, and they basically mean anything but combinatorics. Someone shows them a lot of papers and textbooks to the contrary, and then people are like
>oh, you’ve linked a paper in this field of mathNobody bats an eye when physicists use functional analysis. Nobody cares when the EE uses Fourier analysis. For some reason, computer scientists using any different math can’t possibly be an indication that they a casual command and mastery over “real mathematics” - no, this is *just* work one could handle if given the undergrad math canon.
If so, why didn’t mathematicians invent expanders and construct them like this? Why couldn’t mathematicians solve Kadison-Singer, a previously long-standing open problem in functional analysis, but 3 computer scientists could? 2 of those same computer scientists also made a general barrier function method for solving hard problems in functional analysis and geometry because they didn’t. If computer scientists can give a more clever potential function argument then mathematicians and physicists of the last few decades, I don’t think it’s fair to say “oh they were just mathematicians in disguise.” I think it’s only fair to realize that computer science is rapidly maturing and that we shouldn’t be surprised that they’ve pushed themselves to the forefront of mathematical science.
