Scott Aaronson over at Shtetl-Optimized asks whether mathematics or theory of computer science are actually “science.” My gut reaction to a question like this is just to avoid it: who cares whether math and TCS is science, what is important is that (some) math and (some) computer science are either (1) important to the progress of science and (2) important for practical reasons which we don’t classify as science (for example, as relating to technology.) But I guess this just explains why I’m not a pure mathematician (beside the fact that I don’t have the brains!): a connection to experiment or a connection to technology are important prerequisites for what I find important (note that this is different from what I find interesting.) Of course, I put mathematicians who do their work solely for the beauty of the work into the same category I put other, more traditional, artists, so what do I know?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Scott Aaronson over at Shtetl-Optimized asks whether mathematics or theory of computer science are actually “science.” My gut reaction to a question like this is just to avoid it: who cares whether math and TCS is science, what is important is that (some) math and (some) computer science are either (1) important to the progress … <\/p>\n